Wednesday, 4 May 2016

ParkingEye lost in court.Technology failure the claimant's responsibility

B4FC0F4A parkingEye v Mr M. Willesden County Court


My Uncle of ninety-four years, Mr B B, was admitted to The Royal Free Hospital on July 2nd 2015, where he stayed until August 14th, where after he was moved to The Marie Curie Hospice, shortly before his passing on August 16th. I am happy for you to contact the hospital to evidence that these dates are correct.

During this period I visited B almost daily, sometimes twice daily, parking either on hospital grounds, in the underground car park or on street parking, always using paying meters or the TextByPhone service. On one occasion I parked and paid by text and the history of this utter debacle is evidenced in the five pieces of correspondence #1 - #5 you will find attached.

I also refer to my letter dated July 27th where, during this same period, my wife paid twice for parking having entered the incorrect registration, though Parking Eye Ltd refused to reimburse her the said amount.

Given that my parking was covered in full, and on every single day of visiting, amounting to hundreds of pounds over the six-weeks, it simply doesn’t follow, or make any practical sense whatsoever, that I would have tried to renege, or cheat the system, on just one particular payment for circa £ 3.00. It also follows that if a customer overpays (or pays additionally in error) then it’s just tough luck however, should the same customer be a victim of technology failure then Parking Eye Ltd will pursue them and hunt them down like a dog and certainly won’t rest until such time that they have buried them in an ethereal pet cemetery.

Notwithstanding all of this, if the continual haranguing of me wasn’t enough, they are now pursuing me through The Courts drawing ‘my attention’ to a case where precedent has been set over a previous judgement handed down over a matter of an ‘improper charge’.  On no occasion have I once disputed the charge (simply confirming throughout that I had paid it by text in good faith) therefore the case to which they refer is both irrelevant and inapplicable. I am quite sure that this form of bullyboy tactics works well with the masses that crumble and ultimately cave in to Parking Eye’s pressure for fear of legal action and a potential CCJ against them. It’s wholly unacceptable and an utter and unequivocal disgrace.

I have supported my position throughout and remain incensed that I even find myself in this position, not to mention the inordinate amount of my precious time they have wasted (and are still wasting) in dealing with all of their bureaucracy and underhand practices.

I fail to understand how the NHS has outsourced this service to such a despotic company.


ParkingEye employed an advocate from LPC law who turned up with 3 lever arch files to help with his client's £100 claim for hospital parking.

The judge laid into him from the get-go, asking why no-one from ParkingEye was there. After considering the situation the judge decided the advocate had no right of audience. He was allowed to sit in as an observer, but was required to remain silent.

The Judge explained to Mr M that this was not a done deal and he still had to make his case. Mr M explained he had been visiting his seriously ill uncle in hospital for 6 weeks and always paid the parking charge. It would make no sense for him not to have paid. He remembered paying by phone on that occasion as he remembered a conversation with his wife.

The Judge ruled that he has no reason to disbelieve Mr M, and therefore on the balance of probabilities a correct payment had been made. He ruled it was the claimant's responsibility to make sure their system worked and that it was ParkingEye's fault if their technology is pants**

"Claim dismissed."

Mr M's counterclaim for £2500 was also dismissed, but Mr M was awarded £95 in costs.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

** this might not be the exact legal term used by the judge.


  1. I think that for ease of understanding of what may be a complicated legal term, the substitution of the word 'pants' is fully justified and very helpful.

    I think PE's whole case was 'pants'.

  2. No right of audience is something most judges take issue with for PE's law people.
    Maybe it should be a standard consideration before each court case gets under-way.

    1. Not so, I'm afraid. Most of them are representing claimants or defendants (not just parking cases) in the same group of courts every day, and are well known to the Judges.

      Getting them excluded from proceedings with no rights of audience only happens very rarely.

  3. "**this might not be the exact legal term used by the judge."

    Even if it was, no one will ever out do 'Toothbrush' McIlwaine :)

    I'm intrigued Pranky, how was the £2,500 arrived at? (roughly)

  4. Wonder if these LPC lot wake up in the morning and think, "yipee" another parking eye case.

    1. Messers Gladstones own copyright on that little gag

    2. LPC get paid even if the judge tells them to shut up and sit at the back

    3. Crikey! We get paid bugger all for our work. We're in the wrong business (although with a warm glow in our bellies) :)

  5. With so much evidence Mr. M should now organise a county court summonses for fraud (the representative of the company, the equipment took money and failed to register), attempted theft, threatening use of powers which would have meant legal process i.e. conspiracy to pervert justice. The list is endless. The sooner this foul company is taken out the better.

  6. In my experience fraud is never prosecuted in this direction, when the little man gets money from a company that is fraud, but when vice versa it's merely a "clerical error".