http://parking-prankster.com/case-law.html.
3JD04791 ParkingEye Ltd v Heggie (Barnsley, 13/12/2013). Deputy District Judge Obhi ruled that the amount charged by ParkingEye was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
This was the first reported case where ParkingEye's charges were ruled not to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Report
In this case Mr Heggie entered the wrong registration number for his vehicle. ParkingEye were able to trace this and confirm that he had paid. However, because they had started court proceedings they refused to drop the claim.
ParkingEye argued that their charge of £100 was a genuine pre-estimate of loss because the whole running costs of the car park needed to be considered.
Judge Obhi ruled that there was actually zero loss incurred.
ParkingEye then tried to argue there was an overstay of four minutes.
Judge Obhi dismissed the claim.
Although ParkingEye claim this was all the defendants fault for not contacting them, it is worth noting that it is their own systems which cause the problem. Systems from other organisations do not allow entry of numbers where a vehicle with that registration was not present.
It is also true that ParkingEye will have had an entry on their system that charges were paid for a vehicle which was not present, and so could reasonable be said to be aware that the problem was likely to have been caused by an incorrect registration.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
I like how part of the 'loss' was that ParkingEye paid out about three times what they could have ever hoped to recover. They think that the motorist is somehow responsible for their spiteful and vindictive nature.
ReplyDeleteThe 14th will be a busy day for the Prankster.
Well done Mr Heggie,
ReplyDeletePrankster, might be an idea to blank out the registration number in the transcript?
Pity the Judge didn't knock down the argument that all running costs can be included rather than ruling on the fact Mr Heggie had already paid.