ParkingEye go to extreme lengths to avoid showing contract in court

ParkingEye have now knocked up an additional legal document and created a new, beefed-up witness statement to avoid showing their contract. The witness statement now runs to two pages. One more page and it will be larger than their contract (but not as densely printed!).

The document contains excerpts from another missive allegedly written by barrister Jonathan Kirk, contains quotes from the witness statement which are minutely analysed, references to attached signage pictures which are not present, and contains numerous legal references, none of which are backed up by supplying the actual court transcripts.

The Prankster doubts that the document is a true copy from any document from Jonathan Kirk QC. The Witness statement is not in the prescribed format; it is doubtful a silk would lend his name to approving such a Witness statement. Moreover, the actual witness statement contains completely different phrases to the referred to in the 'Jonathan Kirk' document.It seems therefore that Mr Kirk is referring to some other, completely different witness statement in his document. The document also contains grammatical errors; The Prankster is sure Mr Kirk knows the difference between principal and principle.

It seems to The Prankster far more likely that someone in ParkingEye's Department Of Dodgy Witness statements has cooked up this load of ancient shoemaker implements. (If ParkingEye disagree and want to forward the full original document from Mr Kirk, then The Prankster would be more than happy to print a clarification).

If the transcripts of the 8 cases referred to were supplied, the volume of paper needed would dwarf the actual 2 pages needed by their current contract.

ParkingEye are going to such lengths to avoid judges seeing their contract, The Parking Prankster wonders what they have to hide.

The answer appears to be, a valid contract.

Any defendant facing a ParkingEye case should ask for a full unredacted copy of the contract, a copy of the user manual referred to in the contract, and a copy of the schedule (the signed and dated bit).

If this is not forthcoming the defendant should download their own copy of a sample contract and schedule and file this as evidence with the court. Copies can be downloaded from this FoI request: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_management_2

In court, the defendant should ask if the LPC Lawyer has bought a copy of the contract with them; if not, the defendant should refer to the sample copy, and point out to the judge that in a large number of cases ParkingEye did not have appropriately dated contracts to show the court, and also that in other cases
judges have taken great interest in clause 22 which specifies ParkingEye cannot act as an agent of the landowner.

Here are some case to quote.

1.     3QT52338 ParkingEye v Walkden 29/10/2013 Barrow in Furness. The hearing was originally held on 16/07/2013. ParkingEye produced a witness statement. District Judge Dodd found the witness statement extremely unsatisfactory, ordered the case to be adjourned at ParkingEye’s expense, and to reconvene at a later date. ParkingEye were ordered to produce a redacted contract from the landowner to the defendant, and a full unredacted copy to the Judge. The case reconvened on 29/10/2013. The contract sent to the defendant was dated Feb 2013 whilst the parking event was October 2012. The witness statement from Paul Shrewbrook of the Range and the attached letter of authority was not dated. The judge ruled that ParkingEye did not have authority to manage the car park because they contravened section 7.1 of the BPA code of practice which clearly states that the parking company must have written authority before any management of a car park can commence. The witness statement therefore claimed ParkingEye had authority to operate when they did not.

2.     3QT61897 ParkingEye v Barrett. 16/10/2013, Cardiff. The contract was dated 7/11/2012, which was after the Parking event on 24/10/2012. The contract was in a different name (Peachkey) to the landowner name (McDonalds Bridgend) given on the witness statement, although both contract and witness statement were signed by the same person. ParkingEye stated that the witness statement from McDonalds referred to a different document, which they did not have in court. The witness statement also stated that the parking charge was valid. However, McDonalds had not been informed the defendant had broken down and were therefore not informed of the full facts by ParkingEye. District Judge C W Dawson adjourned the case and ordered ParkingEye to bring the originals of all documents next time. McDonalds, when informed of the irregularities, ordered ParkingEye to drop the parking charge and the case. The witness statement therefore claimed ParkingEye had authority to operate when they did not.

3.    3QT29139 ParkingEye v Shelley, 23/07/2013. The contact produced in court was signed in February 2013. However, the parking event was around October 2012. Once again the witness was Paul Shrewbrook of the Range. The witness statement therefore claimed ParkingEye had authority to operate when they did not.

4.     In 3QT62646 ParkingEye v Sharma 23/10/2013 Brentford County Court, District Judge Jenkins explained he was throwing the claim out because it was brought in the name of ParkingEye and not the landowner. He said the landowner could bring the case in their own name or jointly with ParkingEye if they wished. The witness statement therefore contained incorrect information. It was not apparent from the witness statement that the witness had the required expertise to interpret the contract correctly.

5.     In 3QT58735 ParkingEye v Gardam, 14/11/2013 High Wycombe County Court. District Judge Jones found the judgement by District Judge Jenkins persuasive. On examining clause 22 of the contract, which was only produced on the day, she ruled that the claimant did not have the right to bring the case in their own name. The witness statement therefore contained incorrect information. It was not apparent from the witness statement that the witness had the required expertise to interpret the contract correctly.

[Note. The Prankster previously incorrectly referred to this with claim reference 3QT58735]

6.    In 3QT62681 and 3QT62156 6/12/2013 at Southampton County Court (ParkingEye v Lemon, and ParkingEye v Harris) the Judge decided to hear two cases simultaneously, from the same car park, The Range Southampton, and with identical facts. The solicitor for ParkingEye produced a contract which was dated Feb 2013 but the parking overstay was inOct. 2012. The witness was Paul Shrewbrook of The Range. The judge also refused the claim because the wording of the sign was ambiguous.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster