Quantcast
Channel: Parking Prankster
Viewing all 1127 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Barnet Hospital install parking system designed to fail

August 20, 2014, 11:52 am
$
0
0
This newspaper report confirms that Barnet Hospital are to install a parking system from ParkingEye. Although The Prankster has not seen the actual contract, all other hospital contracts he has seen leave the hospital with the pay and display fees, while ParkingEye trouser the money from overstays and other charges.

As ParkingEye only get money from motorist errors, they have no incentive to design a fair system - this would only reduce their income. Instead, they install systems which are 'designed to fail', allowing them to coin in 'fines' from confused motorists. One such system was installed in Northumbria NHS. This system forced motorists to guess how long they had stayed for, and allowed invalid number plates to be keyed in. As ParkingEye's ANPR cameras detect vehicles on entry, they already know how long the vehicle has been parked for, and already know the valid number plates. There is therefore no reason to allow these errors. Mistakes by motorists allowed ParkingEye to rake in fines at the rate of £1 million a year at Northumbria NHS.

Eventually the volume of complaints caused by the system caused Northumbria NHS to give ParkingEye the boot.

At another hospital, confusing and misleading signs installed by ParkingEye are currently the subject of a DVLA investigation.

It is of course possible to install a system which is much fairer to motorists and easy to use. At Bristol Eye Hospital for instance, the ANPR system installed by Total Parking Solutions tells drivers exactly how much to pay, and does not allow wrong number plates to be entered. A freedom of information request revealed that the amount charged for overstays in a three month period was £0 - or around £250,000 less than ParkingEye were charging Northumbria NHS patients.

However, if ParkingEye were to install a fair system that told motorists how much to pay and did not allow incorrect number plate entries they would quickly go bankrupt because they would not make any revenue, if Bristol Eye Hospital is anything to go by.

Barnet Hospital will no doubt soon learn that installing a 'free' system from a parking company whose only way to make money is to penalise motorists is actually not free at all. The Prankster suggests they staff up their complaints department immediately, if experience at other hospitals is anything to go by.

If you get stung by the new system, the people to complain to are the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS). The contact details are currently bfcpals@nhs.net or 020 8216 4924. No doubt they will be opening a new parking complaints department  in the next few days.

You should of course also appeal to ParkingEye and if they refuse your appeal, appeal to POPLA. All ParkingEye charges at the hospital are invalid because they do not obey the British Parking Association Code of Practice, which they are contractually obliged to do with the hospital. The BPA peg charges at a genuine pre-estimate of loss, which was confirmed in a recent court case to be around £15-£20 (ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley*) and not the amounts ParkingEye charge. This is detailed in point 19.5 of the code of practice. All known appeals to POPLA on similar grounds since POPLA started have been upheld, and ParkingEye have given up bothering to defend cases.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

*Although ParkingEye won this case, the fact that their costs are an average of £15-£20 per ticket issued were not disputed. The case is currently being appealed and is expected to be heard early in 2015.

↧
Search

Large number of Parking Companies lying to POPLA following BPA Ltd Training

August 22, 2014, 3:45 pm
$
0
0
In early 2014 it was apparent that Parking companies were facing a crisis. Almost all cases at POPLA were lost when the issue of parking charges was raised. The one or two that were won were found to be inconsistent judgments made by inexperienced adjudicators before their training was complete.

The British Parking Association Ltd, therefore ran a number of training camps for operators. No independent monitors were allowed to attend, despite requests, and the DVLA also decided not to send representatives to ensure the sessions were run correctly.

Sadly, following those sessions a number of operators have been spotted trying to scam POPLA by putting in similarly worded fake accounts of their costs. It is not clear whether this is the result of instructions at the BPA Ltd training sessions, or whether the operators have all latched on to one company's anomalous POPLA results and decided to copy their cost document.

As a starting point, these new descriptions of 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' cannot possibly be genuine. if they were, they would have been calculated before the parking charges were set; in most cases this would be pre 1 October 2012. That is what the 'pre' means in pre-estimate. Instead, these calculations have been made after the signage was installed, and in many cases even after the parking event. The operators have sent in large numbers of different explanations of their charges, until they finally hit on a formula that has produced a few strange decisions by the more inexperienced POPLA operators.

It is no credit to POPLA that they have swallowed these lies and continually allowed parking operators to change their tune. If their current explanations are 'true' then the previous 15 or so variations must by definition be false. No action by POPLA or the BPA Ltd has to this point been taken against operators trying to defraud motorists by producing false information to POPLA.

The particular formula currently in vogue by operators is to expand their appeal and POPLA costs until they total the amount of the parking charge.




This is flawed approach for the following reasons.

1) The initial cost is incorrect
If it costs around £5 to issue a charge and £95 to process an appeal, then the correct charging structure is an initial charge of £5, increasing to £100 if not paid before an appeal.

If the charge is £60 increasing to £100, then the motorist is correct at the time of appeal in stating that the £60 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

2) Parking Companies can artificially inflate time needed
If they wanted to, Parking companies could justify any charge by instructing their minions to spend an artificial time on appeals, or by using artificially highly paid employees to process the appeal. The Prankster has visited a number of parking companies and it seems a genuine time needed to process a POPLA appeal by an efficient company is around an hour. Pretty much all appeal reasons will have been seen by now by a parking company, so it is just a matter of getting the right template paragraphs, pulling in the signage and other relevant information, and sticking it together in the right order. This does not take a highly paid employees in any of the organisations the prankster visited.

3) The amounts are not in proportion
Only around 1% of cases are appealed to POPLA. Therefore to be accurate the costs must be adjusted proportionately. If a company state a POPLA appeal costs £66, then the true average cost is 66p.

4) The amounts are not accurate. 
Parking companies claim huge costs which are simply not believable. For instance, Excel v Cutts establishes that Excel issue about 4,000 tickets a year at the Peel Centre, generating £240,000 to £400,000 a year in charges. One percent of this is 40 tickets. 40 tickets appealed to POPLA a year can easily be dealt with by one part-time appeal handler. If they took an hour per appeal, they could knock them all out in a week. Even an outrageous 3 hours per appeal will leave them with 49 weeks of the year off. Total cost? Something around £400-£2,400, depending on wage levels.

Luckily the more experienced POPLA assessors are cottoning onto this scam. However, it is clear that appealing to POPLA now is not just a matter of stating 'the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' Instead, once you get the appeal pack it is now necessary to send a rebuttal in case you are unlucky enough to get one of the weaker assessors who are not up to speed on the parking company scams.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Have you received a costs document from a parking company falsely claiming that over 50% of their costs are due to appeal handling? If so, please email a copy to The Prankster at prankster@parking-prankster.com





↧
↧

An Expensive Shopping Trip. Motorist ordered to pay almost £500 by judge

August 23, 2014, 1:08 am
$
0
0
The Parking Prankster received a court report from an interested observer this week. The observer had gone to watch 3 ParkingEye cases at Bristol crown court.

The first case was A0JD8464, ParkingEye v Walsh. DDJ Orme was presiding. ParkingEye were represented by a solicitor from LPC Law. Mr/Mrs Walsh did not turn up.

In their absence the judge read the defence, which stated that they had visited the car park twice rather than once. The DDJ then gave judgment for claimant of £100 plus court fee of £15 plus hearing fee of £25 plus solicitor filing fee of £50.

The LPC Law lady asked for her own costs of £250, stating that the defendant had behaved unreasonably in not turning up. The judge agreed, and added £250 + VAT (£300) to the bill. Total cost to the Defendant was £490.

The DDJ remarked "that was a very expensive shopping trip"

The defendants in the other two cases failed to turn up as well, and presumably got similar judgments against them.

This illustrates an important principle; you must respect the court process. If you do not, the costs against you may escalate. Had the defendant turned up, they would most likely have won their case. ParkingEye cameras are notoriously unreliable, so all the defendant would have needed to do would be to truthfully take the judge through the events of the day, explaining that they visited twice. The judge would have been able to determine they were telling the truth, and would have dismissed the claim. This has happened in several other cases.

