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

Merriveen v Proserve

$
0
0
Merriveen is a small haulage firm working from Felixstowe. On 21/10/2013 one of Merriveen's vehicles was parked for 3 minutes while the driver got delivery paperwork. Proserve issued a ticket for £180. In Proserve v Hamblion Mr Duff of Proserve stated under oath that he always has a word with drivers first and asks them to move. However, it appears he lied under oath because this did not happen in this case (or indeed many others), and thus he consistently fails to mitigate any losses due under trespass laws.

The charge was then increased to £300 'under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012'. Merriveen then supplied the name and address of the driver to Proserve. This discharges their liability as vehicle keeper but Stephen Duff emailed back to say they did not have the option to name the driver. This is of course a misuse of the data supplied to Proserve by the DVLA. If Proserve state they are pursuing a keeper under POFA 2012, then the keeper's liability is discharged by providing the driver's details.

Merriveen was then banned from Felixstowe by Proserve and the managing agents, Bidwells, but they just ignored the ban and continued about their business much to the annoyance of the managing agent Mr Hart from Bidwells.

Mr Hart therefore wrote a malicious email to all Merriveen's clients telling them the owner had been arrested for attempted murder and must therefore be banned from the empty container off-hire yards. This rendered Merriveen's business inactive, so Merriveen had no option but to call in the police.

The police were most helpful.  Damien Richer of  Suffolk police is familiar with Mr Duff and his tactics. He made Mr Hart write a retraction email, but this was on the understanding that Merriveen paid the ticket in full, and recovered it in court. The ticket had now increased for undisclosed reasons from £180 to £2035. As The Prankster's readers will know from previous blogs. Mr Duff has a creative approach to invoices and does not appear to believe that the amount on any invoice should be fixed for eternity, but is a fluid figure which can move upward without reason at any time.

 Merriveen took Proserve to court and won on the basis that Mr Duff did not sign his defence and it was therefore inadmissible. Mr Duff made it clear outside the courtroom that he would not be paying, and the day after the case restarted the hate campaign, once again trying to get Merriveen banned from the yards.

Mr Duff's court bluster turned out to be bluff, and he has now paid the judgment in full, following pressure from a firm in Liverpool experienced in these matters.

Meanwhile, the signage, rubbished by HHJ Moloney in a recent case, is still present all round Trinity Distribution park Felixstowe and Ransomes Europark Ipswich. Stephen Duff has not been seen in Felixstowe recently. This may be coincidence or may be due to his recent Facebook campaign to find the home addresses of various people, including The Prankster.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster




Stephen Duff of Proserve admits claiming £420 was due to his incompetence

$
0
0
Stephen Duff has now admitted that claiming £420 instead of £80 was due to his incompetence.  The initial invoice submitted by the transcription company was an estimate before they had done the work. Once it was complete a new invoice was submitted and the overpayment refunded.

The Prankster has purchased several transcripts himself and can confirm this is the way transcription companies work. Stephen Duff has also purchased transcriptions in the past and therefore should also be aware of the process.

There is therefore no plausible excuse for him not realising the first invoice is always an estimate; that the estimate of £420 was clearly wrong; and that the overpayment had been repaid.

According to pepipoo Mr Duff is now threatening the transcription company with legal action due to his embarrassment in appearing in The Prankster's blog.  For some reason he appears to believe they are responsible for his own incompetence.  He is also claiming never to have received the second invoice.

The Prankster also questions the fact that the invoice is made out to Duff, and not to the claimant, Ransomes Park Ltd. Firstly if Ransomes have not paid for the transcription then why should the defendant reimburse them for a cost which has not been incurred.  Secondly why would Ransomes reimburse Duff anyway when their contract with him makes him responsible for all costs. They should therefore mitigate costs by refusing to pay Duff for the cost of the transcript.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UK Parking Control drops cases in Scotland

$
0
0
As reported in the Dundee Courier, UK Parking Control has dropped 3 cases in Scotland involving parking at Gallagher Retail Park.

