Colin Leggett, the former owner, contact ParkingEye by email to inform them of the details of the new owner, but ParkingEye refused to cancel the charge.
When asked to comment by the newspaper, ParkingEye stated (obviously unaware of the irony) "ParkingEye operates an industry-leading audited appeals process."
The legal situation is that this parking charge is covered by contract law, which in normal circumstances would mean only the parties to the contract are liable- in other words the driver. Recent changes to the law, mean that since 1 October 2012 the keeper, in certain circumstances, can also be held liable.
The keeper is defined by legislation as follows
“keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper;Mr Leggett is certainly not the keeper. The new owner might be.
ParkingEye therefore have no possible prospect of enforcing any charge against Mr Leggett. ParkingEye head of legal is Rachel Ledson, who seems blissfully unaware of the laws under which her industry operates. Ms Ledson has a history of filing cases against motorists who are neither the driver nor keeper as this blog post from 2013 confirms.
ParkingEye's other solicitor, and the one who now files court claims, is Rosanna Breaks. She has not previously been known to be involved with filing claims when the defendant was neither driver nor keeper. The Prankster will therefore be keeping an eye on this charge to see if Ms Breaks breaks her duck.
The Prankster was apparently wrong and failed to take into account the addendum to Schedule 4, para 94 which states:
Where an operator with a registered office in the parish of Euxton in the County of Lancashire has served what passes for a notice to keeper roughly in accordance with paras 8 or 9 and that in purported satisfaction of that notice a keeper has disclosed the name and a serviceable address for the driver (or keeper) then if the said operator doesn't like the response they can stamp their feet and act like complete numpties and demand that the respondent does what they say rather than simply comply with this schedule.Many thanks to HO87 for pointing this out.
The Parking Prankster