Judges are not omniscient. They will in general be unaware that the technology behind ANPR cameras is unreliable, and that large numbers of errors occur every day. The Prankster website contains a large amount of information on this subject which you can use as evidence in your defence, and The Prankster guides contain information on how to explain this to judges. The Prankster has seen the documents ParkingEye present to the court on ANPR. They will attempt to mislead and deceive the judge by presenting irrelevant information not related to the issue in hand, so any defendant will need to be well informed to present their case.

Even if the judge had ruled for ParkingEye, the amount would have been limited to £190. As the solicitor filing fee is not actually incurred by ParkingEye, and was not awarded to them in ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley, a case ParkingEye now always quote, then the judge may have followed HHJ Moloney's lead and refused to award the £50, taking the amount to £140. The fact that HHJ Moloney did not award the £50 filing fee was not disputed by ParkingEye's solicitor, Mr Altaras, who attended the judgment hearing.

The moral of the story is; if you intend to defend the case, turn up to the hearing. If not, pay up at least two weeks before the hearing is due. If you intend paying up, it is always worth negotiating with ParkingEye as they will usually settle for £50. You should also always write to the landowner because they may also be able to force ParkingEye to either drop the claim or settle for £50. ParkingEye attend around 5-10 court hearings a day, and so will lose around £1k - £3k a day in fees to LPC Law - as long as the defendants turn up. They therefore have every incentive to settle so that they do not make a loss. This means ParkingEye are shelling out something like £250,000 to £750,000 a year to LPC Law which they will not get back if the defendant behaves reasonably. In 2013 their profit was £1,020,000 - and at that time they were not using LPC Law. Their strategy of going to court would have therefore wiped out almost all their profits  in 2013 had it been in place then.

This is a sad story. There is no reason to doubt that the motorist visited twice. If this was the case, then ParkingEye have scammed them out of almost £500, but this was their own fault for not turning up to defend the claim - an expensive lesson indeed!

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

AS Parking caught issuing charges under the wrong regime. ParkingEye under DVLA investigation

August 23, 2014, 2:43 am
$
0
0
This post on pepipoo details how AS Parking have been caught issuing private parking tickets on land which has apparently been designated under statute. Wycombe District Council have been suspended by the DVLA for a similar offence, so if the DVLA are consistent it can only be a matter of time before AS Parking are suspended as well.

The poster describes how the parking attendant hid in his car while large numbers of motorists parked on the grass. Once they had left, an orgy of ticketing ensued. When returning motorists complained, the attendant phoned the boss of AS Parking, Kevin Macmanus an ex night-club bouncer. It was reported the attendant was told to continue ticketing or lose his job.

It is lucky AS Parking belong to the BPA Ltd and not the IPC as predatory practices are outlawed by the IPC Code of Practice.
14. Predatory Tactics
14.1 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the Code.

The BPA Ltd does not outlaw predatory practices in its Code of Practice.

The courts however, side with the IPC. They have ruled that attendants must mitigate loss, and that if they are in a position to prevent a breach of contract, they must do so. Hiding in a car and ticketing later would not be allowed by the courts. Judge McIlwaine explained it this way in VCS v Ibbotsen
JUDGE McILWAINE: Will you please correct me if I am wrong? I believe that there is a concept of mitigation of loss. Is that not the case?
MISS COATES: It is, sir.
JUDGE McILWAINE: Whose duty is it to mitigate the loss?
MISS COATES: The claimant's.
JUDGE McILWAINE: Thank you, and so if on the evidence of Mr Ibbotson, which has not been challenged, the parking attendant was there and saw Mr Ibbotson walking away, whilst it may not be his responsibility to stop him walking away, as he is a lawful authorised member of the company at the time he is there and there is a duty to mitigate the loss, can you explain to me why he did not say to Mr Ibbotson, "You can walk off, not a problem, 80 quid"? 
The car park in question is on the Trewetha Road and is owned by the Endellion Parish Council. They have apparently designated this as subject to an off street parking order under the road traffic act 1984. This would then make it statutory land, and keeper liability would therefore not apply using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.



There are some doubts in The Prankster's mind. Firstly, the off street order refers to 'The Main Car Park', Port Isaac. The Prankster is unsure which the main car park in Port Isaac is. Apparently there is another council car park just down the road. The Prankster would appreciate anyone with local knowledge getting in touch to clear this up.



Secondly, it is not clear whether the Parish Council have the authority to make this order. One poster, matt285, on pepipoo has indicated they can, but may have messed up.

(hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act 1984’)
This quote alone shows to me that we're dealing with amateurs here. No statutory reference I have EVER seen is phrased like this. It always says "the 1984 Act" rather than "the Act 1984".
Further, there is no Act currently in existence which is called "Road Traffic Act 1984". The closest I found is the "Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984".
I am mildly surprised that a Parish Council can issue Road Traffic Orders in the first place, but looking at s.59 of that latter Act I believe they may be able to do so.
But - is an Order which claims to be based on a non-existant Act a valid Order? I believe not.
So I think this land is not under statutory control because this Order is not valid. Apart from that it also fails to omit who this mysterious Enforcement Agency is who can enforce those penalties. This is all a big piece of bollox that was put together by some amateur parish councillors trying to be clever.
So - this may be relevant land under POFA after all.
Probably the best solution would be for any motorist issued a ticket on this land to complain to the DVLA including a copy of the order.

The Prankster also notes that the order allows cars to park outside marked bays as long as they are not causing an obstruction. Cars tidily parked on the grass are therefore not contravening the conditions. If your car was not parked causing an obstruction then you should also complain to the DVLA that there were no grounds to issue the ticket as the conditions were not breached.


The Prankster also notes that although the council do not want cars parked on the grass, they have failed to put the planned barriers in place to enforce this, allowing AS Parking to rake in £5k in tickets a day according to some calculations.


The DVLA's stance on the matter is that they will not issue keeper data to companies pursuing claims under POFA 2012 when this Act does not apply. Robert Toft, Head of Data Sharing Policy Group, makes this clear in a letter dated 21 August explaining that ParkingEye are under investigation for issuing tickets at Southampton Quay.


Although ParkingEye continue to issue tickets at Southampton Quay, they are putting tickets on hold if motorists appeal. It is not clear whether the DVLA will force ParkingEye to refund paid tickets once their investigation is over.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

The Prankster thanks the people who did all the research legwork for this blog post.

.





↧

Parking Quiz - unclear signage

August 28, 2014, 12:24 am
$
0
0
Martin Cutts, a research director at the Plain Language Commission, has devised a parking quiz to test understanding of the signage at Queen's Hospital Burton.

At this hospital ParkingEye run the car parks and only make money if transgressions occur. It is therefore in their interest to devise complicated and unintelligible signage to maximise the amount of confusion caused to motorists, and therefore maximise their income. It seems they have succeeded, as can be measured by the large number of complaints fielded by the hospital. Motorist have to guess how long they stayed and are penalised if they get this or their registration wrong. ParkingEye already know both these facts, and can easily fix this; however, then they would get no income.

ParkingEye get the money from overstays, while the hospital get the regular pay and display income. Ironically the hospital parking income has also increased. It is not clear whether this is due to drivers overpaying because they are scared of getting penalised, or whether this is due to increased compliance, or both.

At the end of the article the quiz asks you to work out various car park charges. The Prankster would like to point out that any reasoned answer you give is correct. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 points out that if a contract is forced on a consumer and contains ambiguous wording, then the contract must be interpreted to the benefit of the consumer. Simply put - if you thought it meant something, then it did! This is despite what ParkingEye or the hospital thought the signage meant.

The hospital parking regime is currently being run in defiance of government guidelines. This makes it clear:
 They will have to act against rogue contractors and not sign contracts ‘on any basis that incentivises fines’.
Helen Ashley is currently the Chief Executive of the hospital, so the buck stops with her. So far she has resisted multiple attempts to change the scheme to one fair the the hospital, patients and operator, and has only made cosmetic changes.

Happy Parking

The Parking
↧
↧

Gordon and Noble impersonate Sheriff's Officers

August 30, 2014, 9:05 am
$
0
0
Gordon and Noble are a firm of debt collectors based in Scotland. They are also Sherrif's Officers, which is the equivalent of bailiff in England.

What they are not allowed to do, however, is mix the two up, and say they are acting as Sherrif's Officers or bailiffs while they are merely debt collecting.

This series of transcripts shows they are flagrantly misinforming people while acting as debt collectors.