The laws in Scotland differ significantly from the laws in the rest of the UK. There is no offence of trespass; there is no concept of keeper liability; parking companies are not required to offer an independent appeals service.

What this means is that apart from all other hurdles, any parking company would need to prove the identity of the driver to the satisfaction of the Sheriff hearing the case. In at least one of the test cases, they would have also had to prove the signage was sufficiently visible in the dark and rain to form a contract, that the wording was clear and unambiguous and that as parking was free for 2 hours, a breach of contract had occurred by staying for 10 minutes. All these would have been quite high hurdles to cross. Add in that in one case they were up against a company with a legally qualified representative arguing the defence, one theory is that UK Parking Control crept away with their tail between their legs. Having a body of case law against them would not be a good start to their campaign.

However, The Prankster believes this is not the case and that UK Parking Control are secretly laughing up their sleeves. The Prankster believes that they are running a far more devious campaign than previously outlined. To explain this reasoning, it is necessary to look at campaigns run by other parking companies. Figures released by the Ministry of Justice show that while ParkingEye issue over 1,000 claims a week, only around 10% or less get to a hearing. As ParkingEye very rarely drop cases, this means that the majority of motorists simply pay up to avoid the hassle of going to court. UK Parking Control will be very aware of this, and if the figures repeat themselves in Scotland, they can expect to have trousered cash from 27 motorists who paid up, for the minor expense of having to drop 3 cases. This would leave them with around £3,000 profit from the paid up motorists, while forking out a few hundred pounds on the dropped cases.

This tactic is also employed by Civil Enforcement Limited, who file large numbers of claims, but either drop them at the last minute of fail to attend hearing in most cases. By keeping the pressure up right to the last minute with letters threatening an escalation of costs, CEL successfully bluff large numbers of motorists into paying up. UK Parking Control will also be aware of this, and may be trying to emulate this strategy in Scotland.

In Scotland the process is that there is a first hearing, which is rather like a mitigation hearing, followed by the real hearing. UKPC stayed firm during the mitigation hearing, dropping their request from £160 to £152. They then dropped out before the real hearing.

Like CEL, they may be trying to pick and choose the few cases which make it to court, making sure they only proceed if a weak defence has been filed and it is clear the motorist does not understand the legal issues. This will then allow them to gradually build a body of case law which can be used to present a one sided picture; a strategy very successfully used by ParkingEye over the last two years.

UKPC stated they dropped the case because 'it was in the wrong pile'. This may well be true, and they only meant to carry on with weak defendants, not ones who had filed a strong defence.

Using these strategies and others it is possible to abuse the legal system and use it as a cheap debt collection service with very little chance of a comeback. Judges in England and Wales have so far taken no action against this abuse of the system. It remains to be seen whether Sheriffs in Scotland will be far cannier and will get a grasp of the situation more quickly.

Meanwhile The Prankster will sit back and wait to see what action UK Parking Control will take next. No doubt they will be totting up their spreadsheets with actual numbers of motorists who folded against the 3 who refused, to see if their strategy is viable or needs changing. While he is waiting he will also keep an eye on Vehicle Control Systems, who have also filed several claims in Scotland.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


BPA write to London Councils

$
0
0
Patrick Troy of the BPA Ltd has written to all the London Councils, begging them to vote to retrospectively agree to the provision of the POPLA service.



To analyse this report it is first necessary to understand that the Chief Executive of the BPA, Patrick Troy is not the most truthful of people and he and the organisation he presides over have been known in the past to lie to further his own ends and those of the BPA.

When the Government were consulting regarding the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the BPA explained that considerable savings could be made for the Ministry of Justice as the number of court claims would come down from 36000/90,000. As it turned out, this was an outrageous piece of flannel and the number of court claims was only 845 in 2011 of which 49 ended up with a hearing. Since then, they have risen significantly, not fallen. With ParkingEye sometimes filing almost 2,000 claims a week it is entirely possible they will soon hit the previously fictitious number of 90,000 claims a year all by themselves.

