Parking Prankster

It seems like judges in Cambridge are building up a reputation for being easily fooled by ParkingEye.

In this latest case ParkingEye issued a ticket for a time when the vehicle was not even there. This is a well-know scam of theirs, with plenty of reported instances in The Prankster's blog and papers all over the country.

The scam works when vehicles visit twice but the cameras for whatever reason do not read the number plate correctly for each visit. The most common reason is if the plate is obscured by a pedestrian or other vehicle, but can also be due to a misread - number plate recognition is only required to be 85% accurate.

Most judges are wise to this scam, and several court cases have been dismissed when ParkingEye tried this on.

However, judges in Cambridge are gaining a reputation for being particularly gullible, willing to swallow whatever nonsense ParkingEye spoons down their throat.

In this particular case the motorist even had a witness to the fact the vehicle visited twice. However, sadly the first hearing was adjourned. When the case was finally heard, the witness was out of the country and not available.

The judge preferred to believe the lies from ParkingEye's paid stooge from LPC Law, rather than the truth from the motorist, and enforced the claim.

Prankster Analysis

Just because your witness is not physically available does not mean they cannot be used. Get the witness to write a short witness statement, and submit this as evidence. The statement should contain the name and address of the witness, numbered statements, and be signed and dated as a statement of truth.

The Prankster website also contains technical papers you can submit as evidence to show how the ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) scam works, and lists of cases where judges have recognised the scam and thrown the case out.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Parking Company UK Parking Solution are claiming an unlikely amount of experience on their website.

UK Parking Solution is one of the UK's fastest growing car park management company. The directors of the company have over 27 years combined experience & extensive knowledge of all aspects of good car park management on private land.

This seems a flight of fancy. Lower down, the page shows 'UK Parking Solutions is only a trading name of TR Luckins Ltd.

TR LUCKINS LIMITED trading as UK Parking Solutions
Registered Office: Carlton House, Higham Ferrers, Northamptonshire NN10 8 BW

TR Luckins only has one director, Thomas Roy Luckins, who appears to be 21 years old. That leaves the company 6 years shy of experience even if Mr Luckins started issuing tickets in the delivery room.

The company did have another director, Thomas's father Graham John Luckins, who is 50. However, Graham only lasted one day before retiring.

Telling porkies is sadly par for the course in the parking industry; there is even a name for it - ParkingLies.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

There has been yet another report stating that the DVLA lose money in providing keeper details to parking companies.

The report states that there was a shortfall last year or around £900,000 in providing this information, and that while the parking companies were charged £2.50 per request, it actually cost £2.84.

In fact, this is a myth, peddled by the DVLA's Department of Misinformation, otherwise know as the Data Sharing Team. Hugh Evans, Corporate Affairs Director of the DVLA, will be smiling into his coffee this morning when his minions report that yet another newspaper, along with the AA and the RAC, have brought into this fiction.

In fact, requesting keeper details is a completely automated process for most parking companies. They send an electronic request to the DVLA, which sends the results back. This is all done by computers, and the individual cost is therefore minimal, a fraction of a penny at best.

While some requests are done manually, these are minimal.

So how do the DVLA bump up the cost?

They assign the running cost of the computers, staff costs building costs and all other costs they can think of to the pot. At first glance, this seems fair. After all, shouldn't the cost of, for instance, running the computers be allocated to the PPCs as well?

The problem is, the computers and everything else are used for far more than just providing keeper details to parking companies.

They are also used for providing keeper details to police and councils, processing car log books, processing MOT, and insurance information, providing statistics to the government, answering FoI request...the list goes on.

By incorrectly allocating as much expense as possible to the parking companies the DVLA make them look bad and the DVLA look good. The actual cost allocations are a closely guarded secret, and FoI requests have been rebuffed each time that they attempt to find out the cost modelling that produced these figures.

The DVLA employ a specific person, Robert Toft, whose job is to stonewall requests, using every bureaucratic trick in the book to make it difficult to get information out of the DVLA. He is remarkably successful in this role, and must surely be in line for several performance award for the way he deftly frustrates and confuses every attempt to get answers from the DVLA.

He is the master of answering a different question to the one which has been asked, dragging out replies to the maximum timescales allowed, and deliberately providing incorrect or misleading information. The Prankster congratulates Hugh Evans in the placement of Robert Toft in his position of gatekeeper for the Department of Misinformation within the DVLA.

The actual information released has been minimal.

FoI replies show there were around 2.6 million requests, costing around £2.84 per request or £7.4 million overall. The breakdown for these costs are given as

Direct costs (including salaries, postage and printing) £1.46 per request, £3,796,000 overall
IT costs £0.78, £2,028,000 overall
Overheads and development costs £0.60 per request, £1,560,000 overall

Although most of the requests are electronic there are around 300,000 manual keeper requests a year. However, the DVLA have admitted they have no idea how many of these are made by private parking companies, and it likely that the vast majority of these are not.

Since postage and printing are only required for manual requests, we could assign a reasonable cost of £1 pr print and post a reply. Even if all 300,000 requests were made by private parking companies this leaves £3,496,000 for salaries, or around 100 full-time people at an average guesstimated salary of £35,000. This is of course, a ridiculous number just to service private parking requests.

IT running costs of £2 million are surprising seeing as wikipediae reports that the database originally cost £5 million to build under contract to EDS in 1996.

It is not entirely obvious what 'development' is necessary, since there have been no apparent changes for a while.

The figures therefore, simply cannot be trusted.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

A while back ParkingEye tried to gag The Prankster, sending a series of harassing and threatening letters from Katie Mickleburgh of legal firm Hill Dickinson.

In one letter she wrote:

You allege [...] that our client issues parking charges for very short overstays and does not allow a five minute grace period. [...] This is simply untrue.

The Daily Mail today highlighted the case of a pensioner charged by ParkingEye for an overstay of 13 seconds. This is the shortest overstay the Prankster is aware of, shorter even than the ones he highlighted.

The Prankster is now running a sweepstake on whether it is more likely that Hill Dickinson will threaten to sue the Daily Mail for causing "immense damage to our client's reputation", or whether Katie Mickleburgh will write to The Prankster to apologise for being taken in by ParkingEye's lies.

Katie's biography page states she is strong in "ensuring matters are dealt with swiftly and efficiently, reaching the most cost effective conclusion". She is therefore no doubt suitably embarrassed with the error-filled letters she wrote to The Prankster, and the subsequent self-inflicted damage to her own reputation. The most cost effective conclusion was of course, to advise her client not to threaten to sue for damages if the facts they are unhappy about are true.

Katie will have learned an important lesson - never trust anything ParkingEye say. ParkingEye have regularly told lies to the court, to POPLA, to their customers, to the motoring public and of course, to their own legal representatives.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

The British Parking Association have responded to the Daily Mail articles exposing cowboy parking companies.

To summarise for those who need to get up to speed:

The Daily Mail:
Pointed out MET Parking use a firm of debt collectors, Roxburghe, ruled unfit to hold a credit licence by the office of fair trading.
Pointed out that the managing director of Roxburghe is Gary Osner who sits on the board of the BPA.
Pointed out MET Parking used a firm of solicitors, GPB Solicitors, which was shut down because of staff dishonesty
Exposed MET Parking for issuing tickets for 'motorist left site' when they were still in the restaurant
Exposed ParkingEye for giving a ticket to a cancer sufferer who was 13 seconds late
Reported that cowboy tactics, scaremongering and bullying were used by many private parking companies
Pointed out that as the British Parking Association is paid for by the parking industry, this is like inmates guarding the jail
Pointed out that MET parking were one of 6 firms who had access to the DVLA suspended in 2012
Pointed out that MET parking issued a ticket to a motorist who suffered a medical emergency
Pointed out that UKPC train its wardens to target cancer wards
Pointed out that ParkingEye issued a ticket to a pensioner visiting hospital for a 13 second overstay.
Pointed out that Gemini Parking Solutions issued a ticket to a motorist giving birth with complications.
Pointed out that UKPC issued a ticket to a mother whose two year old child was having fits
Pointed out that ParkingEye issued a ticket to a mother recovering from a heart attack in hospital
Pointed out that PCP Enforcement Agency issued a ticket to a mother taking her child to hospital for violent stomach pains.

Pointed out that the BPA, in theory, is responsible for policing parking companies

The BPA Ltd
Rehashed a 2012 quote from Patrick Troy.
Stated there is much to be proud of in the Protection of Freedom Act 2012, but that the regulations do not go far enough
Stated that an appeal service not binding on all operators is a recipe for confusion
Stated that a ban on clamping is no substitute for proper regulation.
Stated that the ban on wheel-clamping was ill conceived
Pointed out that the AA is not a member of the BPA
Advised motorists to check parking conditions before leaving their car
Advised motorists not to ignore Parking Charge Notices.
Accused the Daily Mail of undermining the validity of parking tickets, and stymieing the rights of landowners
Accused the government of being rogues for failing to regulate
Accused the dailiy mail of being rogues for running an ill-conceived campaign.

The Parkster will now referee

The Prankster detects the hand of Patrick Troy in this response. Patrick Troy is the master of answering questions he has not been asked, and deflecting concerns from the main issues. This was apparent from his recent appearance on Watchdog. If the response is not from Mr Troy, he has surely trained up his minions well in the art of the non-answer.

Perhaps Gary Osner had a hand in the reply. Although Gary Osner is the managing director of Roxburghe, (an unfit company) he is also a board member of the BPA. During the the BPA AGM on 2nd July 2014, Gary Osner was awarded a fellowship of the BPA denoting him as a role model for the profession demonstrating leadership qualities, a significant contribution to the parking profession as well as championing the raising of standards and promoting continuing professional development. Gary Osner now sits on the board of the BPA for 2014/5.

Another person awarded a fellowship was Anjina Patel. Anjina recently starred in the TV series 'Parking mad'. You may not have recognised her, because she used the false name Kira Fleck during the programme.

The BPA reply misses the point of the Daily Mail articles. There are clearly rogue elements in the parking industry, as evidenced by the examples shown in the articles. The BPA should not be seeing this as an attack on the entire industry - merely a timely highlight of the problems the industry faces, and a wake up call to the BPA.

The Daily Mail is not attacking all parking tickets - merely the rogue elements in the parking sector.

It is ironic that the BPA stated 'a ban on clamping is no substitute for proper regulation'and then blamed the government for failing to regulate the industry. According to the DVLA, it expects the industry trade associations, of which the BPA is one (the other being the IPC), to regulate its members. That the BPA is obviously failing to do this, as evidenced by the Daily Mail report, is not a reason for the government to introduce more regulation. Rather it is a wake-up call for the BPA to begin policing its own members. Failing that, the DVLA needs to step in and remove the Accredited status from the BPA.

The Prankster has helped many motorists who have had problems, and time and again the BPA has washed their hands of the matter, stating it does not have the power to force operators to cancel tickets, and refusing to hand out sanctions for misbehavior

The Prankster looks forward to the DVLA requiring the BPA to actually police the sector,.

Happy Parking

The Prankster has previously blogged that ANPR cameras are inherently flawed because they do not have X-ray capability. They can therefore miss vehicles entering or leaving if the number plate is blocked, resulting in a parking charge being issued for one long stay even if two short stays actually occur. Parking operators therefore need to be sensitive to this, and cancel tickets when this occurs.

It looks like CP Plus have tried to address this problem and are trialing cameras with X-Ray vision, capable of seeing through solid objects. Here is part of a parking charge issued using one of the new cameras.

The new camera can apparently see right through the leaf and read the number plate, and so CP Plus issued a charge to the vehicle they thought it belonged to.

As it happens there may be a few teething problems with the new technology. The keeper of the car which was charged knew the vehicle was not parked at the times alleged and so has appealed.

Anyone else who has received a ticket at Leigh Delamere service station on the M4 may want to send this picture in to POPLA to prove that the set up is flawed and that CP Plus is liable to issue tickets for two stays when only one occurred. Vehicle entry and exits will be missed due to the camera being obscured.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Following the discovery of the X-Ray camera, The Prankster visited Leigh Delamere to see for himself. He visited twice, once to check the camera, then a second time to get pictures of signage. No doubt he is at risk of getting a ticket for overstaying due to CP Plus's defective technology, but luckily he has plenty of witnesses he visited twice, plus pictures of his vehicle elsewhere.

The exit camera on the eastbound side is indeed obscured by a tree. The branch moves in the wind, so sometimes the camera is not obscured; at other times it is.

Now you see it

Now you don't

The terms and conditions do not appear to be in line with current regulations. The Prankster is reluctant to revisit in case he gets wheelclamped and is forced to pay a £90 release fee.

The signage does not appear to correspond to the signage map produced by CP Plus for POPLA hearings.

Notice the over-sized blobs, designed to give the impression that signage is plentiful. Several blobs are in the middle of the bays, giving the impression that the signage is placed in positions where it will be easily visible.

Here is The Prankster version. Signage is shown 6 times actual size, otherwise it would be hard to spot on the map (just like it is in real life). The two purple lines represent entrance signage.One is sited behind a tree and hard to spot. These are 1 and 3 on the CP Plus map. 1 is not sited correctly on the CP Plus map.

The red lines are the terms and conditions (4 on the CP Plus map). None are in the middle of the bays as shown on the CP Plus map. The green lines are pay by phone instructions (5) and the orange reminder signs (6).

All signage is facing 90 degrees from the direction of travel, apart from the entrance signs hidden behind trees and the sign at the entrance to the building. many signs are on very high poles and difficult to read. Drivers just using the car park to sleep will therefore never spot the signage even exists. Other drivers have one chance to spot the entrance sign at they enter the building.

Spot the one visible sign facing the driver.

Several areas have no signage at all, which violates BPA Ltd guidelines which state signage should be visible from all parking bay. The entrance signage is not compliant with the required format. It contains far too much information to be read at speed, and the font size, apart from the information that there is 2 hours free parking, is too small. It also contains information not repeated elsewhere.

Google Streetview visited the site in 2010, showing the signage to be essentially unchanged between 2010 and the present day.

The Prankster does not know why CP Plus deliberately deceived POPLA regarding the signage. However, it is a general rule for the disreputable elements of the parking industry that lying is acceptable behavior if it get the result you want. The map they submitted to POPLA was in this case sufficient to deceive the assessor, Nozir Uddin, who stated 'I am satisfied that the terms and conditions of parking would have been visible to the Appellant from the signage on site' and rejected the appeal.

CP Plus will therefore no doubt be pleased with Ranger Services who submitted the appeal on their behalf.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Excel Parking have recently filed a number of similar court claims for multiple tickets. The claims all followed the same pattern, providing no information on the dates or amounts of the parking events, and missing crucial information needed to file a defence, such as copies of the parking charge notice, signage, and details of their standing to bring the claim.

The claims also came out of the blue, with no letter before claim. This is a violation of practice directions, which are written so as to minimise the need for court involvement and encourage participants to settle out of court wherever possible.

One motorist took exception to this and took a stand, shelling out £80 of her own money to ask for a preliminary hearing to force Excel to provide this information so she could file a defence, listing the information she thought she would need. She also asked the court to refer the case to POPLA as the most cost efficient solution.

The hearing took place in Stockport county court. Excel sent two representatives, and the motorist was represented by The Prankster.

District Judge Lettall explained he would not force Excel to use POPLA, but he also warned Excel that there may be cost implications if they did not voluntarily agree.

Excel argued that they had provided enough information by sending the parking charge notices over a year ago, and again shortly before the hearing. The judge explained that court procedures required the claimant to sent the defendant this information at the time of making the claim; not some arbitrary time before or after. This was to enable the defendant to properly defend the claim. He described the particulars of claim as wholly deficient. He did not accept that the British Parking Association Ltd code of practice allowed Excel to file a claim without sending a letter before claim.

The judge asked Excel if they could now send the information and Excel agreed to this. The Prankster pointed out that the contract Excel had provided was over-redacted, and that in previous cases he had helped with the contract revealed that Excel were paid £30,000 a year by Peel Holdings to run the Peel Centre car park, which included parking services and the ANPR systems. He felt that this was relevant information since this was also included in Excel's pre-estimate of loss and was therefore double charging. He asked for a full unredacted contract to be supplied. The judge stated that it was up to Excel what they supplied, but that failure to provide an unredacted contract may prejudice their claim.

DJ Lettall asked the claimant to provide the information within 14 days and the defendant to then file her defence within 14 days with a view to listing the case in September.

The Judge asked The Prankster if he would be happy for costs to be held over to the next hearing. The Prankster replied that the motorist was forced to apply for this hearing because Excel did not
send a letter before claim or enough information to defend the claim.

Excel replied the information had been sent at the time of sending the parking charge.

The judge decided the hearing had been necessary and therefore awarded costs against Excel. The defendant will therefore get her £80 refunded by Excel.

Prankster Note

Not all judges will take the same view, so asking for a preliminary hearing is a risk. Costs have also increased from £80. However, defendants should consider asking for the following reasonable information.

Dates and charges of the parking events, together with copies of the parking charge notices
Full details of any contract it is alleged was entered into
An explanation of how the contract was offered and accepted
An explanation of the consideration from motorist to operator
An explanation of the consideration from operator to motorist
A breakdown of the charges
Whether the operator is bringing the claim as principal or agent
A copy of the contract with the landowner to support this and to show they are authorised to bring charges

This is the minimal information needed to defend any claim.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

David Taylor, ex-boss of ParkingEye, suffered extreme memory lapses as he fondly recalled his time in the parking business to the Daily Mail.

In his recall the company was run in an ethical and sensitive way and would never target hospital patients or ticket pensioners for short overstays.

Sadly it seems Mr Taylor's memory is not all it once was. The Prankster hopes Mr Taylor can enjoy his millions before his condition worsens and he slips into dotage.

The Prankster can revel that on Mr Taylor's watch:

Sir Robin Jacob found ParkingEye were guilty of the tort of deceit - ParkingEye did not challenge this decision. He also found that ParkingEye sent out letters which it knew contained falsehoods.

ParkingEye took court action for motorists whose vehicles had broken down

ParkingEye took court action for motorsts who suffered mediacal emergencies

ParkingEye took court action against elderly motorists for short overstays

ParkingEye took court action against motorists who were not even in the car park at the times alledged

ParkingEye installed deficient camera coverage in car parks which did not cover all entrances and exits.

ParkingEye issued charges on a site where the land renter did not apparently have authorisation from the landowner (the council) to do this.

ParkingEye took court action while ignoring all letters reportedly sent to them in some cases.

ParkingEye took court action against some motorists who reported receiving no prior communication.

ParkingEye targeted hospital visitors using systems designed to generate parking charges; some of these contracts have been terminated due to complaints generated

ParkingEye cost B&Q millions in lost revenue by aggressively targetting their customers, driving them away in droves. ParkingEye have now had this contract terminated.

ParkingEye installed signage which created entrapment zones in car parks due to the incomplete coverage.

ParkingEye put false information on their web site designed to bully motorists into paying charges

ParkingEye sent false information to motorists in response to their appeals, designed to bully motorists into paying.

ParkingEye deceived the courts by providing false information regarding their charges.

ParkingEye deceived the courts by redacting their contracts to hide information detrimental to their case. (There is no accusation that Mr Taylor deceived HHJ Moloney as this case happened after MR Taylor had left)

ParkingEye deceived the court by photocopying witness statements and adding in dates, and then filed the witness statments as evidence even though they contained statements which were not within the knowlege of the witnesses.

ParkingEye filed thousands of court claims without providing a compliant letter before claim, and in some cases without a letter before claim at all.

ParkingEye claimed solicitor fees which were not actually incurred at a rate of millions of pounds a year.

ParkingEye filed court documents regularly totalling over 50 pages and containing references to over 50 cases in violation of the primary practice directions which state that the case should be conducted in a manner proportiponal to the amount claimed. Defending a claim successfully would therefore take up to 100 hours of research.

ParkingEye regularly filed court claims for some car parks even though they have never provided a contract to prove they can. They regularly claimed this was in case defendants posted the contract on the internet even though this had never happened to their contracts.

The Prankster wishes Mr Taylor well and hopes his memory soon recovers and there is no permanent damage.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

The Prankster has received information from a motorist who is being chased for a parking charge by ANPR Ltd. The motorist at one point owned a black Golf, which they traded to a garage for an orange Groove Up in February 2014. The car had a cherished number plate, which they retained. The DVLA has written to confirm the information regarding sale and plate retention was all received by them and updated on their records by 24/02/2014. They then requested permission to transfer the plates to their new car. The permission to transfer plates took a further few weeks. The letter from the DVLA was dated 10/04/2014 and the new plates were then made and fitted on 24/04/2014.

On 19/03/2014 the black Golf was detected by ANPR Ltd parking where it should not. The garage had not changed the plates and so it still had the cherished numberplate. When the ANPR operative looked up the plate the DVLA confirmed it belonged to an Orange Groove Up and not a black Golf. The black Golf was apparently untaxed. ANPR therefore phoned the police to report the mismatch, who were not interested.

ANPR took photographs of the black Golf and issued a windscreen ticket.

Here is what an orange Groove Up actually looks like.

Later on, ANPR applied for keeper details. On the form sent to the DVLA they incorrectly stated the plate was on an Orange Groove Up rather than on a black Golf. They therefore received the wrong keeper details; the original keeper rather than the garage.

They then started hounding the original keeper for the parking charge. .

The keeper phoned, then appealed, stating the Orange Groove Up was never parked there, and asked for photographs, which had been refused over the phone. It was pointed out that on the date in question the Orange Groove Up had a different number plate, because the DVLA did not approve the transfer until 10/04/2014. ANPR denied receiving the appeal, even though they signed for it as registered post, and referred to it in other letters. They therefore did not issue a POPLA code

The motorist had several phone calls with Patrick Crossley of ANPR, who was described to The Prankster as extremely rude and aggressive. The Prankster does not know whether this was true. However, ANPR record all phone calls so will easily be able to shed light on this.

The motorist contacted Merseyside Police, who asked Mr Crossley to stop harassing the motorist. ANPR report they have tried but failed to speak to the police officer involved.

Patrick Crossley then wrote to the motorist using his alter ego as a director of Expedion, stating that a court claim would be filed if the motorist did not pay. The court documents all referred to an Orange Grove Up, while the pictures supplied were of a black Golf. At this point the motorist contacted The Prankster, who also contacted ANPR to find their side of the story.

This is the current state of play.

The Prankster therefore calls on ANPR to stop pursuing the motorist, who was neither the owner, keeper or driver of the car at the time of the incident. Instead The Prankster suggests they contact the garage, who may well have offended against Section 43C of the Vehicle Excise and registration Act 1994, and may therefore be happy to pay up to avoid any embarrassment.

The Prankster considers ANPR have breached the BPA code of practice for not supplying photographs when asked and not supplying a POPLA code when the appeal was denied.

The Prankster considers ANPR Ltd have breached the DVLA KADOE contract by providing wrong details on the V888/3 form.

The Prankster considers the garage may have offended against Section 43C of the Vehicle Excise and registration Act 1994.

The Prankster considers the motorist has done nothing wrong, and has been more than patient in trying to sort this out.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Following the articles in the Daily Mail, The Parking Prankster can expose the dodgy practices used by one of the UK's largest parking firms, ParkingEye. Company size is not guarantee of good practice, honesty or integrity, and ParkingEye are one of the worst offenders, with an unparalleled reputation for dishonesty, bullying tactics and operating sites in such a way to milk motorists for all they can.

ParkingEye have previously threatened to sue The Prankster for defamation for damage to their reputation. However, they crept away with their tail between their legs when The Prankster pointed out that all his facts were true, and that in any case they had no reputation worth speaking of. Since then they have refused to reply to The Prankster's communications.

The Prankster has identified the following bad practices and dodgy tactics used by ParkingEye.

Providing false information to judges, including the Beavis case
Charging motorists for POPLA, which the government has stated must be free to motorists
Using the Protection of Freedom Act to pursue keepers to court when they knew the land was not covered by the Act.
Charging motorists over £1 million in solicitor fees which were not actually incurred, making their court filings one of the most profitable part of the business
Providing landowner witness statements to court without the knowledge or permission of the witness by using photocopied witness statements
Providing landowner witness statements to court and POPLA containing information ParkingEye knew was not within the knowledge of the witness
Providing contracts to judges, including HHJ Moloney, which had pertinent information redacted
Sending motorists false information to make them think they have no chance in appealing the ticket to POPLA
Providing outdated and misleading information on their web site
Not even bothering to defend large numbers of POPLA cases, causing motorists time and expense for cases ParkingEye knew they would not win anyway
Providing false information to POPLA in order to win cases
Pursuing through the court system even though they knew the motorist was neither the keeper or driver and was therefore not liable
Pursuing cases when motorists break down, are injured or suffer medical emergencies
Pursuing cases against mothers who overstayed due to breastfeeding
Pursuing cases against disabled motorists who need more time to shop
Pursuing cases against elderly motorists who need more time to shop
Installing sites without cameras on all entrances and exits, and then pursuing motorists for overstays if they left via an unmonitored route
Installing sites where the cameras do not record all entrances and exits of vehicles, and then pursuing motorists for overstays when two visits were made
Pursuing motorists for very short overstays, well within an acceptable grace period
Shortening parking periods to the detriment of retailers to increase their income
Aggressively pursuing tickets against the wishes of retailers served by the car park
Using inappropriate and hard to use technology coupled with confusing signage to target hospitals to generate vast income to the detriment of patient
Failing to take reasonable steps to mitigate transgressions by motorists
Pursuing their own customers for huge penalty clauses when they try to get rid of them
Filing thousands of court cases without sending a letter before claim compliant with practice directions, or in some cases, without sending any letter before claim at all
Filing huge, complicated documents in court, in violation of the prime objectives of the courts in terms of proportionality to the sums involved. A typical filing will be over 50 pages with 30 or more case references.
Filing large numbers of documents after the filing deadline and without paying a fee
Complaining when motorists file after the filing deadline and asking the court to charge the motorists a fee
Refusing to reply to reasonable requests for information from motorists to allow them to defend their case
Filing false information in witness statements written by their employees including documents referred to by the witness statements
Filing deliberately misleading information in court documents, which while factually correct are not relevant, or are couched in terms to deliberately mislead
Ploughing on regardless with court cases, despite having lost all known similarly defended cases, causing defendants distress and expense.
Providing false information to and deliberately deceiving their own customers
Failing to properly quality check parking charge notices sent out
Pursuing cases where the landowner stated by ParkingEye in documents provided to court, was not the actual landowner and did not have the right to allow parking
Using signage to create entrapment zones in car parks, so that although coverage is sufficient in some areas, it is not in all

Obviously anyone considering using ParkingEye will need to think twice after reading that list. The Prankster is more than willing to meet with and provide his evidence to landowners thinking of using ParkingEye, where he will explain that a 'free' solution may actually end up costing millions of pounds in lost business (such as at B&Q).

The Prankster is strongly behind the need for controlled parking, and for landowners to operate parking as they wish. He can talk landowners through available solutions which work and are beneficial to landowners, motorists and parking operators.

The Prankster can also advise landowners wishing to get rid of ParkingEye of the most sensible strategies and viable alternatives.

The Prankster echoes the words of His Honour Judge Hegarty QC. ParkingEye like to quote HHJ Hegarty, but for some reason do not include this particular quote.

The case on deceit, therefore, in my judgment, turns on the wording of the third letter; and I have concluded that all the elements of the tort appear to be made out in relation to that letter

As Sir Robin Jacob put it, in the appeal

The Judge found ParkingEye was guilty of the tort of deceit on those occasions when the third letter was sent on its behalf. ParkingEye does not challenge this decision.

and

The Judge also made no finding of dishonesty against ParkingEye at [489] though that must be understood in a limited sense since he did find that its executive knew the third letter contained falsehoods, which is to say the least not exactly honest.

ParkingEye may claim to have changed since that court case. The Prankster is minded to agree - they have changed for the worse.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

This freedom of information request has been made to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to discover how many complaints have been made about ParkingEye and about Rachel Ledson.

The report details that two complaints have so far been investigated, and ParkingEye have been cleared. It also discloses that a number of complaints are still under investigation, but does not disclose how many. The Parking Prankster has been made aware of several complaints made to the SRA against ParkingEye and they certainly number more than two, so it seems as though there are a number of ongoing investigations.

The report also refuses to state whether it is Rachel Ledson who is being investigated, or some other solicitor working for ParkingEye.

For a list of other known solicitors working at ParkingEye, please refer to this previous Prankster article.

If you wish to complain about Rachel Ledson or any other solicitor working for ParkingEye, you can download the report form from this page.

Reasons you may report include the following

"You must:

uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice,
act with integrity,
not allow your independence to be compromised,
act in the best interests of each client,
provide a proper standard of service to your clients,
behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services,
comply with your legal and regulatory obligations and deal with your regulators and ombudsmen in an open, timely and co-operative manner,
run your business or carry out your role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles,
run your business or carry out your role in the business in a way that encourages equality of opportunity and respect for diversity, and
protect client money and assets.

The Prankster considers the following behaviour worth considering reporting to the SRA by either a solicitor or the legal department under his or her control.

Charging a £50 filing fee which is not actually incurred
Starting a claim without sending a letter before claim
Starting a claim without sending a letter before claim compliant with practice directions
Starting a claim while the pre-action protocol is still taking place
Providing false information to the court
Providing witness statements containing statements not in the knowledge of the witness
Providing incorrectly redacted contracts to the court
Providing misleading information to the court
Dealing with a case in ways which are not proportional to the amount involved
Refusing to drop a case when there is no cause of action
Lying to customers

If any of these have happened to you, then there is no time limit on complaints, so you can file at your leisure. Remember, if you do nothing, bad behaviour by solicitors will continue. It is only by taking the trouble to make the behavior known to the authorities that any bad behaviour will be stamped out

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye lost in court in a case reported on Consumer Action Group.

In the case, the motorist parked in a hotel which went into administration on the day she parked.

ParkingEye tried to keep this information from the court. When ParkingEye's advocate heard the defendant was going to tell the judge, she phoned ParkingEye for instruction. Rather than 'fessing up, ParkingEye, who knew about the situation, told the advocate to use legal reasons to prevent the judge from knowing about the situation. She tried to argue that the information should have been filed 14 days ago.

However, the judge was wise to this trick and rules that the information was pertinent to the case. (Prankster note; after all, this is not new information being sprung on ParkingEye. This is something ParkingEye already knew and were trying to keep from the court). The rather stuffed ParkingEye who had submitted a witness statement from the new owners and tried to sneak this past the judge. This was given the heave-ho as not being relevant, and as ParkingEye had decided not to produce any contract, this left them without any evidence that there was an agreement with the landowner and the case was thrown out.

Apparently the ParkingEye advocate was angry that the defendant had used case details provided by The Prankster. This is typical ParkingEye behaviour; they are more than happy to quote endlessly from cases they have won, but refuse to provide details of cases they have lost.

Prankster Note

ParkingEye have in a number of cases provided landowner witness statements from companies who did not have the right to offer parking at the sites in question. Often, the companies did not even exist. They have also regularly used witness statements where the information could not have been known by the witness. As ParkingEye write the witness statements and send them to the witness for signing (or in some cases just photocopy pre-signed statements) they will be completely aware the statements were not in the knowledge of the witness. Their use of such witness statements has now been completely discredited but sadly they continue to use them.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye have issued over £1 million worth of ticket at Town Quay, Southampton, falsely stating keeper liability applies under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The DVLA have been made aware but have decided to turn a blind eye and continue to provide ParkingEye with keeper details.

In the past, parking companies have been banned from DVLA access if they have falsely stated keeper liability applies. However Hugh Evans of the DVLA has apparently taken the decision that ParkingEye are too big a company for the rules to apply to, and has refused to apply sanctions against them. Although the DVLA forced MET Parking to cancel tickets when a similar transgression occurred and to stop the practice, ParkingEye seem to have a magic immunity where the DVLA is concerned.

Since 2012 ParkingEye have issued 18,627 tickets at Town Quay at rates between £100 and £110. This would have netted the DVLA over £46,000. If paid in full this would generate over £1,800,000 for ParkingEye.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states that the act does not apply on land which is subject to statutory controls. The landowner has admitted that the statutory controls exist and that they refer to parking. However, they state that they have decided not to enforce the byelaws and therefore they can use POFA 2012 instead. This is of course, twaddle. POFA 2012 does not allow the landowner discretion as to whether or not they wish to enforce byelaws. If the byelaw exists, then POFA 2012 does not apply.

Nick Ridehalge from Associated British Ports has written to John Denham MP to try and wriggle out of their failure to stop issuing tickets claiming keeper liability, and ParkingEye have acting court cases in which they have claimed keeper liability.

This post in pepipoo considers the legal arguments.

The Prankster considered there is something seriously wrong if 18,000 tickets have been issued. Associated British Ports should spend some of the £1,800,000 generated to investigate ways of improving the situation to reduce the problem. The Prankster has heard from many people who have not seen the signage in the dark, and so more signs and better illumination would seem to be a must. Better use of technology could also be investigated to see if there are ways of warning departing motorists of overstays,

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

The Prankster has been given a copy of a Parking Charge from ParkingEye showing how they are targeting motorbike riders.

The motorist visited the car park twice, but received a ticket from ParkingEye for one long stay. This is a regular occurrence for long suffering motorists. ParkingEye are well aware that their system is deficient and can issue tickets for one visit when two visits occur. This does not stop them trying it on in court and claiming against motorists when this happens.

The pictures show the vehicle is a motorbike. Now the thing about motorbikes are that a large number of them do not have front number plates, including the bike in question. Therefore, both pictures must be of the bike departing. ParkingEye will never detect these types of bike arriving because their arrival cameras will never detect a numberplate.

Some questions therefore arise as to the professionalism and integrity of ParkingEye.

Firstly, The Prankster questions the use of the arrival photograph, which only shows the number plate and is otherwise black. This was taken at 7:23 on a Summer morning, a day the motorist confirms was bright and sunny.

ANPR cameras have two components; a normal camera and an infra-red camera. This photograph therefore appears to be from the infra-red camera. The use of this picture is extremely dubious. The normal camera would have shown the motorbike departing and would have made it obvious the ticket should not have been issued as the pictures showed two departs, not an arrival and a depart. There appears to be no reason, such as poor light or bad weather, why the normal camera photograph could not be used.

If this picture was deliberately selected by ParkingEye then this throws their integrity into question. If this was not deliberately selected, then this throws their professionalism into question. If one photograph shows a motorbike rear plate then no ticket should be issued unless the other photograph shows a front plate. As motorbikes often only have one plate it is an unsafe and abusive practice to issue tickets with only one clear photograph which shows a rear plate.

ParkingEye regularly try and bluff courts into thinking their ANPR data is accurate by saying that 19 different checks are made. However, they clam up when asked exactly what these checks are, and how they are relevant. This incident shows their checks are clearly not up to the mark and cannot be relied on in court proceedings.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Lidl have found an interesting way to boost profits. It is a recognised fact of life that shoppers may have to queue longer at budget supermarkets; that is one of the accepted trade offs. What is not acceptable however is the fact that Lidl is then raking it in from charges due to overstays.

At one time Lidl contracted one of the larger parking companies to manage their car parks. However, once they learned how much money was being made by the company for overstays, they sacked the company and brought the operation in-house.

They switched to one of the tiny companies, Athena ANPR and just paid them a management fee to operate the car park. The charges for overstays now went to Lidl. It is now possible that in some of the smaller stores, the amount Lidl is raking in for parking is a significant part of the store's profits.

Not content even with this, Lidl have hit on a new wheeze to extract the maximum amount of cash from their own customers. Car parking is now only free for 10 minutes. After that, the customers must be validated at the till for 60 minutes of free parking.

Now customers spending 50 minutes shopping are faced with an unsolvable dilemma if there are queues at the checkout. They cannot just leave, because they have exceeded their 10 minutes free parking. They cannot get out before the 60 minutes because the queues are too large.

The Prankster congratulates Lidl on finding a creative way to add £90 to their customer's shopping bill.

Customers getting a ticket in these circumstances should contact the store manager as well as Athena to get the ticket cancelled. Do not accept any excuses from the store manager. Make him/her well aware that Lidl keep the parking charges and that Athena are only an agent collecting them on their behalf. The Prankster believes that the actual amount kept by Athena is as low as £6-£7 per ticket and the rest is trousered by the supermarket.

It is ironic that Lidl try to justify their actions by pretending they are on the side of the shopper, as reported in the Daily Mail.

A spokesman at the store said ‘previous misuse of the car park’ had meant customers not always being able to park, adding: ‘The vast majority of our customers are pleased with the implementation of these systems as … they are now able to access parking spaces when carrying out their shopping.’

Really of course, they are using the charges to secretly rake it in.

The Prankster is unaware of any customer surveys Lidl has carried out to determine whether'the vast majority of our customers' are really happy. He suspect the spokesman was talking out of his bottom.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

This post on pepipoo details an apparent attempt by ParkingEye to scam a household of around £10,000 in incorrectly issued tickets. The situation arises because according to the motorist she has rights to a car park which is accessed by driving through Aldi's car park. ParkingEye's technology regularly fouls up and issues tickets for cars parked in these spaces. It is not clear whether ParkingEye have only put ANPR cameras on the main entrance and forgot to montitor this entrance or whether the cameras are simply unreliable.

To compound matters, ParkingEye are refusing to cancel tickets outright and are making the motorist waste time by appealing to POPLA. They are also refusing to accept appeals from her on behalf of friends and visitors, making life very difficult. This is in direct contradiction to the BPA's decision which is that third parties can appeal on behalf of motorists, and which was noted in their 10th April 2014 AOS Board Meeting minutes. Meanwhile, ParkingEye regularly accept appeals from other third parties such as Parking Ticket Appeals

Aldi have washed their hands of the affair and refuse to deal with the motorist, even though they have a dedicated complains division just to handle ParkingEye problems.

ParkingEye have issued over 100 incorrect tickets to this motorist and her visitors.

Prankster Notes

ANPR is a cheap way used by ParkingEye to generate revenue but it is not always the right solution for ever car park. In this case it is clear the whole installation was ill thought out, but ParkingEye are refusing to take responsibility for the mess. Their current attitude which is to refuse to cancel tickets and force the motorist to use POPLA is typical of their bullying, grab the money at all costs attitude.

Issuing tickets on land where there is no contract is a breach of the BPA code of practice carrying 10 sanction points. The motorist has already complained to the BPA but should bring this to their attention and give them her paperwork to let them get on with it.

The motorist has already complained to the DVLA because they are giving out keeper details when there is no reasonable cause. The DVLA should stop giving out motorist details for this car park until the situation is rectified.

ANPR technology is not a silver bullet and is not right for all situations. Aldi should therefore require ParkingEye to either come up with a solution to stop this deluge, or require ParkingEye to remove the faulty equipment. They should also accept responsibility for the whole charade.

The motorist could also consider complaining to her MP and ask them to bring this to the attention of the Transport Select Committee, who are currently considering the problem of rogue parking companies - ParkingEye seem to be one of the main culprits.

The motorist could also consider contacting the Daily Mail, at parking@dailymail.co.uk. The Mail are currently highlighting the scams parking companies use.

The motorist could also put ParkingEye on notice that further tickets will be dealt with on a costs basis and she will be charging for time spent on any future incorrectly issued tickets.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

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

Wycombe District Council has been banned by the DVLA from data access to keeper information for tickets issued in private car parks. Council issued tickets under statutory powers are not affected. The ban will remain in place until the DVLA have examined the issues around the situation.