Message 1

This is a message for XXX. My name is XXX from Gordon & Noble Sheriff’s officers based in Glasgow. It is quite important you give me a call back as soon as you can please on XXXXX. There is a reference number XXXX

Message 2 
 I don’t know if there’s something wrong with your phone somehow I keep getting cut off. This is a message for XXX. My name is XXX I phoning from Gordon & Noble Sheriff’s Officers based in Glasgow. It’s quite simple we’ve got a parking problem that you’ve got and I need it resolved as soon as possible or we will take legal action. If we take legal action it will just add additional cost to a bill that is obviously difficult as it is. The reference XXXX. It is important you call me back as soon as you can on XXXX. Either cutting me off or hanging up the phone on me is not going to make this go away. A proper conversation in a courteous manner will reconcile the problem. Failing that, we will sue.

Message 3
This is an urgent message for XXXX. My name is XXXX I’m from a company called Gordon & Noble it’s a Sheriffs officer business. The reference number for the case is XXX. It is important you contact us cause this is not going to go away. The next process is to process a writ for court. The phone number is XXXX. If you speak to me we can prevent that from happening. My name is XXX

Message 4
This is an urgent message for XXX. My name is XXX, I’m calling you from a company called Gordon & Noble they’re Sheriff’s Officers based in Glasgow. It’s important somebody contacts me immediately on XXXX. I called a couple of times yesterday and it appeared the phone was getting hung up. I don’t understand this discourtesy at all. So you call me as a matter of urgency on XXXX to try to resolve a serious problem

Message 5
I don’t know if you’re hanging up or whether there’s something wrong with your phone but this is pretty serious. You should even have the courtesy to find out what it’s about. This is a message for XXX. I’m calling from a Sheriff’s officers business based in Glasgow. You know what a Sheriff’s officer is? There is a legal case paper reference XXX. My name is XXX, my phone number is XXX. I’m trying to resolve a problem that you have without taking legal action but it’s no going to go away. Putting the phone down, how discourteous, it’s silly quite frankly, Now I’m here till after 12 o’clock and I strongly suggest you call me and try and sort this out in a reasonable manner cause its certainly not going to go away

Message 6
This is a serious message for XXX. I’ve phoned you half a dozen times and all you ever keep doing is hanging the phone up. I find that ludicrous based upon the fact that (pause) you know (pause) being serious, what do you think happens next? We’ve been asked to contact you in regards to a serious matter that’s not going to go away and we’d really prefer to speak to you and reconcile over the telephone but failing that quite simply we’ll have other recourse to other processes that will only gonna add outstanding money to an already outstanding position. So you know with the greatest of respect putting the phone down, no speaking, no replying, no replying to messages I find that really quite silly on your part. We are trying to help you to reconcile the problem. Failing that..….really ….. I’m quite sure you’re aware what happens next. So if you want to try and call before close of business today. Failing that don’t bother calling….we’ll be in touch. It’s (Phone number) Glasgow. My name is XXX

Message 7
I’m phoning to see when the time will suit you for Sheriff’s officers to come out and see you. My number is XXX. You call me when you have a suitable time and place, thanks

Message 8
 This is a message for XXXX. This is XXX from Gordon & Noble Sheriff’s officers. Why don’t you give us a call please to let us know when you can accept service of a summons erm regarding this eh problem we have? (phone number) as soon as you can please cause I don’t want to send someone out when you’re not in.

Quite simply, the person is pretending to be acting with the authority of a Sherrif's officer while actually acting as a debt collector. As a debt collector, they have no powers to take legal action for an alleged civil debt. That power would lie with the car parking company, UKPC, or the landowner, depending on the contract UKPC has with the landowner.

Sheriff's Officers would also have no interest in 'coming out to see' anyone unless the debt was already proven through the court system, and the threat that a summons has already been issued which now needs to be served is also baffling.

The Prankster therefore advises the following.

As the keeper lives in Scotland, they should robustly remind Gordon & Noble that there is no keeper liability in Scotland.

First Floor
133 Finnieston Street
GLASGOW
G3 8HB

Dear Gordon & Noble,

I am writing to you as registered keeper of the vehicle. The debt is denied; please refer back to the principal, reminding them that the keeper cannot be held liable for private parking charges in Scotland.

They should also contact the Gordon & Noble board. The Prankster suggests writing to the company secretary, Mrs Lorraine Gordon.

Dear Mrs Gordon,

I enclose the following transcripts which show that one of your employees is impersonating a sherrif's officer while actually acting as a debt collector. I assume you will treat this matter as seriously as I have, and will arrange for corrective action. If I am not satisfied with your reply I will report you to the CSA for breaches of the code of practice (y, aa) .

To report to the Credit Services Association, use the forms at http://www.csa-uk.com/#contact

The keeper should also report UKPC to the British Parking Association at aos@britishparking.co.uk

Dear BPA,

Please investigate UKPC for breaches of the Code of Practice. They are using a debt collection agency which is contacting me impersonating a sherrif's officer. I enclose transcripts of various calls made.

It would also be worth registering the information with the police to see if any offences have been caused.

Finally, the Sherrif's Court may well also be interested, and if this is regular occurrence will no doubt be re-evaluating Gordon and Noble's suitability to remain Sherrif's Officers.

Sheriff Clerk's Office,
PO Box 23,
1 Carlton Place,
Glasgow,
G5 9DA

To the Sheriff Clerk.

I enclose transcripts showing that Gordon and Noble employees are impersonating Sheriff's Officers while engaged in debt collecting. Please investigate as appropriate.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


↧

Normal Service Will be Resumed

September 2, 2014, 2:38 am
$
0
0
The Prankster is away for a while helping to improve animal accommodation at the Ham and Miao shelter. (Ham is equivalent to 'woof' and has nothing to do with pigs!)

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Romanian-Rescue-Dogs-Support-Scotland/1380540758884810

Internet access may be slow and flaky so emails may take a while to respond to - normal service will be resumed as soon as possible!

Donations for building materials will no doubt be gratefully received by the organisation (paypal Romaniandogsscotland@outlook.com) although The Prankster has no great talent for building, having once unwittingly created a fountain in his living room,and will probably be consigned to the more menial tasks.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Picture of the Week - opportunity for entrepreneur

September 2, 2014, 4:09 am
$
0
0
Parking spaces are at a premium at Chorley Towers, headquarters of notorious firm ParkingEye as well as other companies. Cars are all over the place, on the pavements, in disabled bays without blue badges and double parked. The landowners have missed a trick by failing to employ ParkingEye to clean up the mess.



No doubt a budding entrepreneur can cash in on the situation. They could probably make a few grand a week just from issuing tickets to cars parked in disabled bays. The Prankster is of the opinion that blue badges are not valid on private land and that the Equalities Act 2010 also applies to people without blue badges. However, POPLA does not seem to agree with him so a few well-placed signs stating only blue badge drivers can park in disabled bays should start the ball rolling.

Interested opportunists should contact pinkus.co.uk to place their bids.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧
Search

ParkingEye make over £1.5 million a year from patient misery at Burton Hospitals

September 3, 2014, 1:44 pm
$
0
0
A FoI request has revealed that ParkingEye are invoicing Burton Hospitals at a rate of over £25,000 a month. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. The FoI request also states this is a VAT only invoice, which means that ParkingEye are issuing invoices to motorists at the rate of over £125,000 a month or £1.5 million a year. As the FoI only states the invoices are over £25,000 a month the true figure could be even higher.

The government has stated it does not want hospitals to use Parking operators who provide their services for 'free' and this hospital shows why. Vulnerable motorists are being gouged at an alarming rate.

Burton hospital signage has been described as especially confusing. These figures show why. It is of course an advantage for ParkingEye to confuse motorists because this means they can issue more parking charges. It is perfectly possible to run a hospital car park without confusing motorists but this would generate little or no revenue for ParkingEye. Bristol Eye Hospital is a perfect example of this where an FoI request showed no tickets were issued for overstays in a three month period. ParkingEye would go bankrupt if were constrained to operate in a fair manner as exemplified by this hospital.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧
↧

Burton Hospital FoI cock-up. They want to make it clear ParkingEye is gouging patients at £420,000 a year

September 5, 2014, 6:58 am
$
0
0
This rather panicky email went out from Burton Hospital, probably as a result of the Prankster's previous blog and the resulting media attention.