Patrick Troy also told the BBC that POPLA was free to motorists, when actually ParkingEye were passing on POPLA costs.

With this background, it is time to analyse the BPA's latest missive to see if it is truthful or not. The most interesting statement is the following;

'the legality of the contract is not in dispute'

This statement is an outrageous bluff by Patrick Troy. The Prankster has information that the BPA is in no doubt that the legality of the contract is very much in dispute. There are several potential problems, including that the localism act might not be appropriate if used retrospectively, and also that the localism act might not be applicable if other legislation is more binding.

The auditor of London councils will of course be aware of this as well. In such circumstances it would be typical for the auditor to get independent legal advice and to warn the councils that if the legal advice warrants it, then if they continue along this path the auditors could fail to sign off the accounts and could even recommend prosecution.

For Patrick Troy to mislead council members that there is no legal danger to them is therefore very irresponsible.

The Prankster therefore recommends that the councils get their own legal advice, rather than listen to a proven liar with a history of misleading people. Failing that, it would be prudent to wait for the auditor's report on the legality or otherwise of the contract.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster








ParkingEye target man whose daughter had to go to hospital in beach incident

$
0
0
This report on moneysavingexpert describes how ParkingEye refused to cancel their charge despite a serious and potentially life-threatening incident occurring on Fistral Beach.

The parking event occurred in Tower Road car park in Newquay. During the stay the motorist's daughter had to be evacuated from Fistral Beach by RNLI lifeguards. This meant the motorist had to return all the beach gear to the car himself taking several trips, and then rendezvous with the lifeguards to take her to hospital, where he spent 5 hours.

The motorist offered to pay for the overstay at the car park, and to add on a reasonable administrative charge. However, this was rejected by ParkingEye, who are now threatening to take him to court.

Sadly the motorist did not appeal to POPLA because the listed appeal reasons did not seem to apply, even though he correctly identified that the parking charge bore no relation to the costs to ParkingEye of issuing it. This will be seen as a success by the British Parking Association, who have constantly refused to update POPLA's site to inform motorists they can appeal if the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

ParkingEye previously have refused to cancel charges when a walker was injured on Snowden, and when motorists could not leave the car park due to breaking down.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Parking company taken to court by motorist

$
0
0
Several parking companies are currently being taken to court by motorists trying to recoup costs involved with fighting tickets which have had no validity. Although parking companies are keen to issue charges of £100 and upwards for minor transgressions such as being 1 minute late or parking slightly over a white line, they are not so keen to pay motorists when the parking company has been found to be in the wrong.

Some cases have now completed and it is clear the courts will award the motorist their costs in the right circumstances.

Here is a poem submitted to The Prankster regarding one such case completed recently.

Ssshh someone took a PPC to court
Because the PPC weren't being a sport

The PPC declined an appeal that had the right line
They tried to make out that it was a just fine

So the keeper reached out to rap their hand
He tried to make them understand
That what they were playing was a crime
And by continuing they were wasting his time

So he presented a PCN - a Personal Cost Notification
Of course a 50% off before the Popla negation
No word was heard and Popla appeal accepted
A full PCN was thus sent as expected

But the PPC continued to ignore
Until an MCOL for 1000 hit their floor

They were going to fight the claim
Of course the keeper had to play the game
One wrong step and all would be undone
After all they thought he could be outdone

5 months later at the 11th hour
....The keeper ready to devour
And to put forth a legal precedence
That would kill off any future PPC offense

...The PPC fully settled the claim!

Lesson: Do not allow bullies to continue their current behaviour!


If you want to claim money from the parking company, The Prankster suggests the following;

In your initial appeal, warn the parking company you will charge them if they do not cancel your ticket and force you to spend time and effort appealing to POPLA. Warn them that you will charge them if you win your POPLA appeal.

Tell them that your charge will be a contractual charge, and that they will be deemed to have accepted the contract by performance if they fail to cancel the charge.

Although in this case the parking companies had to fork out £1,000, The Prankster suggest a figure of £100 will have most chance of success in court.

