Sunday, 6 March 2016

What happens when greed and automation misses out the human element

[This is a guest blog]

When most everyone decides that enough is enough and they have to sue someone in the Small Claims Court the parties tend to know each other. They have lived in each others pockets engaged in their dispute for quite some time and know each other very well. However, when a Parking Company decides to sue a motorist they do not know that person. So something important is missing, and very personal, from their knowledge.
Sue someone with a mental health problem, when you don’t know them, and you don’t appreciate that they ignore your demands because they simply do not understand what is taking place or how important it is to deal with the matter. You get Judgment and then enforce that court decision and perhaps get Bailiffs to take their goods away to sell them to get your debt paid..........and still that Defendant does not understand what is going on.
ParkingEye is presently suing someone with dysphasia. Look it up and you will see that this creates a number of difficulties as a result of a defect in the brain leading to poor memory, a difficulty in logical reasoning and a poor understanding of language and reasoning. Broadly, when ParkingEye serve court papers on folk with this problem the motorist doesn’t appreciate their importance and the necessity to deal with them and ParkingEye get Judgment in default.
The CPRs (Rule 21) indicate that such individuals are “Protected Persons” and that no action can be taken in proceedings, after a claim has commenced, until that defendant has a Litigation Friend appointed to assist them. ParkingEye don’t know their victim so, in the absence of a response from the Defendant, they press ahead and get judgment in contravention of those “Protected Person” protocols.
Then someone has to try and sort it out before ParkingEye goes too far.
If ParkingEye used pay on exit systems then there would not be a problem with over-parking and those who need extra help would not be penalised because of their disability. 
How many people are in this position and does ParkingEye care or is the money more important?

Prankster Note

Parking court cases are fairly unique in that the two parties have no contact whatsoever and know next to nothing about each other. If there is no response from the motorist, parking companies have automatic systems that escalate all the way from parking overstay to enforcing a default judgment with minimal human intervention after the charge is first issued.

With ParkingEye issuing over 30,000 claims a year, it is therefore inevitable that cases like this will occur.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. "If ParkingEye used pay on exit systems then there would not be a problem with over-parking and those who need extra help would not be penalised because of their disability."

    What we have with "parking management" where ANPR is used is no management at all.
    The cameras can only record entrance and exit times, and get so many of them wrong as well in the form of double dips. There's only a person's ability to read often poorly placed signs that give any indication of terms of parking and there are so many vaild reasons why an overstay can't be prevented.

    Even Barry Beavis had reason enough for his overstay as the printer in Staples (I believe) was taking in excess of the parking time allowed. He couldn't leave halfway through an order being fulfilled and if he did he more than likely wouldn't have been able to return in 4 hours.

    If any parking management (spit) company actually had boots on the ground things could be more effectively controlled for, say, misuse of blue badge bays, but even then an overstay would still get a ticket, regardless of personal issues.
    The system is still forgiving as so many disabled people are ticketed in blue badge bays for forgetting to put the badge on display. It's the regime that's all wrong, not whether you should rely on ANPR, use barriers or feet on the ground.

    Durham NHS Trust use barriers at their Durham hospital and it works very well. It's inexpensive being on similar pricing structure as an in-town charge and you just can't make an inadvertent overstay. However, therein lies the problem. Barriers generate no income for "management companies" (spit again).

    So while the use of them is the most sensible and user friendly option there won't be a rush for ParkingEye or anyone else dropping ANPR in favour of them. It's financial suicide if they did.

    As for the case stated, I have the greatest sympathy for any person of limited ability to address these situations. It's complex and stressful to those of us with full mental capacity.
    Just in case anyone drops in here who are in a situation and have a bailiff notice or visit then they need to let them know of their limited mental capacity or confused state of mind as a bailiff cannot act on a collection order without proper authority from the court, over and above the usual collection order.

  2. This is was is happening / has happened to me. It's even worse when you can't get any help from either MH services (because they are stripped down to dealing with urgent crises only), and there are no or little vol sector support orgs where you live. There is no help. This is the first I've ever heard about a Litigation Friend as I've done considerable research.. Am trying to prepare to request a set aside of a CCJ on MH grounds, but to be honest the stress of it all is getting to me and I don't think I'm going to be able to do it. So I continue to live in fear of bailiffs and do not open my door or answer my phone. It's making my anxiety worse. I am surrounded by brick walls.

  3. Parking Eye make a commercial decision to issue around 1,000 claims every week. They care not in the slightest about their victims, not only their direct victims but the many others who suffer through the delays which their cases cause in the Court system. Parents seeking orders to see their estranged children, others seeking justice through the resolution of their disputes. Parking Eye's only concern is their own pursuit of profits and they are relentless and heartless. Yes, when a case runs to a Court hearing they have to pay their LPC representative £250 (more than the case was worth) but they work on the basis that most people will meekly pay up rather than defend the claim to trial, and with only a few reaching trial they can take the losses from those cases from the majority who meekly pay up to avoid all the stress of a Court hearing. Parking Eye disgust me.