Further to our response to your FoI request regarding a list of suppliers whose total invoices totalled more than £25,000 in any one month of 2014, it has come to our attention that we released the wrong information in our response.  After reviewing all the information, we can now confirm that our parking contractor's invoices amount to less than £7,000 a month.   We apologise for the error and any inconvenience caused.
The revised figures pan out as follows

£7,000 a month leads to the motorist being gouged for £35,000 a month, or £420,000 a year.

This of course is still a sizable chunk of money, and does not change any of the underlying premises. Had the Prankster stated that initially that motorists were being gouged for £420,000 a year, the problem would still remain. The Prankster is therefore happy to repeat the concerns:

The government has stated it does not want hospitals to use Parking operators who provide their services for 'free' and this hospital shows why. Vulnerable motorists are being gouged at an alarming rate.
Burton hospital signage has been described as especially confusing. These figures show why. It is of course an advantage for ParkingEye to confuse motorists because this means they can issue more parking charges. It is perfectly possible to run a hospital car park without confusing motorists but this would generate little or no revenue for ParkingEye. Bristol Eye Hospital is a perfect example of this where an FoI request showed no tickets were issued for overstays in a three month period. ParkingEye would go bankrupt if were constrained to operate in a fair manner as exemplified by this hospital.
Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧

More Hospital woes. John Simpson from University Hospital of North Staffordshire insults disabled patients

September 5, 2014, 9:25 am
$
0
0
The Parking Prankster has seen this report from the Stoke Sentinel.

One criteria for qualifying Blue Badge is that walking more than 50 yards causes pain. The disabled parking bays at University Hospital of North Staffordshire are indeed less than 50 yards from the hospital entrance...but there are no ticket machines near the disabled bays. Motorists are then faced with a walk of over 100 yards to get a ticket and return to the car. One motorist reports so many machines are out of action he often has to walk half a mile. This obviously cases great problems for disabled drivers.

When asked to comment on the problem Director of Corporate Services, John Simpson made this fatuous remark;
We now allow blue-badge holders to park for an extra 30 minutes free of charge to allow for increased journey times to and from hospital buildings and there are an additional 23 disabled car parking spaces.
We have to balance the needs of patients, visitors and staff – and 20 per cent of our public spaces are dedicated to blue-badge holders.
A particular blight in this country is the increasing numbers of bureaucrats and politicians who think they can get away with pre-canned remarks which have nothing to do with the question asked or problem posed. Allowing Blue-badge holders extra time does nothing to alleviate the problem. Nor does allocating more spaces. The problem is (stated in words as short as possible for John Simpson's benefit); the hospital is making disabled drivers walk too far. (Sorry about 'hospital' and 'disabled' John; I couldn't find suitable shorter words). The Prankster regards John Simpson's remarks as an insult to the intelligence of his customers; the patients.

If John Simpson is worthy of his job (The Prankster does not want to judge him on one ill-considered remark) then he will doubtless do something about the actual problem rather than spouting meaningless hot air.

The Prankster suggests one or more of the following:

1) Suspend all charges on disabled motorists until the problem is solved
2) Or, actually comply with the new government guidelines and provide free parking for disabled motorists
3) Supply new pay machines sited at the disabled bay
4) Or move the existing pay machines to the disabled bay
5) Provide park-by-phone and/or park-by-app at no extra cost so that disabled motorists with phones/smartphones can pay without leaving the car. Put the signage at the disabled bays at a low height.
6) Provide pay-by-pc at no extra cost so that disabled motorists with computers and internet access can pre/post-register and pay at home either before or after parking. Put the signage at the disabled bays at a low height.

However, the Prankster notes the whole scheme seems to be pay-and-display which is wholly inappropriate for hospitals anyway.

So...

7) Scrap pay and display and move to a pay on exit model.

As it seems STAND are gearing up to sue the hospital, John Simpson could save a great deal of money by implementing one or more of these steps.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


↧

Napier Parking issue ticket for 12 second stay. James De Savary and Mr Nicholas De Savary must take action

September 6, 2014, 8:16 am
$
0
0
This post on Pepipoo details how a motorist got a ticket even though they decided not to use the car park.

The motorist needed to shop quickly for one item, so on arriving at Jengers Mead Car Park, Billingshurst, he immediately checked the signs for the terms and conditions. The car park was operated by Napier Parking. This was his first visit as he was unfamiliar to the area. He decided the car park was too expensive for a short stay so returned to his car to find that a ticket was already being issued.

He explained to the attendant that he had decided not to park there but the attendant said the ticket was already issued and walked off.

The driver's own watch read 15:08 on entry to the car park - he checked it because he was worried he was late for an appointment. The ticket was issued at 15:09:19 and the attendant first observed the car 15:09:07 - a stay of 13 seconds.

This is clearly against the BPA Ltd code of practice.
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still
allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
The Prankster therefore suggests the motorist contacts the BPA and his MP to complain, as well as appealing to Napier once he gets his Notice to Keeper. The BPA can be contacted on aos@britishparking.co.uk.

Jengers Mead Car Park, Billingshurst is owned by owned by Jengers Mead Car Parking LLP, which is owned by Mr James Nicholas John De Savary and Mr Nicholas Charles De Savary. The owners of Napier Parking are also Mr James De Savary and Mr Nicholas De Savary.

The Prankster has no idea who these two gentlemen are, but if their idea of running a legitimate car parking operation is to allow a grace period of 18 seconds then they are obviously disreputable shysters up to no good. It seems they have form for allowing their parking attendants to ignore the BPA code of practice. In August 2013 one ticket was issued after 9 seconds and the driver was banned from further use of the car park after disputing the ticket. Another driver thought the attendant must have been hiding behind a hedge. A disabled driver was issued a ticket having left the car for 3 minutes - not enough time to buy a ticket and return.

This local shopkeeper is well aware of the car park's reputation.

Mr James De Savary and Mr Nicholas De Savary will therefore be well aware of the predatory practices of their attendants - or if they are not, should be. The Prankster therefore eagerly awaits the news that the attendant and all people involved in issuing these tickets and deciding appeals will be disciplined.

If not, then the Prankster questions whether they are fit and proper people to own and run a car parking company. We could for instance, compare them to the likes of David Taylor, who used to own ParkingEye, Simon Renshaw-Smith of Excel Parking or Kevin MacManus of AS Parking.

Oh wait...it looks like they have all the right qualifications after all.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster






↧

The Grace Period is not a Free Parking Period

September 7, 2014, 8:32 am
$
0
0
Following yesterday's blog post The Prankster has had an interesting email from Mr James de Savary, which he prints below as a right of reply. The Prankster will always allow parking companies the right of reply if they wish to take him up on this - simply email to prankster@parking-prankster.com.

In a nutshell, Mr Savary has pointed out, and The Prankster agrees, that the grace period is not a free parking period. It has a specific purpose which is to allow the motorist to park, acquaint themselves with the conditions of parking, and then choose to stay or leave. It is not a five minute free for all where a motorist can nip off to buy something, post a letter, or in general leave the car park to do anything else.

A motorist can choose to risk doing this, but then they also run the risk of getting a ticket.

The BPA code of practice states
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still
allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
The particular car park is used by many extremely short-stay visitors and so would suffer a significant loss of revenue if all motorists who wanted to nip into the shop for a few minutes decided not to pay the 40p charge. The attendant, who is uniformed, is therefore instructed to issue tickets to all motorists who leave without paying, and is also instructed to check all pay machines first and to make a detailed witness statement regarding the event.

The Prankster considers this to be reasonable behaviour.

Obviously in this particular case the accounts of motorist and attendant differ considerably. The Prankster advises whichever party is 'doing a Huhne' to reconsider and come clean.

Mr De Savary's email is reproduced below.

---

Further to your recent blog regarding the Parking Charge Notice issued in ’12 seconds’ that we issued, I just thought I would drop you a note to give you a little back ground to the car park and my involvement in parking. I want to make it clear that I am not against what you do and in fact I believe that ‘online publicity’ such as yours can help to improve the industry. The objective of this email is to introduce myself, give you some information on Jengers Mead and how we operate the car park. You can then draw your own conclusions and of course send me any of your comments should you wish!