The Prankster also warns that court action is always risky, and the chance of success will depend on you following court procedures correctly and getting the right judge. Success is not guaranteed - there have also been cases where the judge has ruled in favour of the parking company.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye obtain CCJs by stealth

$
0
0
Have you got a county court judgment (CCJ) against you? If you answered no, then perhaps you should not be quite so certain. Large numbers of innocent motorists are finding that ParkingEye have obtained CCJs against them by stealth, by sending all the paperwork to incorrect addresses.

The Prankster has heard from increasing numbers of motorists to whom this has happened, and believes this will be a growing phenomenon due to ParkingEye's irresponsible behaviour.

The ParkingEye system is mostly computerised, and the machine will roll inexorably on once started. If an incorrect address is entered into the system to begin with, then all letters will be sent there. The motorist will not respond, as they never got the letters, so ParkingEye will progress through sending reminders, letters before claim, a county court claim, and then finally, a request for default judgment. At this point the motorist will have a CCJ, but will have had no contact from ParkingEye and will have no idea there is a CCJ against their name.

The first time they find out may be when they apply for credit  - perhaps buying a mobile phone - or a mortgage, which may well then be declined or be offered on punitive terms. Even worse, ParkingEye may decide to track you down explaining you have a CCJ against you, They will say it is not their fault they got your address wrong and invite you to cough up.

The Prankster believes this is totally irresponsible behaviour from ParkingEye. The time to track down the motorist and check the address is correct is before issuing court papers, not after a default judgment has been obtained. Although ParkingEye state they had no reason to believe the address was incorrect, any reasonable person would suspect that if no replies are received to letters, then there is a good chance the address was wrong. This is especially true as they have no reason to believe it was correct in the first place, having got it from the DVLA where it is entirely likely the address will be wrong or out of date.

Corrective Action

One way to apparently deal with this would be to pay the required amount to satisfy the CCJ. The problem with this is that the CCJ will remain on your credit record for up to 6 years, so it will not really solve the problem. Your credit will remain impaired and mortgages will be difficult to obtain.

The Prankster therefore recommends dealing with the problem head on and applying for the judgment to be overturned. This will involve expense, time and effort, but is better for the long term. To apply for the judgment to be overturned requires a £155 fee up front. This will be refundable by ParkingEye assuming you win your case. This is also reduced or waived if you are on low income.

You will have to attend a set-aside hearing where you will need to explain to the judge why you ignored all the paperwork from ParkingEye and the court. A satisfactory reason will be that you never got it in the first place, as ParkingEye used the wrong address. The judge may well be used to hearing this. ParkingEye have irresponsibly issued court papers to incorrect addresses on a frequent basis and there are set-aside hearings for ParkingEye almost daily up and down the country.

You will also have to explain to the judge that if the case is re-heard you have a reasonable prospect of success. This should not be too difficult. ParkingEye issue claims against vehicle keepers under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, one of the conditions of the act is that for an ANPR ticket the keeper will only be liable if they received a Notice to Keeper within 14 days on the parking event. As the motorist never received any paperwork at all, then this condition will not be satisfied and the keeper will not be liable, rendering no cause of action for the claim.

The judge should then schedule a rehearing. You should also ask for the hearing to be held after the ParkingEye v Beavis test case to be heard in the high court. This hearing will decide whether ParkingEye are limited to charging the amount it costs them to process a ticket (around £20) or whether they can charge an arbitrary amount. Although the level of charge will not be your primary defence, it is a useful back up in case you were also the driver.

Currently The Prankster has heard from several people who have gone down this route, all successfully. getting judgment overturned and a hearing rescheduled. The Prankster has not heard from anyone who failed, (but please get in contact if this happened to you).

Currently, ParkingEye pursue all claims regardless of merit, and this will be to your benefit. As there is no longer any merit to their claim, and no reasonable prospect of success in claiming against the keeper, their actions may well be deemed unreasonable, and the small claims costs limit no longer applies.

If you win the rehearing, you will therefore be able to claim large costs against them, although it will be up to the judge's discretion if they are awarded.

