Parking Eye Fines have been featuring a lot in the press recently however parking tickets issued for parking on private land are not fines; only a court can issue fines. Due to the way private parking tickets are designed to mimic penalty charge notices, many people simply pay the parking charge unaware that they can contest a parking ticket. Equally there are still many people who believe that it is safe to ignore a parking ticket – the introduction of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 changed that old advice.
Parking Eye, the largest private parking company are currently issuing around 500 – 1000 county court claims each week to unsuspecting motorists who have followed old advice and simply ignored a parking ticket, commonly described as a parking charge notice.
Is A ParkingEye Ticket Enforceable?
The Parking Ticket Appeals Service has a proven track record in appealing a private parking ticket by utilising both first the parking eye appeals process and then POPLA appeals and successfully getting parking tickets cancelled. However in county court cases the situation can be entirely different and it is up to the individual defendant to put across a valid and coherent defence. The small claims system is unpredictable and indeed we heard of two parking eye court cases recently with two very different outcomes.
The Parking Ticket Appeals Service can confirm that one of our Appeal handlers and the Parking Prankster offered guidance and support to Mrs Rodgers featured in this guardian newspaper article. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/apr/12/parkingeye-fine-penalty-dispute-fight
After her hearing, The Parking Ticket Appeals Service received an email and here is a following excerpt:
The case was heard this morning in the Stoke on Trent small claims court. Armed with all the useful information provided by both yourself and Parking Prankster, and a small rainforest worth of paperwork, Anne and I nevertheless went into court in some degree of trepidation – after all, neither of us have any prior experience in this area. The judge said that there was no proper evidence before him that PE were ever authorised to charge £90. If it had been changed to £100 he would expect it in a proper form containing a statement of truth and he did not have that. This was not sufficient evidence for the court. If the original agreement were not redacted or was in statement form he could accept it had been amended but he was being asked to decide on the basis of a blanked out agreement. The just said he was not satisfied that he had evidence before him that PE were authorised to charge £100 and dismissed the case.
We would like to thank both you and Parking Prankster for all the assistance you have provided us with.
The other lady (Mrs Jones) prepared by and large her own defence and was unrepresented at her hearing lost her case and now needs to pay £165 to parking eye.
The Parking Prankster offers help and advice to support motorists his dedicated website offer further help: www.parking-prankster.com