I am not soft to negative publicity so this is not a pleading email, you will draw your own conclusions. I just want to bring some facts to light about Napier and how I run the organisation.

I first became involved in the parking industry after possessing a car park with a property that I owned. That car park was free and I was the unpopular individual who introduced charges! I was not happy with the service that I received from an operator at the time and decided that if we ran the operation ‘in house’ we could have greater control. So Napier was established. Since 2006 we have grown quite substantially and the main focus of my business is to purchase land in order to run a commercial public car parks.

Jengers Mead Car Park is a property that we have owned since 2007 (or thereabouts). The car park has about 20 or so ‘on street’ type spaces and a larger car park to the rear of the shops, there are various access roads that we also own.

The car park used to be free and then we introduced charges, which as I am sure you are aware is generally not popular. The car park is critical to the village and we have always recognised this and have tried to keep the charges as reasonable as possible.

We charge;
Up to 20 minutes – 40p.
Up to 1 hour – 80p.
Up to 2 hours - £1.20.
And so on up to about £3 a day.
Permits £120 a year.

I personally feel this is not excessive.

There are 3 pay stations prominently placed evenly through the car park. There are signs approximately every 3 spaces in the ‘on street’ type areas. It is a well signed location.

We have engaged with the local community partnership and I have also invested in refund vouchers for the shops and made funds available to do a ‘refund scheme’ where shoppers can get deals for example in local shops. The idea to encourage people to pay and to reduce the impact of the charges. Some have been willing to engage but for many the parking is not an issue, despite what you read online.

We get quite a bit of negative feedback because a large number of visitors are only visiting for a short period of time. Perhaps only a few minutes, say to buy a sandwich or post a parcel. And we do insist that people pay and display even for these short visits. However a number do not (not many), I think they think, oh I will only be a few minutes they wont catch me or I am not paying if I am going to be less than 5 minutes. My view is that our product is parking and we charge for this. We therefore issue a few tickets to people in relatively quick time.

However I want to be perfectly clear that if someone is reading the signs and decides to leave or is in the process of buying a ticket, we will not issue them with a Notice. We will if someone parks and then goes about their business (out of the car park). We do therefore fully comply with the BPA grace period element, and we have had this raised before both with POPLA and the BPA and the BPA have always been satisfied with position when a complaint occasionally arises. The attendant is uniformed and does not ‘hide’ he is not incentivised and to be honest I would love it if everyone paid and displayed and then I could move him elsewhere! However people don’t, they begrudge our charges and risk it. Many returning directly to their car with goods purchased and the excuse, oh I just went for change, getting in their car and driving off. Clearly trying to deprive us of the small parking fee that we are entitled to.

Every Notice issued is quality checked and if there was any underhand behaviour we would know about it. I am sure the odd mistake happens but rarely and if we are aware of a mistake the Notice is cancelled.

The parking attendant also makes a witness statement for each ticket issued so we know where the driver went, how long they were and any interaction with our attendants. This helps us greatly with appeals.

There are some who would say that we should give 5 minutes. However as the majority of users are only making a short visit this would cost us hugely.

Before we chose a pay and display system for this location we looked at a barrier solution, however that doesn’t work, there are too many rights of access and adjoining properties, deliveries etc… So not only are their operational constrains there are also legal issues.

We have had the likes of Parking Eye attempting to get their hands on it, they would have a field day given the number of people who get away with not paying. However I have opted for a chap on the ground from time to time. A softer approach perhaps. Please I am not keen on the ANPR systems at the moment.

In respect of the incident that you reported, I have tried to match it with our records and I believe given the timings that I have. The gentleman was looking to make a quick stop in order to get something for his eyes. I believe the Chemist or relevant shop is just on the ‘High Street’ he was only going to be a couple of minutes as posted on the forum.

Our attendant saw the man park walk past the pay station and out of the car park, he was not reading the signs or deciding to stay or go. He went about his business. He then returned directly to his car at 1512hrs got in his car and left at 1513hrs. He was gone a couple of minutes and it is highly probable that he completed his business as he intended. How he has stated it on the forum is not factually correct and he is simply trying to get an angle together in order to escape paying. After all I bet he paid for the eye ointment that he purchased. Before issuing the ticket the attendant checks to ensure there is no voucher or permit displayed he then checks the pay stations, signs etc… to ensure that someone is not purchasing a ticket. In this case there was no ticket displayed and the attendant had observed the driver leave the car park.

The 12 second parking period is only detailed on the ticket for the purposes of satisfying the Protection of Freedoms Act. It is as you are aware necessary for all Notice to Drivers to refer to a parking period, the Act does not specify the min or max. So it is just to tick that box in case a Judge scrutinises the relevant section. In reality the driver was probably parked for around 4-5 minutes and made no effort to read signs or pay, he simply left the car park on his own business and we issued him with a ticket correctly. I doubt anyone can agree that he found the 40p charge too much and decided to leave?

I have not set the business up to make a quick buck. We have made serious investments in the industry and want to do things the ‘right way’ in many areas we have created a car park where none existed and invested in derelict sites for the benefit of local areas. We park many thousands of cars and have lots of happy customers who find our facilities well run and good value. I am not out to have our operatives issue loads of Parking Charge Notices, if I was I would install ANPR and cameras at all our sites and have a healthy income from that. However we will issue them and enforce them if necessary.

I do find it discourteous when people park on our land, land that in some cases we have invested millions in and think they can get away without paying. Motorists should take a moment when parking to just look around and make sure they park correctly, especially if they are new to an area.

For your info we have had 36 POPLA appeals decided to date for Jengers Mead Car Park. Of those 33 were rejected (in our favour) and 3 were accepted. So we must be getting something right…?

I hope you have found this email of some interest and am always happy to engage on the topic of parking.

Yours sincerely

James de Savary
Managing Director
Napier Parking Ltd
www.napierparking.co.uk


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧
↧

Picture of the week - Last chance saloon

September 7, 2014, 10:50 pm
$
0
0

Expedion are the new debt collectors used by ANPR Ltd.

From their web site it appears that they pre-judge all cases, and regardless of any 'evidence before us' already decide that the motorist's chances are slim. Expedion certainly appear to take on any case, however slim their own chances; The Prankster has previously reported how they are pursuing a motorist over a parking charge issued to a black car when the motorist's car was orange.

Expedion is run by director Patrick Crossley who also works for ANPR Ltd.

The company secretary is Peter Howarth.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster



↧

Have Civil Enforcement Limited made a bad DEAL?

September 9, 2014, 10:49 am
$
0
0
The Prankster has been helping several motorists who have been issued court papers by Civil Enforcement Limited for parking events on Co-op land. The claims follow a standard template and are all for £130.


The interesting thing about this is that in each case Civil Enforcement Limited previously wrote to the defendant stating that of the £130 owed, £113.75 had been assigned to another company, DEAL Ltd, and that they would therefore 'no longer be involved in this part of the debt'.


The remaining £16.25 is retained in case it 'may fall due to The co-operative'. However, according to on-line reports, CEL have been terminated by the Co-op and have retaliated by taking action against large numbers of motorists with historic tickets. The Co-op have been paying these tickets off on behalf of motorists. It seems unlikely that the Co-op would inform CEL that the £16.25 is due knowing that they would then pay £130 back to CEL.

It seems therefore that these claims are on very shaky ground. So shaky, in fact, that CEL never appear to turn up in court to try and justify them.

Tomorrow, the 10 September, Civil Enforcement Ltd have no fewer than 5 scheduled hearings, at Bedford, Bromley, Canterbury and two at Nottingham. As CEL are essentially a one-man band it seems unlikely they will turn up at all of them, if indeed they turn up at any of them.

The Prankster therefore advises any motorists tomorrow to ask for their full costs if CEL do not turn up. The court can allow this in the case of unreasonable behaviour; pursuing a charge with no merit through the court, then failing to turn up, and having no possible prospect of turning up unless you clone yourself 4 times is certainly capable of being held to be unreasonable by the judge.

Take along a schedule of costs showing the time spent preparing for the case, billed at your usual hourly rate, any expenses, travel at 45p a mile and lost wages as a result of the hearing.

