Benjamin Greenblatt is about to be taken to court for the second time for – as he puts it – “parking outside my mother’s front door”.
The 34-year-old has already had a previous claim against him dismissed by a county court judge but that hasn’t stopped the parking company concerned, Parking and Property Management Ltd, from having another go.
So, in a few days’ time, Greenblatt will be forced to once again defend himself in court.
It is the latest chapter in a long-running saga involving the private residential estate in Whetstone, north London, where his mother lives.
Greenblatt says that in 2018 his mother was taken to court by the estate’s previous parking company for “parking on her own land”. He says that case was also dismissed.
“I believe these private parking firms are getting away with murder … This is going to be the third court hearing,” he told Guardian Money.
Each year in the UK, private firms dish out millions of parking tickets.
Over the coming weeks, a fair few staycationers and day trippers – who are often parking in unfamiliar locations – will return to their car to find a ticket on their windscreen, or will receive one in the post.
The government has promised action in this area, and in February this year it announced a long-awaited code of practice for private parking firms, applying to England, Scotland and Wales, that would provide new higher standards and give better protection to drivers.
Ministers said the code would result in parking fines being cut by up to 50% in the majority of cases, saving motorists millions of pounds each year. It would include a maximum cap for parking fines, a 10-minute grace period before a late penalty can be issued, and a requirement for firms to clearly display pricing and terms and conditions.
However, the bad news for motorists is that, after a legal challenge by parking firms, the code was “temporarily withdrawn” by the government last month.
It is far from clear when it will be introduced: the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities insists it will keep working with the industry and consumer groups to get the code brought in “as quickly as possible”.
When Greenblatt, who lives near Braintree, Essex, drives over to his mother’s home, he parks in one of the visitor spaces outside her house.
He says he is perfectly entitled to do that without needing to display a permit, adding that the lease for his mother’s property explicitly mentions “the right to use … any parking spaces marked ‘V’ on the plan … for the temporary parking of visitors’ private motor vehicles”.
But in early 2019, Parking and Property Management issued a county court claim against him, saying he had parked “in breach of the terms … stipulated on the signage”, thereby incurring a parking penalty, which he had failed to pay. As a result, it demanded a total of £246.
However, in January 2020 a judge threw out the claim and ordered the parking firm to pay Greenblatt’s costs.
Then, last October, it was deja vu time for the personal trainer when he had a fresh claim issued against him by the same firm for parking at the same location on 5 June 2020. This time the total amount being demanded was £254.
This case is due to be heard at Chelmsford county court on Friday.
Greenblatt claims the Berkshire-based parking firm is wasting the court’s time and abusing the legal system by submitting another claim after the previous case was decided in his favour.
He says he wants the judge to serve an injunction order on the parking firm so that it cannot keep pursuing him.
His MP, Kemi Badenoch, – who was this week eliminated from the Conservative leadership race – has taken up his case.
She emailed the firm to say she noted that Greenblatt had won against the firm in court previously, adding: “I am therefore writing to ask whether you will consider dropping your legal action against Mr Greenblatt given the strength of his defence and likely outcome.”
She later chased this up with another email, although it is not clear if she received a reply.
In response, Parking and Property Management told us that it would be inappropriate for them to comment as the matter is subject to ongoing litigation.