However, ParkingEye may well change their strategy after getting bitten a few times, and may decide to drop the claim against you. This will present you with something of a dilemma. You will already be out of pocket £155 plus your time off work for attending the set-aside hearing.

You therefore have two possibilities, and The Prankster recommends you get legal advice before going forward. One option is to issue a counter claim against ParkingEye. This will cost you money, but will prevent ParkingEye unilaterally dropping the case. You would do this as soon as possible after the set-aside hearing.

The other option is to ask for a costs order against ParkingEye once they drop the case. Again, this costs money and is likely to be more expensive than issuing a counter claim.

Following the case you then need to check with credit agencies to make sure the CCJ is removed.

If the CCJ is causing you major problems, such as preventing a house move, then you could seriously consider a very large claim against ParkingEye for their irresponsible behaviour. case, The Prankster would firmly recommend getting legal advice before going down this route. If large sums are involved it may be possible to get a no win no fee arrangement with a solicitor.

The Prankster also recommends complaining to your MP.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster










The Parking Prankster opens a bank account

$
0
0
Truthfully, this blog should really be entitled, 'The Parking Prankster attempts to open a bank account'.

The Parking Prankster, having occasion to open an organisational bank account, set off to his local branch armed with reams of identity documents. On arrival, the nice man explained that they no longer opened accounts in branches (so last century) and The Prankster would have to do it over the phone. However, please use our phone (to phone us) said the nice man. The nice lady on the phone said that the bank was de-merging, and that the branch he was in no longer opened that type of account. However, The Prankster could still physically open the account there (since this was done by phone), but she would have to transfer me to the other bank's phone, even though it was still currently the same bank. She also explained that when it came down to actual banking The Prankster would have to bank at the other branch, which was 30 yards away over the road.

The new nice lady (from the other bank) now explained that accounts could not really be opened over the phone at all, but that some forms needed to be filled in. No branches actually stocked these forms any more so she said she would email the forms to The Prankster. The Prankster explained that as he was at the bank right now he would really like to be getting on with filling them in straight away, so he could ask if he could have any questions. The nice lady said she would copy the email to the branch so they could print them out then and there. The Prankster then explained he had tons of identification with him, just in case it was needed but the nice lady confided they no longer did it that way (so last century) and that The Prankster would be verified over the internet.

By this time The Prankster had received the email on his phone. However the bank did not receive the email, even though they sent it to themselves. The Prankster forwarded the email to them, but they still did not receive it. The Prankster went over the road to the other bank, but they could not receive the email either. Strangely The Prankster got a bounce email stating the nice man behind the enquiries desk did not exist even though he agreed The Prankster had typed his email correctly from his business card. At this point their wifi stopped working so The Prankster left.

Slightly frustrated the Prankster popped into lots of other banks, but none of them were able to open accounts there and then. One of them promised an appointment could be had as early as the first week in December.  So he went home.

There, he printed the forms, filled them out and posted them off (so last century).

The Prankster did chuckle when he noticed that the bank officers had a bad case of 'willy need'.


No doubt this will have been caused by all the frustration involved.

Happy banking

The Parking Prankster


BPA propose hiving off the AOS

$
0
0
The British Parking Association Limited is proposing hiving off the Approved Operator Scheme to a separate body. The BPA will maintain the Code of Practice while the new organisation administers it.




The Prankster suggest a different strategy would be better. It is confusing for motorists to have to deal with two different trade associations, the BPA Ltd and the IPC, both of whom have different codes of practices . The confusion is increased as members move from one association to the other, depending on who at the time is offering the appeals system most biased against the motorist.

Furthermore, we have seen that the BPA adjusts its code of practice according to the whims of its larger members, and does not take account of the requirements of fairness towards motorists, landowners and smaller members.

The code of practice would therefore belong best in the hands of an independent body. The BPA has denied several times that it has the power to regulate the sector. Regulation would also benefit from being in the hands of an independent body. The Prankster suggests that this body would set the code of practice and set minimum standards for all trade association members. Individual trade associations can supplement these if they wish. The body would also regulate the sector. It would be independent, but funded by parking operators.

