Tuesday, 12 August 2014

British Airways Pension Trust force ParkingEye to cancel ticket

A motorist who had a valid reason for overstaying in Seacourt Retail Park, Oxford could not get ParkingEye to see sense and cancel the ticket. ParkingEye took the motorist to court for an overstay and refused to reveal the name of the landowner. The motorist's wife, doing a bit of detective work, found that the land was managed by Savills and owned by British Airways Pension Trust. Both companies were contacted and they were extremely helpful and went out of their way to resolve the issue. The parking charge was cancelled within 24 hours and with a few weeks to go before the hearing ParkingEye were forced to drop the claim.

Savills explained that "ParkingEye won't be happy but they are working for us and they have to do what they are told."

The British Airways Pension Trust representative explained that although parking control is necessary since the council started charging for the nearby park and ride, he was unhappy with the way ParkingEye go about enforcement on their behalf.

Prankster Note

This case is similar to ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley. In that case, the car park was Riverside Retail Park, Chelmsford, also managed by Savills, owned by British Airways Pension Trust and enforced by ParkingEye.

Savills instructed ParkingEye to drop the case against Mr Wardley but ParkingEye refused. HHJ Moloney upheld the claim (paragraphs 8.4, 8.5 of judgment) on the basis that ParkingEye were the principal and that Savills could not fetter ParkingEye's pursuit of charges.

However, it is now clear that judgment may have been a result of ParkingEye incorrectly redacting the contract supplied to HHJ Moloney, and, as HHJ Moloney pointed out, failing to provide the 'User Manual' for the site which does list exemptions.

In any case it is also clear that the HHJ Moloney judgment was a 'one-off' which clearly does not apply to every site. It is not likely that ParkingEye would have cancelled a claim a few weeks before a hearing unless they really had to.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. "The British Airways Pension Trust representative explained that ... he was unhappy with the way ParkingEye go about enforcement on their behalf."

    But no so unhappy that they refuse to accept the £52,000 annual bounty that PE pay to farm the Riverside Retail Park at Chelmsford. If they really cared about their tenants (the retailers), they would kick out the parasites, and spend a bit of money on a pay-on-exit scheme, to the benefit of retailers and consumers alike.

    Now that really would be commercial justification.

  2. I wonder if the "bounty" goes to the pension funds. Or does it go to Savills perhaps?