If CEL do bother to turn up, then as well as the above shenanigans you should point out that as CEL are claiming against the keeper of the vehicle then the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 sch 4 limits the amount claimable from the keeper to the amount on the parking ticket, which is £100 not £130.

You should also point out that as CEL seem to have no idea whether the amount is a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass, then perhaps they should refrain from issuing claims until they exactly what it is they are claiming for.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster





↧
Search

Should POPLA be run by London Councils?

September 9, 2014, 12:43 pm
$
0
0
There has been an objection to the London Local Authority Accounts on the grounds that Local Authority money and resources are being used to fund a scheme for motorists country-wide.

The British Parking Association Ltd is a private company which amongst other things manages the independent motorists appeals service, POPLA, which is available to all motorists in England and Wales. POPLA is currently being run by London Councils on a 3 year stint due to expire in October 2015.

It appears that the right authorities were not put in place to allow London Authorities money and resources to fund POPLA and there is therefore an emergency meeting of London Councils this Thursday to vote on the matter.

The Prankster does not live in London and is ambivalent on the matter. On the one hand he recognises the great pressure Henry Greenslade must have been under to resist pressure from parking companies to pass though obviously fake cost calculations. On the other there is a huge conflict of interest with Nick Lester being both a director of the BPA Ltd and also overseeing POPLA. This is important because Nick Lester has an unfortunate habit of being biased towards the parking operators when any complaints are raised about POPLA, and gives fatuous and dismissive replies when complaints are raised.

If you live in London you should therefore give thought to whether you want your money to fund a service for motorists country-wide, and should communicate your wishes either to your council. Due to the short timescale, phone and email is reccomended. Three councils are not even a member of the BPA, so there is little reason for them to agree public money and resources being used to aid a private company they are not even associated with.

In any case, it is not remotely possible that London Councils will be re-awarded the contract when it expires. Parking companies are not happy so many decisions are going in favour of the motorist and so will take their chances with another organisation who may be more likely to favour them.





London Councils’ TEC Executive Sub Committee

TEC Agreement – POPLA Amendment
Item No:
04

Report by:
Nick Lester
Job title:
Corporate Director, Services
Date:
11 September 2014
Contact Officer:
Nick Lester
Telephone:
0207 934 9905
Email:
nick.lester@londoncouncils.gov.uk

Summary:
This report seeks the agreement of the TEC Executive to recommend to all councils that they each formally resolve to expressly delegate the exercise of section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 to the TEC joint committee for the sole purpose of providing an appeals service for parking on private land for the British Parking Association under contract, confirming for the avoidance of doubt that the existing arrangements are and have been delivered on that basis to-date, and that the TEC Governing Agreement be formally varied accordingly.  The service has been provided on a cost recovery basis by London Councils since October 2012 and it is proposed that it should continue in this way until the end of the contract period in October 2015. An express delegation of the exercise of section 1 for this purpose by individual councils, and the variation of the TEC Governing Agreement to reflect this, would remove any legal doubt as to TEC’s authority to deliver the service and allow London Councils’ auditors, PWC, to conclude an outstanding issue in relation to an objection to the accounts.
Recommendations:
Members are recommended to:
·         Recommend to all 33 London local authorities that they: formally confirm that the functions delegated to TEC to enter into the arrangement with the British Parking Association were and continue to be delivered pursuant to section 1 of the Localism Act 2011; resolve to expressly delegate the exercise of section 1 of the 2011 Act to the TEC joint committee for the sole purpose of providing an appeals service for parking on private land for the British Parking Association under contract; and that the TEC Governing Agreement be varied to this end.  


Background
On 15th March 2012 TEC agreed that London Councils should provide an appeals service for parking on private land for the British Parking Association under contract. This was on the basis that this would complement the service provided by PATAS which deals with appeals made against parking enforcement on the highway.  It was considered at the time that providing the service on a cost-recovery basis would be in the public interest as: restrictions on parking within London on private land would have a direct impact upon London local authorities, their resources and residents; a significant proportion of the public affected and inclined to avail themselves of the POPLA service were likely to come from the Greater London area; and, having regard to those matters, as TEC was the only interested, qualified bidder.  On 14th June 2012, TEC received a report to say that the basis for providing such a service had been accepted by the BPA and agreed that a contract should be entered into to provide the service.

The service, known as POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) started on the 1stOctober 2012 and has since provided the appeals service to more than 25,000 motorists.   The service operates on a full cost recovery basis and at no cost to the London Council Tax payer.

An objection was raised on the London Councils consolidated accounts by an interested person (residing within London) that TEC did not have the legal power to provide the service. London Councils’ auditors, PWC, have, for some time, been investigating this and numerous other objections submitted by the same individual. 

PWC has informed London Councils of legal advice it has had from the Audit Commission on the Commission’s view on the power of London Councils to provide the POPLA service. In essence, the Audit Commission advice accepts that the London local authorities have the power under Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 to provide the service and that the exercise of these functions could be delegated to TEC. London Councils agrees with this conclusion.

The Audit Commission advice, however, questions whether the exercise of those functions has been properly delegated to TEC. The issue turns on whether the Committee could be said: to have existing delegated authority under the terms of the TEC Governing Agreement; alternatively whether it made or confirmed such a delegation by virtue of the decisions it made to provide the service in 2012; or whether each individual authority should have expressly resolved to delegate the exercise of section 1 of the 2011 Act to the joint committee for the purposes of TEC’s delivery of the POPLA service with the TEC Agreement being formally varied accordingly.

PWC has asked for London Councils’ view on this advice in advance of making a formal determination about the objection. London Councils and its legal advisors remain of the view that the service is currently being delivered by TEC on a lawful basis on behalf of all the participating authorities with their consent and proper authority under the existing terms of the TEC Governing Agreement, and confirmed by the Committee resolving to provide the service in 2012 with these matters having been raised with local authorities prior to those decisions being taken in the normal way in respect of TEC business.  However, it is accepted, that there is room for argument as to whether individual councils had to state expressly that they agreed that the arrangement with the BPA was pursuant to exercise by TEC of their powers under section 1 of the 2011. 

Next Steps

Taking active and expedient steps to expressly clarify the authority of TEC to deliver the POPLA service is intended to satisfy London Councils’ auditors and inform their determination in respect of the objection raised by the interested member of the public on the consolidated accounts for the 2012/13 year. Further, this would help PWC to sign off the TEC and the consolidated accounts for 2013/14 by the statutory deadline.

Accordingly, for the avoidance of doubt and to facilitate a conclusion to the issue with the Auditor PWC and the objector, it is recommended that all authorities be asked to:

(a)  formally confirm that the exercise of functions delegated to TEC to enter into the arrangement with the British Parking Association were and continue to be delivered pursuant to section 1 of the Localism Act 2011;
(b)  formally resolve to expressly delegate the exercise of section 1 of the 2011 Act to the TEC joint committee for the sole purpose of providing an appeals service for parking on private land for the British Parking Association under contract; and
(c)  take all relevant steps to give effect to the matters set out in (a) and (b) above through a formal variation to the TEC Governing Agreement  

Legal Implications for London Councils
The legal implications are set out in the body of the Report.

Financial implications for London Councils
There are no financial implications for London Councils from this recommendation

Equalities Implications for London Councils
There are no equalities implications for the boroughs or London Councils arising from this report

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧

Is Nick Lester leading London Councils into legal chaos

September 10, 2014, 7:35 am
$
0
0
An objector to London Council accounts discovered that the parking appeals service POPLA was being run unlawfully. London Council employee Nick Lester has therefore rushed through an emergency vote to legalise the service.

Nick Lester is also a committee member of the British Parking Association. If the vote fails, the worse case scenario could be that all the parking companies have to leave the BPA and join the IPC to continue providing an appeals service. It can be said therefore that he has a vested interest.

Previously he has also misinformed investigators who raised the very legal issues which sre now plauging the system. It can be said therefore, that he either did not know what he was talking about, or he was lying. Either way, he does not appear to the lay observer to be the right person to resolve this issue, both having a vested interest and not really knowing what he is talking about.