The Prankster also suggests a change to the current scheme, which is not working because sanctions are so draconian they are never used. Instead, financial penalties will be imposed on members who make minor transgressions. The body would also have the power to cancel incorrectly issued charges and direct operators to make payments to motorists for incorrectly issued charges.

What the industry needs to shake it up and force it to play fair is a regulator with teeth.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

The Prankster at Parking World - the end of parking as we know it

$
0
0
The Prankster was recently invited to attend Parking World 2014 where he was able to mingle with industry names such as Patrick Troy, Chief Executive of the BPA, and Henry Greenslade, Lead Adjudicator of POPLA.

Among the many interesting presentations was one by John Siraut, technical director of economics at Jacobs. Mr Siraut predicted the end of parking charges due to self-driving cars. At the point when they become commonplace, predatory parking practices will no longer be possible. The car will avoid charges by not parking where it is not allowed, and will simply leave the car park when the time expires, returning later to pick up the passengers. Expensive car parks will become a thing of the past. Cars will either return home, or drive to a cheaper car park. The Prankster continues Mr Siraut's theme by predicting that car park management models will have to change from the predatory model adopted by companies like ParkingEye, where their only income is from parking charges. Instead, the car park company will charge a management fee. Luckily for Capita, who purchased ParkingEye for £57.5 million, Mr Siraut predicted that self-driving cars still have some way to go to become a reality, and we are perhaps 30 years away.

There were also several interesting exhibitors. The Prankster saw an innovative approach to community bicycles, whereby any bicycle can be converted to a community bike by providing a GPS enabled lock.

The Prankster also chatted about ANPR technology with several vendors. One problem with ANPR is that because it is not perfect, motorists can be charged for overstaying when in fact they made two visits. This occurs either when the numberplate is not read correctly, or when the system is misconfigured.

The vendors explained that there are no real civil standards for ANPR for car park enforcement. There is a police standard, NATIONAL ACPO ANPR STANDARDS (available here). This only requires accuracy of 91.1% for static cameras, which means almost 1 in 10 reads will be wrong. However, there is no way for officially getting any civil system certified to say it complies with this standard.

There are no civil standards for camera accuracy, so operators can say with a straight face that their cameras comply to the BPA standards, without this actually meaning anything.

In practice, it was explained to The Prankster, accuracy will also depend on conditions. On a sunny day, glare will heavily affect results, and even more so for infra-red cameras. Rear number plates are also more prone to read errors, as they are often dirtier.

Camera position is also important. The camera should not read vehicles as they come round a bend, but after they have straightened up. The camera should also be high enough to minimise blocked reads due to tailgating, while low enough not to get misreads from skew.

Cameras can also become misaligned, so they no longer cover the whole road, which means that some vehicles may be missed.

All in all it was an interesting conference, which The Prankster finished off by meeting Prankster Jr nearby, where he was featuring in a nearby art gallery.

Parking Word is curated by Mark Moran of Parking Review

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster



DVLA cough up £75 on the orders of the ICA

$
0
0
[The Prankster Previosly blogged about this here. Mr Griffiths has now been sent his cheque for £75]

Mr Griffiths car got a windscreen ticket from Local Parking Security Ltd, a British Parking Association member - it was £60 discounted to £40.

This is a breach of the British Parking Association Code of Practice which requires a 40% discount.
Mr Griffiths therefore contacted the DVLA to point out that breach (and others). He pointed out that under their own publicly stated policy - which requires membership of an Accredited Trade Association (ATA) and compliance with their Code of Practice - that the DVLA had no reasonable cause or legal basis under which to release his keeper data.

The DVLA released his data anyway.

The windscreen ticket did not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so LPS were in any event not able to chase the keeper. This did not stop them and LPS set their debt collecting dogs after Mr Griffiths as the Registered Keeper

Mr Griffiths complained to the DVLA, and when he had no joy, escalated the complaint, which means the complaint is decided by an Independent Complaints Assessor (lCA). Jonathan Wigmore was assigned as the ICA.

