Putting the fun back into Parking

Claims lost or dropped by ParkingEye in 2014 - Jan-Feb

Most recent cases first

Click here to see court cases lost in 2013

Click here to see court cases lost in 2014 - March

Click here to see court cases lost in 2014 - April - May

3JD08925 ParkingEye v Watson (Stoke 24/02/2014). Duke of Gloucester Pub, Crewe. ParkingEye redacted the charge and grace time on the contract shown to the judge and so the judge could not confirm the charges were agreed by the landowner. The landowner has since cancelled the contract with ParkingEye.

3JD08473 ParkingEye v Mason (Sheffield 12/02/2014). District Judge Birkby. The judge was furious that no contract had been provided before the hearing, and that the contract produced on the day was redacted and a variation rather than the actual contract. The case was dismissed in 5 minutes as ParkingEye had no standing to bring the case. The defendant did not need to speak. The defendant was therefore unable to point out that the company stated in the witness statement as landowner did not exist as it was dissolved in 2009, three years before the contract which was dated 2012.

3JD03769 ParkingEye v Baddeley (Birmingham 11/02/2014) District Judge Bull. Newton Shopping Centre. The judge was not impressed with the size and lack of organisation of ParkingEye's bundle given the size of the claim and the fact ParkingEye had only booked one hour. The judge found that the defendant's calculation of pre-estimate of loss of around £5 was persuasive, and as ParkingEye could not explain how their calculation of £53 was arrived at, accepted the defendant's calculations. The claim was therefore dismissed. 

3JD02430 ParkingEye v Howe. (Rhyll 30/01/2014) District Judge Thomas. Crewe Arms Hotel car park. The judge ruled the signage was not adequate and the defendant had done all she could be expected to do to ensure she had complied. The landowner witness statement had a company which did not exist at Company's House.

3JD02462 ParkingEye v Thomas. (Preston 29/01/2014). Churchill Way car park, Leyland, Lancs. District Judge Buckley dismissed the case because the signage was not adequate to create a contract between motorist and ParkingEye.

3JD06925 ParkingEye v Hopewell. (Halifax 29/01/2014) Deputy District Judge Gardner. The case was adjourned to await the results of the HHJ Moloney case.

3JD06533 ParkingEye v Collins-Daniel. (Bristol 24/01/2014). Eastgate Retail Park, Bristol. Deputy District Judge Melville-Shreeve felt the signage was inadequate. ParkingEye did not provide a landowner contract because there was a vendetta against them by unspecified online forums and providing a contract broke confidentiality laws. The Judge said this was rubbish.

3JD05814 ParkingEye v Taylor. (Morpeth and Berwick 24/01/2014) District Judge Howard. Belvedere car park, Newcastle upon Tyne. ParkingEye did not produce a contract. The judge ruled that without a relevant contract they could not issue parking charges as they were not the landowner and they could not therefore bring the claim in their own name.

3JD02357 ParkingEye v Gosnold. (High Wycombe 23/01/2014). District Judge Devlin. Wembley Retail Park. The judge agreed the landowner witness statement from Workman LLP was worthless. The LPC Law representative produced a heavily redacted version of the contract which the judge decided did not satisfy the 'relevant contract' provision of PoFa 2012 sch 4. The judge decided he did not need to rule whether Jonathan Langham's statement that ParkingEye's costs were £53 per ticket, when their accounts and DVLA figures showed the true figure was nearer £15, was perjury. As there was no standing for ParkingEye to bring the case, it was dismissed. £90 costs were awarded to the defendant.

3JD05152 ParkingEye v Beavis (Jan 2014). Case stayed. "By 4pm on 31 January 2014 the Claimants solicitors shall notify HHJ Moloney QC as the designated Circuit Judge if any similar cases pending in the Cambridge, Essex, Suffolk or Norfolk Courts with a view to their being listed on the same occasion or stayed pending the outcome of these proceedings." This case is still ongoing and is likely to be very significant.

3JD02719 ParkingEye v Davison (Peterborough 17/01/2014). ParkingEye filed conflicting signage information and failed to inform the defendant which signage was correct. The judge felt a parking charge of £5 would be appropriate.