A senior barrister has had a case against him thrown out of court after he was sent an £85 parking ticket.

In May last year Nicholas Bowen QC pulled in to a service station on the M4 just before midnight for a nap. He woke at 2:20am and continued on his journey home. A few days later a ticket arrived in the post claiming that there was a two hour limit on parking at the station. Bowen wrote to ParkingEye to explain that he was unaware of any signage, and that on subsequent inspection the only reference was “in microscopic print in a different part of the car park requiring 20/20 vision or a magnifying glass”.

ParkingEye was unmoved. Bowen unsuccessfully appealed. He still refused to pay, so ParkingEye took him to court. And lost. Bowen's counsel arrived on 18th August to find that ParkingEye hadn't shown up. The judge threw out the case and ordered the company to pay Bowen's costs of £1,550.

    Nicholas Bowen QC giving ParkingEye one in the eye.

Bowen said that he fought the case in order to stand up to what he considered to be bullying tactics. He claimed that the terms were clearly unenforceable, and in an email to the company said “I hope ParkingEye will learn a lesson from losing this case, reconsider your contractual terms and change what is an unlawful and unconscionable practice.”

ParkingEye claimed that it had indeed arrived at court but had been told that the case wasn't listed. It was now "considering its options within the time limits set out by the court.”
Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 01 September 17 09:31

If ParkingLie were told that the case wasn't listed, how come Bowen's team were able to attend the hearing?

Anonymous 01 September 17 11:44

I fought a Parking Eye case in Halifax for a client's wife. They attended that one. That sign was not visible either in the dark from where she entered the car park and parked up. Judge dismissed their claim.I'd like to see Parking Eye taken on more often.

Anonymous 01 September 17 19:32

Parking Eye and their ilk use the law to fleece innocent people. Deliberately misrepresenting contractual obligations, paper notices issued resembling official council parking violation paperwork (colours/fonts etc) and use of legalese to baffle the average joe. Any MP who will take on this company and others like it has my vote. [Full disclosure - I can't recall if it was Parking Eye but I wrote/called another bunch of jokers who, after multiple attempts said that my parking notice was "on their suspended file" (WTF?) They didn't even have the grace admit they made a mistake, lest that set a precedent for others who parked in the pub carpark like me.]

Anonymous 02 September 17 11:13

The judge must have taken a very dim view of Parking Eye's conduct as he awarded the Claimant his costs in a small claim.