The latest vote seems doomed to lead London COuncils deeper into the mire. It is not clear that the vote can be retrospective. The council are attempting to use the Localism Act but the case of Maydown Company v Basingstoke and Dean Borough Council establishes that the Localism Act cannot be used retrospectively and also that if a decision was taken under a specific enactment then it cannot be later claimed to be done for a different purpose.

It may therefore be prudent for the various councils to investigate this further before trusting anything that comes out of Nick Lester's mouth.

Happy Parking

The Parking Psnkster




↧
↧

Picture of the week - Abersoch Beach Car Park

September 11, 2014, 1:09 am
$
0
0
The Parking Prankster has been sent these pictures of signage at Abersoch Golf Club


As you can, or perhaps cannot, see, the signage blends nicely in with the foliage and is well camouflaged.

Here is another sign.


Although the pole with the ANPR camera stands out, the sign is not easily seen.

Perhaps the reason is the choice of colours - white on green, rather than ParkingEye's usual black on yellow.


The clue to this strange collection of stealth signage is probably in the planning application, available here.

The reference numbers are C13/0186/39/LL and C13/0187/39/HY.

The car park has 161 spaces and the initial plan was for 14 signs with a white background. The car park is in an area of outstanding natural beauty, and a vast number of objections were received. As a result the planning permission was changed to 7 signs on a green background. This is obviously against the BPA code of practice which requires signage to be ample and visible. This new design meets neither of those requirements and is not fit for purpose - ParkingEye should therefore have walked away.

As the site is used by large number of holidaymakers The Prankster predicts this will be a profitable trap for ParkingEye, generating large numbers of tickets from new visitors who do not spot the signs. One visitor reported to The Prankster that he visited twice and walked up and down the car park 8 times before he realised it was an ANPR car park.

Ironically for a bloodsucking operation, the planning application was filed by Christopher Lee on behalf of ParkingEye.

The Prankster recommends that any holidaymaker who did not notice the signs appeals on the grounds that the signage has deliberately been designed to be invisible, and uses the planning documents from the council to prove this. The above photographs can also be used to prove the point. A complaint should also be filed with the BPA that the signage does not meet the standards required. The address to use is
aos@britishparking.co.uk.

The landowner is Abersoch Golf Club. To complain to them, their contact details are manager@abersochgolf.co.uk
Clwb Golff Abersoch Golf Club, Golf Road, Abersoch, Pwllheli, LL53 7EY
Telephone: 01758 712622

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Has Stephen Duff of Proserve broken the law by conducting litigation?

September 12, 2014, 9:58 am
$
0
0
It has come to the Prankster’s notice that a formal complaint has been lodged with the Solicitor’s Regulation Authority (SRA) against Proserve Enforcement Solutions/Stephen J Duff. It is alleged that Proserve/Mr Duff may have been conducting litigation contrary to the provisions of the Legal Services Act 2007. It is a criminal offence to conduct litigation when not entitled to do so under that act. On summary conviction the penalty is imprisonment for up to six months and a fine of up to £5000. On indictment the term is up to 2 years and an unlimited fine.

As Proserve is known to have issued 700+ claims at the Ipswich Europark alone, the legal profession may well take a dim view of his activities.

The Act defines the “conduct of litigation” in Schedule 2 as, for example, issuing proceedings. Issuing proceedings involves the completion of the claim form, signing the statement of truth at the end of that form and placing your name and address as the party on whom proceedings should be served. Rather like this...




Note that it says that the Claimant or their Solicitor’s address should be inserted. Mr Duff is neither.

Then there is another problem in that is alleged that Mr Duff is not entitled to sign the statement of truth on behalf of a third party. CPR 22 para 3.11 gives examples of who can and cannot sign..

Mr Duff often expresses his signature to have been placed there as "Litigation Friend" but you can only do that if the claimant is a child or a protected person e.g person in hospital or a person who by reason of mental disorder is incapable of managing and administering his own affairs. It may be of course, that Mr Nigel Robson of Ransomes Europark is mentally incapable and therefore Mr Duff has perfect right to do this. However, Mr Robson may have other views.

Where the statement of truth has been improperly signed it provides grounds for having the case struck out. Improperly signing a statement of truth is a contempt of court.

If you have received a claim from Mr Duff, and the foot of page 2 is like the example above, then you may wish to ask Mr Duff on what basis he is conducting litigation and signing the statement of truth.

If you consider that there has been unlawful activity against you, you may wish to complain to the SRA at report@sra.org.uk . You will need to complete their complaint form which can be found at http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor.page 

Scroll down to “How to report a Solicitor or firm.” 

In your complaint you may wish to say something like
Please see the attached claim form which, has been filed by Proserve Enforcement Solutions and its proprietor, Mr Duff, has signed the statement of truth. Proserve is an agent of the landowner and as such I believe that he is not entitled to sign a statement of truth. Where he has issued proceedings I believe that his conduct is caught by the Legal Services Act as it falls to be the conduct of litigation and which I do not believe he is legally allowed to undertake. Proserve, (nor Mr Duff), does not appear to be a member of any of the regulatory bodies established under the Act. Mr Duff is now issuing revised claim forms signed by someone (apparently) entitled to do so. I would request that you consider taking action against Proserve/Mr Duff, under your common law powers of prosecution, if the SRA is satisfied that he has conducted litigation contrary to the provisions of the Legal Services Act.
Mr Duff is now serving substituted Claim Forms with a statement of truth signed by someone else in the hope that the claim will not get struck out. It remains a fact however that he has signed a statement of truth and which remains on the court record. Mr Duff appears to be covering his back by saying in covering letters “”We do not provide legal representation or advice to ……. “ 

Nice try but when it comes to any hearing remember to mention to the court that Mr Duff issued proceedings and signed the statement of truth when it does not appear that he was entitled to do so under the Legal Services Act and as such the claimant should not be permitted to profit from that conduct. Then sit back and let the Judge ask some rather awkward questions.

Mr Duff may wish to borrow from his local library “The Debt Collection Merry-Go-Round: How to deal with harassment and unfair practice from debt collectors (published Sept 2009)" and have a close look at page 37 which reads
Debt Collectors are not authorised to carry on litigation which as explained above is a "reserved activity." So the debt collection company will have to instruct a person who has the right to conduct litigation which will usually be a Solicitor. What undoubtedly happens is that the debt collection companies prepare court papers for clients but get the client to sign the Statement of Truth. On the claim form the debt collection company will probably put their address. Sometimes, the debt Collection Company will sign the Claim Form as "Litigation Friend". They are wrong on both counts.
The Cambridge County Court advises that Mr Duff’s bailiff certificate is due for renewal next year. If anyone wishes to report that he is potentially acting illegally they should contact the Suffolk Police Authority with the details. Their contact page is at this link:


If Mr Duff is acting illegally then he may want to ask the court to take 700+ other offences into consideration.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster



↧

DVLA unable to answer a simple yes/no question. ICA investigator slaps them on the wrist

September 14, 2014, 3:14 am
$
0
0
Background

ICA = "Independent Complaints Assessor" - as opposed to ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) who deal with matters of data protection and Freedom of Information issueS.

The Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) - one of the agencies of the DfT - has useful guidance about ICAs at http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/referral-to-ica.asp

For DVLA complaints see https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/driver-and-vehicle-licensing-agency/about/complaints-procedure

For DfT complaints see https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport/about/complaints-procedure

Blog
A motorist has been unable to get a yes no question answered by the DVLA. The question was not especially difficult.

Is compliance with the BPA Ltd CoP a necessary requirement for the DVLA in determining reasonable cause?
The story begins when the motorist was issued a windscreen ticket by Local Parking Security (LPS) Ltd who at the time were in breach of the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice (CoP). Although there were several breaches, the main one was that the charge was only decreased by 33% for early payment, not 40% as required by the CoP. The motorist therefore brought this to the attention of the DVLA who stated that details are only given out to organisations who adhere to the code of practice.

The motorist asked the DVLA not to give out his details to LPS Ltd because as they were in breach of the CoP there was no reasonable cause to access his data.

The DVLA gave out his data anyway, and replied on 12 November, reiterating that reasonable cause does not relate to full BPA Code compliance.

The motorist replied on 13 November.

