ParkingEye's legendary tough negotiators are obviously taking a early Christmas break in order to spend the loot from their acquisition by Capita. This week they settled one claim for a mere £20.
The facts of the case are that they attempted to charge a motorist who parked on a retail park late one rainy night and went out for dinner with a couple of friends. After receiving a parking charge from ParkingEye he took plenty of photographs of the location. They confirm that you can’t see any signs at all from his location and would never have guessed that any payment was required. These pictures were taken in daylight; on a dark and rainy night any signs would be even less visible.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Note that ParkingEye cleverly place the sign on the opposite side of the pole to the light, so that it will not be illuminated. ParkingEye are adept at dirty tricks like this.
![]()
Since then, PE have added a load more signs, but this merely strengthened the motorist's case. In their court submissions, they produced a map of the signage in April 2013 rather than November 2012, with rather more signs in place than there were on the parking date. This is a common trick of ParkingEye. The Prankster has seen many signage plans from ParkingEye, but never one which is satisfactorily proved to be accurate at the date of the Parking event. He has seen many, such as this one, which are provable inaccurate at the date of the parking event.
Here is part of ParkingEye's 'reply to defence'.
"We are fully compliant with British Parking Association regulations on signage, and confirm that there is adequate signage at this site that is visible, appropriately located, clear and legible, and so the Parking Charge is fully enforceable. Parking Eye ensures that all its signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the British Parking Association (BPA) regulations."
"blah blah blah (some irrelevant stuff)"
"Parking Eye strongly believes that the terms and conditions of parking were sufficiently brought to the defendant's attention"
Rather than go to court, the motorist agreed to use mediation.
After a robust session, PE caved in and agreed to settle for £20.
The facts of the case are that they attempted to charge a motorist who parked on a retail park late one rainy night and went out for dinner with a couple of friends. After receiving a parking charge from ParkingEye he took plenty of photographs of the location. They confirm that you can’t see any signs at all from his location and would never have guessed that any payment was required. These pictures were taken in daylight; on a dark and rainy night any signs would be even less visible.
Note that ParkingEye cleverly place the sign on the opposite side of the pole to the light, so that it will not be illuminated. ParkingEye are adept at dirty tricks like this.
Since then, PE have added a load more signs, but this merely strengthened the motorist's case. In their court submissions, they produced a map of the signage in April 2013 rather than November 2012, with rather more signs in place than there were on the parking date. This is a common trick of ParkingEye. The Prankster has seen many signage plans from ParkingEye, but never one which is satisfactorily proved to be accurate at the date of the Parking event. He has seen many, such as this one, which are provable inaccurate at the date of the parking event.
Here is part of ParkingEye's 'reply to defence'.
"We are fully compliant with British Parking Association regulations on signage, and confirm that there is adequate signage at this site that is visible, appropriately located, clear and legible, and so the Parking Charge is fully enforceable. Parking Eye ensures that all its signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the British Parking Association (BPA) regulations."
"blah blah blah (some irrelevant stuff)"
"Parking Eye strongly believes that the terms and conditions of parking were sufficiently brought to the defendant's attention"
As we have seen before, 'strongly believes' is a ParkingEye code phrase which means 'we are writing this with our fingers crossed behind our back, and so truthfulness is suspended.'
After a robust session, PE caved in and agreed to settle for £20.
There are some useful lessons to be learned here.
1) Although the motorist had an excellent case and would almost certainly have won at court, judges can be unpredictable and it can be difficult to win against an experienced advocate with intimate knowledge of the legal system. It sometimes therefore makes sense to settle for a small amount to get everything over with.
2) ParkingEye pay their 'experienced advocate with intimate knowledge of the legal system' between £200 and £300 to turn up on their behalf, and this amount is not normally reclaimable in the small claims court. Therefore they are better off settling for £20, than going to court, winning, and ending up £100's out of pocket. If they lose, the situation would be even worse.
3) ParkingEye have spent £15 on the court filing, £2.50 on DVLA fees and and estimated £2.50 on postage. That cancels out the £20. They will additionally have spent a large amount of time and effort on this case which is all money down the drain. Their strategy of pursuing every case to court is looking a little suspect. Perhaps it is time for their new owners, Capita, to step in and cut their losses by cancelling outstanding cases.
4) If your case relies on signage, get photographs as quickly as you can before ParkingEye change the car park. Do not expect them to produce a truthful map of the car park at the time of the incident because they have repeatedly shown they are incapable of doing this. Get complete coverage, so that if they assert a sign was present where it was not, you can disprove this. Consider making a video showing the driver's eye view from entering the car park to the point where you parked so you can show no signs were visible. You can show this in court by giving the court prior notice.You can see sample videos from the link in this previous Prankster post.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
1) Although the motorist had an excellent case and would almost certainly have won at court, judges can be unpredictable and it can be difficult to win against an experienced advocate with intimate knowledge of the legal system. It sometimes therefore makes sense to settle for a small amount to get everything over with.
2) ParkingEye pay their 'experienced advocate with intimate knowledge of the legal system' between £200 and £300 to turn up on their behalf, and this amount is not normally reclaimable in the small claims court. Therefore they are better off settling for £20, than going to court, winning, and ending up £100's out of pocket. If they lose, the situation would be even worse.
3) ParkingEye have spent £15 on the court filing, £2.50 on DVLA fees and and estimated £2.50 on postage. That cancels out the £20. They will additionally have spent a large amount of time and effort on this case which is all money down the drain. Their strategy of pursuing every case to court is looking a little suspect. Perhaps it is time for their new owners, Capita, to step in and cut their losses by cancelling outstanding cases.
4) If your case relies on signage, get photographs as quickly as you can before ParkingEye change the car park. Do not expect them to produce a truthful map of the car park at the time of the incident because they have repeatedly shown they are incapable of doing this. Get complete coverage, so that if they assert a sign was present where it was not, you can disprove this. Consider making a video showing the driver's eye view from entering the car park to the point where you parked so you can show no signs were visible. You can show this in court by giving the court prior notice.You can see sample videos from the link in this previous Prankster post.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster