Signage terms not clear

On 21st June 2016, ParkingEye took Mrs Janice Rowan to Banbury Court (case C4FC524M) over an alleged parking pverstay.

Parking Eye’s case was that Ms Rowan’s 2 hours 10 minutes and 48 seconds had exceeded the signposted limit. Parking Eye lost the case, largely on the basis of the numerous signs that stated “two hours free parking”. The court found that Ms Rowan had spent some of the time filling her car at the petrol station, and that a resonable person who read the signs stating “two hours free parking” would not consider filling the car as part of parking. Therefore, Ms Rowan’s actual parking time would have been somewhat less than the 2 hours 10 minutes “entry to exit time”.

The above case serves as an example of how it can be relatively easy to defend Parking Eye court claims. Ms Rowan’s job of defending the case was made even easier by virtue of the fact that Parking Eye didn’t even bother to send either an employee to the court.

Ms Rowan would also have been able to rely on the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice which states “the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes”. Parking Eye are a membere of the British Parking Association and are required to follow the Code of Practice as a condition of membership.

Many drivers are scared to defend legal action by Parking Eye and instead pay the outrageous amounts demanded by PE. The reason people are scared is that they are worried about paying large legal costs should they lose.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>