“I take serious issue with your statement, "As previously mentioned, reasonable cause does not depend on full compliance with the code of practice"

This is a complete 'U' turn and an unequivocal contradiction on your previous response in which you stated that;

"....vehicle keeper information is disclosed only to companies that are members of an Accredited Trade Association (ATA) and adhere to its code of practice"


The motorist then chased the DVLA for replies up to 28 February when they finally replied.
Information from the vehicle record is released under reasonable cause provisions where the reason for the request relates to the vehicle or its use, following incidents where there may be liability on the part of the driver. The Agency would not be able to justify withholding personal information from third parties able to demonstrate reasonable cause without evidence that such disclosure would cause unwarranted and substantial distress or damage.
He replied on 3 March
Full compliance with the Code of Practice either applies to reasonable cause or it doesn't; which is it, I don't want any stock DVLA 'lines’ trying to fudge the answer, I am entitled to a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ straight answer from the DVLA to a straight question.
The DVLA relied on 14 March, with a stock DVLA line, fudging the answer

The motorist wrote again on 17 March
“The issue that I require you to address is that of the effect of non-compliance with the BPA Ltd CoP on 'reasonable cause'. You will note that both David Dunford and Liz Symons have sought to duck and dive the issue. In her latest response, for example, Liz Symons has deliberately changed the meaning of my enquiry from (in essence); is compliance with the CoP an essential ingredient of 'reasonable cause' to does compliance with the CoP equal 'reasonable cause' and to which she has then answered in the negative. What Liz Symons has done is deliberately manipulated and misrepresented my enquiry in order to avoid answering it. I know full well that compliance with the BPA Ltd CoP does not equal 'reasonable cause' because there are also other factors taken into account. That wasn't my question. My reasonable enquiry therefore still stands. Is compliance with the BPA Ltd CoP a necessary requirement for the DVLA in determining reasonable cause? Yes or No.
Kevin Watts from the DVLA replied on 28 March. Kevin Watts lost his letter, but luckily the motorist was able to provide a copy to the ICA investigator.
“The disclosure of vehicle keeper data under the reasonable cause provisions is a discretionary power of the Secretary of State, who has adopted a policy that requires all private car parking operators to obtain membership of an appropriate Accredited Trade Association (ATA) in order to request vehicle keeper details. This policy is intended to protect vehicle keepers from misuse of their information. One of the conditions of the membership of an ATA would be to abide by its Code of Practice (COP). The requirement for an operator to comply with an ATA’s COP is just one of the measures government has put in place to improve standards in the private parking industry through encouragement of robust self-regulation rather than government regulation at significant public cost. Essentially, the reasonable cause legislation is a legal gateway in which to request data from the DVLA. Compliance with an ATA’s COP is just one of the requirements to help inform the DVLA of the legitimacy of the request. Strict contract terms detail when information may be requested and how it can be used. No organisation has direct access to DVLA vehicle keeper data. If you feel that any of the practices used by the company do not comply with the BPA’s code of practice, you may wish to contact the BPA at Stuart House, 41- 43 Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, RH16 3BN. I hope this makes the DVLA’s position clear.”
On 7 April the motorist asked for an answer to his question again.

On 11 April Kevin Watts replied that the DVLA had nothing to add.

On 13 April the motorist lodged a complaint and the ICA took over. The DVLA ran interference, failing to provide a number of crucial documents, and making the investigation harder.

The ICA investigator found that:
The short answer to your question is “No, compliance with the code is not a necessary requirement in determining reasonable cause”.
He also found that only lip service is paid to the stated requirements. If a breach is found and reported to the DVLA they do nothing themselves. The most they will do is pass information to the BPA, who then also do nothing.
In fairness to the DVLA, your report of alleged breaches by LPS did not itself amount to proven breaches: it was for the BPA to investigate, take any necessary action in relation to LPS’s accreditation and then inform the Agency of the outcome. In that circumstance LPS might fail to meet a key criterion to receive DVLA data; future applications by LPS, and access to the DVLA database, could then be refused or suspended. However, although the DVLA says it has tough expectations of the ATA, for some reason enforcement action was not taken by the BPA in the period in which LPS was given your data or, apparently, since.
Turning to the essence of your complaint, I am not at all reassured that the DVLA gave you sufficient evidence of its concern that the BPA should fulfil its obligations. It states that its delegation to the ATA “promote[s] greater self regulation and further reinforce[s] protection of motorists’ privacy” but little or nothing seems to have happened after it referred your genuine compliance concerns to the BPA. In the absence of a clear statement from the BPA, based on a robust investigation, that LPS was in full Code compliance, my view is that LPS’s status as a data recipient remained open to question.  
On balance, I cannot see that the DVLA’s handling is congruent with its aim of instilling confidence in the disclosure process and ensuring fair treatment and clear standards. I contrast the BPA’s limp response referred to you by the DVLA (paragraph 14) with the DVLA rhetoric reproduced in paragraph 28. I do not think that the Agency’s handling here was consistent with the oversight of “tough safeguards” which is suggested in its literature.
      The investigator concluded

    In the latter stages of the correspondence you pressed the DVLA for a yes/no answer to the straightforward question I dealt with in the previous section. For some reason, the Agency did not feel able to answer this question even though to do so would have required fewer words than the statement that it had answered the question already. That said, I think the underlying point in your case had little to do with reasonable cause - incontestable in your case – and everything to do with the basis of the Agency’s assurance that LPS was code compliant and suitable to provide data to.   
      The investigator decided that no maladministration had taken place
      Unfortunately the Agency’s handling of your correspondence stalled before and after you had requested ICA review. The Agency was then unable to provide me with key documents. This necessitated further communications with you (see paragraph 21).
        As I have stated, the erratic and piecemeal disclosure of information in your case is completely uncharacteristic of the DVLA. I acknowledge your view that this is part and parcel of a deliberate approach designed to thwart your complaint. However, I also note that some of the documents I have struggled to obtain, for example the DVLA’s letter of 28 March, represented clear and timely statements of the Agency’s position. The Agency also knew from an early stage that I was approaching you direct so my view is that no advantage could come from resisting disclosure deliberately. On balance I find that the Agency’s undoubted poor administration fell short of maladministration.
          Taking all of the above into account, I have no doubt that the DVLA mishandled the correspondence with you and me. I remind it of the Ombudsman Principle “Public bodies should create and maintain reliable and usable records … [and] should manage records … to ensure that they can be retrieved and that they are kept for as long as there is a … business need”.  I uphold this part of your complaint. I recommend that the CEO of the DVLA apologises to you for the lapses I have identified and offers you a payment of £75 in recognition of the Agency’s poor administration which, as well as stalling at the local stage, occasioned a delay of at least three months in my review and further time and effort on your part in preparing a document set for me. 
              Essentially were are therefore left in the same position as before. The DVLA trumpets far and wide that it only discloses data where there is reasonable cause, but the nitty gritty is rather different. There is very little actual effort made to ensure this, and the audits the DVLA boasts about are little more than rubber stamping exercises. The vase number of complaints uncoverable via an internet search show that the industry goes unregulated; there is no pro-active effort made to uncover dodgy practices and when these are uncovered, no timely effort is made to sort these out or punish transgressors.

              The following conclusions can be drawn from the investigation

              1. The DVLA attempted to hide relevant correspondence from the ICA – which is a breach of the Civil Service Code of Conduct
              2. The ICA appears to confirm that the DVLA does not have sufficient safeguards in place  
              3. The ICA has concluded that the DVLA has obligations to investigate but that it has delegated that to the BPA. 
              4. The ICA finally confirms that the DVLA’s usual response and business standard is in direct conflict with what they claim it to be.
              5. The ICA confirms that the DVLA have a policy of being useless and thus when they are useless they are policy compliant.
              6. The DVLA welcomes further complaints about non-compliant parking companies
              7. The standards set out in the civil service code of conduct are treated with disdain by the DVLA 
              8. The DVLA have a policy of saying they are doing something, in the hope that complaints go away and then they file and forget
              9. This quote should be included in all complaints to the DVLA; "Concluding, the issue of real concern to me here is the lack of evidence of vigilance in the DVLA’s dealings with the BPA “ This lack of vigilance can then becomes evidence as a norm in the DVLA to build up the picture to the ICA/Ombudsman. 

               
              Happy Parking

              The Parking Prankster

              ↧
              Viewing all 1127 articles
              Browse latest View live
              Search