One in the ParkingEye for parking fines

legal_updates

Indulging in pernicious bullying tactics against motorists.

Author: Polly Davies
Published:
Reading time: 3 minutes

This article is 4 years old.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

In May last year, Nicholas Bowen QC pulled into the car park at Membury Services on the M4 just before midnight.  He needed a nap before he continued his journey.  He had his nap and drove home at 2.20 a.m. 

He was subsequently issued with a £85.00 parking charge by ParkingEye, who claimed he overstayed the two-hour free parking limit by 35 minutes.

Instead of paying the fine for an easy life, he refused, challenging the charge a public interest basis, arguing the company had no legal right to sue people who parked in an empty service station car park at night to take a nap.  “My defence was that your contract was unenforceable and that you have no legal right to charge members of the public for night parking in service station car parks”, he advised ParkingEye, to no avail. 

ParkingEye took him to court, but on the day failed to represent themselves at the hearing where a district judge dismissed their claim and unusually for the small claims court ordered them to pay £1,550 in legal costs. 

Mr Bowen’s argument was based on a breach of consumer protection law and having an unenforceable contract, accusing ParkingEye of “indulging in pernicious bullying tactics against motorists” and claimed it was relying; “either on apathy, or that most of your victims lack the ability or funds to fight back”. 

Following his success Mr Bowen added; “I hope ParkingEye will learn a lesson from losing this case, reconsider your contractual terms and change what is an unlawful and unconscionable practice.”

We do not know the exact reasoning behind the judge’s decision to dismiss ParkingEye’s case, but Consumer Protection Laws are largely consolidated within the Consumer Rights Act 2015, part 2 of which provides for general rules about fairness of contract terms and notices. 

It may be that the judge agreed that the signage providing the information about the 24/7 charging being in microscopic print and requiring “20/20 vision or a magnifying glass”, was unfair.

The test for ‘unfair terms’ in the Consumer Rights Act provides that a term is “unfair” if “contrary to the requirements of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer”.

There is a requirement in Consumer Law for prominence and transparency which means that information is to be provided in plain and intelligible language and, if in writing, is legible and is prominent, being brought to the consumer’s attention in such a way that the average customer – who is well informed, observant and circumspect – would be aware of the term.

Besides the general schadenfreude gained from this victory against a notoriously aggressive parking company, this is also victory for common sense.  Driving whilst tired is after all, dangerous and as Mr Bowen has remarked; “There should not be a disincentive to stop at night – as the signs say: ‘Tiredness kills, take a break.”

Polly Davies

Legal Advisor

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.