For the record:
Another win for Jackson Yamba"Yesterday, I had the privilege of representing my client, Mrs. Pauline Doyle, at the County Court in South Shields. This case wasn’t just about parking charges it was about standing up for fairness, accountability, and challenging a system that often feels stacked against the individual.
Mrs. Doyle’s vehicle was parked in a public area outside the boundaries of Melbourne House Overflow Car Park in Newcastle (NE12JQ). Despite this, she was slapped with 8 parking charges by Vehicle Control Services (VCS). The vehicle wasn’t even in their car park, yet the charges piled up. When Mrs. Doyle appealed, both the parking company and the so-called "independent" appeals service (IAS) rejected her case. This raised serious questions about the fairness and independence of the appeals process.
Refusing to back down, Mrs. Doyle decided to take the matter to court as the registered keeper. She defended her case by submitting a robust defence, two witness statements, and sought legal representation. At the first hearing, the claimant’s representative claimed they hadn’t received key documents, leading to an adjournment. But yesterday, we turned the tide.
During my submission, I demonstrated to the court that the vehicle was parked outside the car park boundaries , as clearly shown on the map provided. On this basis alone, the claim should have been dismissed. I also highlighted that the particulars of the claim were defective and contained inaccurate information. While the court didn’t rule on this point, the claimant’s representative conceded the first argument, and I urged the court to dismiss the claim.
The court agreed that VCS had acted unreasonably and ordered them to pay over £803 in costs. This wasn’t just a win for Mrs. Doyle it was a win for anyone who has ever felt powerless against unfair parking practices.
What’s Next?
This victory is just the beginning. Mrs. Doyle is now in the process of issuing further claims against Vehicle Control Services Ltd for:
1. Misusing her personal data by pursuing her for charges when her vehicle was not even parked in their car park.
2. Harassment – for the relentless and unjustified pursuit of these charges.
3. Tort of abuse of process – for the unreasonable conduct and concession made during the court proceedings.
This case is a powerful reminder that individuals have the right to challenge unjust systems and stand up for what’s right. It also raises critical questions about the independence of parking appeals services and the conduct of parking companies. If you’ve faced similar issues, don’t give up. With the right support and determination, justice can prevail."
