Pensioner fights 'bullying' ParkingEye as it takes 1,000 drivers a week to court

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/apr/12/parkingeye-fine-penalty-dispute-fight

Version 0 of 1.

It was a sunny autumn day and Anne Rodgers was looking forward to lunch with a friend at The Racecourse restaurant off the A50, which she had visited many times before. But, as she slowed down to enter the site, near Uttoxeter, Staffordshire, she was surprised to find it was now a virtual building site.

"There were holes everywhere and lots of heavy goods vehicles and some new buildings – including a Euro Garages filling station. It was not clear where I could park – I even had to ask a couple of construction workers if I was in the right place. I did not see any signs or notices about parking anywhere," she says.

Just over three hours later, Rodgers and her friend went their separate ways. That was on 4 October 2012; 25 days later Rodgers received a demand from a private company called ParkingEye. It referred to an earlier parking charge notice for £60 (which she claims she never received) and said that if it was not paid by the following day the amount would increase to £100. Included were photos of the number plates on Rodgers' car entering and leaving the site, with exact timings.

But Rodgers believes she had parked on adjoining Racecourse land accessible via the camera-controlled road, because new fencing separating the sites was not then in place. Instead of the free parking she had previously enjoyed, ParkingEye allowed only two hours – then a fixed rate of £8 for up to 24 hours. Only much later did she find out that the site had been sub-divided – which, she says, was not clear at the time.

Website "Parking Prankster" – which provides online advice for drivers fighting parking notices issued by ParkingEye – estimates the company is launching between 500 and 1,000 court cases every week, often to recover very small amounts.

Many of the fines come from land controlled by hospitals and large supermarkets, such as Aldi and Morrisons. ParkingEye was bought by Capita last year for £57m, with a forecast profit of around £8m on turnover of £25m in the year to 31 August.

This week Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust terminated its contract with ParkingEye at its three hospitals in Northumberland and North Tyneside because, it says, visitors found the system difficult and it caused "anxiety to our patients and visitors, and we have acted on this.".

We asked Parking Eye how many individuals it is taking to court each week. It did not dispute the numbers and said: "Unfortunately, ParkingEye has to issue many county court claims each month to recover unpaid parking charges, some of which are due to motorists following incorrect advice on websites. ParkingEye wins the majority of legal actions it brings against motorists who breach the terms and conditions of a car park."

At the end of the month, Rodgers will be another of its cases as she will be appearing in the small claims court at Stoke-on-Trent. She says she wants to draw public attention to what she claims are the company's "bullying" tactics to extract money from consumers.

Rodgers says: "At a certain stage, it becomes more than the ordinary person can deal with without a solicitor. This is what ParkingEye must bank on: that a victim will be so frightened by the threats of court action and cost of a solicitor that they'll roll over and pay up."

The 65-year-old widow says she is "a law-abiding citizen who has never been in trouble in my whole life. Had it been clear from any signs or machines that I was expected to pay a charge then, of course, I would have paid.

"I am determined to fight this company; they are abusing the small claims court system which should allow people like me, who cannot afford expensive legal representation, a fair and proper hearing."

Rodgers was advised by a friend with a legal background that if she did nothing, then no further action was likely to be taken. She says she was unable to lodge an appeal through Popla (Parking on Private Land Appeals) as she missed a deadline due to medical emergencies.

The following July she received an official demand for £100 and a "Letter Before Action" – which, she says, came without the legally-required information that should be given to a defendant.

In a statement, ParkingEye says 20 large signs were in place around the car park. It said: "Users enter into a contract – the terms of which are prominently and repeatedly displayed. There is a two-hour free stay, outlined on more than 20 large signs.

"The user parked for three hours and 18 minutes but did not pay. The user sent ParkingEye an appeal, on the grounds that she was having lunch in a restaurant not served by the car park. The appeal was rejected and the motorist chose not to appeal to Popla."

It added that "Ms Rodgers had numerous letters of correspondence from ParkingEye and extensive opportunities to resolve the case."

Money has produced a video on how to challenge a parking ticket.