The ban has arisen because Wycombe DC have attempted to re-designate council-owned land on which statutes apply so that it runs under a private parking regime. This means the council's statutory powers where it could issue penalty fines no longer apply.

The council have stated 'the land has been taken out of the Off Street Parking Places Order under the Road Traffic Regulation 1984 Act and the Council is using its powers at Common Law rather than under Statue to operate the car parks.'

Previously the land was under the ruling of the TMA 2004 act, which means motorists could have their cases adjudicated by TPT/PATAS, which is a well-run, independent scheme which as final resolution allows motorists access to an oral hearing with an independent adjudicator.

Although Wycombe DC are members of the British Parking Association Ltd, they are not AOS members according to the list on the BPA Ltd web site. This means that motorists will not have access to the adjudication service POPLA run by the BPA Ltd. It is possible a third party operator could do this on their behalf, but it is believed Wycombe DC are running this all in-house.

This leaves motorists without an independent body to appeal to.

Currently, Wycombe DC have stated that they will take motorists directly to court if they do not pay and the council decide to unilaterally reject their appeal.

The new regime tries to impose a charge on the motorist of £60 which will be 'issued for a breach of the terms and conditions.' As this is a breach, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the council. It is difficult to see how a loss of revenue of £1 for an hour's parking can cause a loss of £60.

Although this does not appear on signage the council have stated the charges will be discounted to £25 if paid within 24 hours and without appealing, or £40 if paid within 14 days of issue. This is stated on the tickets, but in a confusing way. The motorist will need to read two different parts of the ticket to find this out.

This has not changed substantially from the statutory regime where the previous charges were fines also amounting to £60 or £40 if paid early

It is not clear whether the council will pay back any charges which have been issued up to this point. However, they have been known to cancel tickets as this thread in pepipoo shows.

Any data the council may have obtained from the DVLA is likely to have been under false pretences using the council's powers to obtain data for CPE statutory tickets. As landowners, and non members of the BPA AOS, they must only use the DVLA V888/3 manual forms, for which they have to demonstrate reasonable cause. Councils are charged a nominal sum for CPE statutory tickets, believed to be about 5-10 pence.

This issue was raised with the council's solicitor, Catherine Herries-Smith, to clarify the situation. However, she decided that there was no problem in requesting data in this manner. It seems the DVLA have not agreed with her.

The Prankster does note that the ANPR system offered by this car park has some features which are a welcome step forward. The motorist can pay on exit, and the system will always charge them the correct amount. The veri-park system offered by this car park has some desirable features - customers using the pay-as-you-go option, for instance, would not find it possible to underpay and would always pay the correct amount.

The Prankster welcomes this kind of innovation and notes that ANPR controlled car parks should always be pay on exit, with the system set to only accept registration numbers from vehicles which have entered the car park.

The Prankster feels the council could go a step further - first time transgressors, for instance, could be offered the option to join the pay-as-you-go scheme, for instance, rather than having to pay a penalty. This would show the council are committed to the needs of the community and are not using the scheme as a money-making operation.

Despite the good features of the scheme, The Prankster welcomes the suspension of keeper details until an independent arbitration body is available. Mr Mustard's experience of council tickets shows that sadly councils cannot be trusted to deal fairly with tickets and that they play the system to maximise fines.

Finally, The Prankster notes the DVLA have taken action because it seems the council were cadging data for 5-10 pence, instead of shelling out the £2.50 required for private parking requests.

In other similar situations where private parking companies are clearly bending the rules, such as at ports and airports where statutory regimes also apply, the DVLA continues to provide data as long as the company coughs up the £2.50.

In other situations where companies have stated at court they are charging for parking, but are not members of an associated trade organisation (currently the BPA Ltd or the IPC Ltd), the DVLA also provides data for £2.50, even though this contravenes the DVLA's own rules. Currently the DVLA provide data to ProServe at Ransome's Business Park, Ipswich even though they charge £250 for as little as a few minutes of parking, and there is no independent arbitration body which ProServe use.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

The Prankster is helping with a number of cases where Excel Parking are taking motorists to court. These are characterised by a complete lack of information from Excel - no letter before claim; rubbish particulars of claim; no details of the contract alleged to be broken; no dates of parking or other information required to defend the claim, and so on. In particular, no 'Notice to Keeper' documents are present.

Excel's 'Notice to Keeper' started off woefully short of meeting the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 requirements and at some point improved, but it is not known when. The Prankster would therefore like to hear from anyone who has sample 'Notice to Keeper' documents from the period 1 October 2012 to 1 January 2014.

If you have one, please get in touch at prankster@parking-prankster.com with the date of the notice so it can be added to the collection if required.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Cambridge judge fooled by ParkingEye lies

UK Parking Solution claim an unlikely amount of experience

DVLA perpetuate myth that they make a loss on providing keeper information to parking companies

Daily Mail expose ParkingEye lies

BPA Ltd lock horns with the Daily Mail

CP Plus trial new X-ray cameras

The Prankster visits Leigh Delamere

Excel Parking pay for failure to provide information

David Taylor suffers memory failure

ANPR Ltd chase wrong person for parking charge

ParkingEye dodgy practices exposed

Complaints to the Solicitors Regulation Authority about ParkingEye

ParkingEye spanked in court - judge sees through ParkingEye lies

ParkingEye issue £1 million worth of tickets when statute does not apply. DVLA turn a blind eye.

ParkingEye targets motorbike riders

Lidl charge customers for Lidl's own tardiness

Is ANPR always fit for purpose? ParkingEye bill one household around £10,000 of incorrect charges

British Airways Pension Trust force ParkingEye to cancel ticket

Wycombe District Council banned from DVLA access for private car parks

Help required - Historical Excel Notice to Keeper