The ICA's report, was highly critical of the DVLA's handling of this whole sorry affair. He recommended the DVLA apologise and pay Mr Griffiths £75 in compensation.


Some choice extracts are as follows.

Paragraph 21 shows how the DVLA attempted to hide relevant correspondence from the ICA – this is a breach of the Civil Service Code of Conduct
On 29 May I asked the DVLA to send me all the documents in line with its usual process and on 6 June the Agency told me I had been sent all the documents it had. On 9 June I wrote back contrasting the inventory of correspondence on the referral form with the partial disclosure made to me and asking a series of questions. Further documents were provided on 17 June but gaps still existed leading me to approach you on 19 June, copied to the Agency. This prompted a further disclosure that day from the Agency but documents remained outstanding, as I outlined to you in my email of 20 June. We agreed that your case would be deferred pending your return from abroad but I felt I had enough to produce an initial draft which I referred to the Agency on 17 July. On 18 July you told me you would provide the missing documents so I asked the Agency to disregard my draft. After my holiday, on 6 August, I referred a new draft to the DVLA 
Paragraph 29; the ICA confirms that the DVLA does not have sufficient safeguards in place
It should also be remembered that the BPA’s undertakings which the Agency relayed to you on 14 March, such as they were, were the first you had heard about enforcement action against LPS since the DVLA’s 11 November 2013 request that the BPA respond to the DVLA and you. (And you had needed to chase the DVLA after an 11 week lapse in communications.) The Agency’s slack handling of the correspondence with you and the BPS resembled anything but a “tough safeguard”. 
Paragraph 33 confirms the DVLA have a policy of being useless and thus when they are useless they are policy compliant.
DVLA policy is to disclose keeper data to selected agencies unless it has a ground to think that reasonable cause does not apply. That policy was followed in your case and I am unable to find against the Agency where it has followed its policy. I therefore cannot uphold your complaint that the DVLA should not have disclosed your data. However, I have expressed concern at the robustness of the DVLA’s oversight in this case. 
Paragraph 35 is the one to continually remind the ICA about on all future complaints. We know that the DVLA will behave like the ICO following Levison’s criticism. Once Levison put everything to bed the ICO reverted to form – so will the DVLA.
I welcome these developments, in particular the commitment of the Agency to ensure that complaints and other sources of intelligence will inform its oversight of compliance with the disclosure conditions it has applied. I am sure that this will tighten up code compliance on the part of companies like LPS. 
Paragraph 37 – the same applies to the standards set out in the civil service code of conduct which the DVLA appears to treat with disdain
The applicable PHSO standards include:
“Public bodies should do what they say they are going to do. If they make a commitment to do something, they should keep to it, or explain why they cannot. They should meet their published service standards, or let customers know if they cannot.” 
Paragraph 38 – they are doing the same with Proserve. They say they are doing something, in the hope that complaints go away, and then they file and forget. The Prankster is experiencing similar stalling tactics regarding his complaint over the IPC appeals system.
Looking first at the DVLA’s responses to your correspondence, it is clear that having been very responsive to your initial concerns in November 2013, your case dropped off the Agency’s radar as soon as you stopped corresponding. If the Agency pushed the BPA to look into your concerns after its 11 November 2013 referral, nothing was communicated to you until you pushed. Almost three months would pass with nothing happening at all (apart from LPS being allowed to access your data) despite an undertaking that a manager would review your case. 
Paragraph 40” While I have been critical of the Agency’s apparent acceptance of the BPA’s approach to enforcing its Code” – A useful expression for other complaints.
While I have been critical of the Agency’s apparent acceptance of the BPA’s approach to enforcing its Code, I feel that a reasonable effort was made here to cover the points you had put to the DVLA 
Paragraph 43 is almost unbelievable “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." There is a hint here that the ICA accepts that the DVLA was resisting disclosure but without criticising the DVLA. How he can say that there was no maladministration beggars belief. A failure to disclose must be maladministration in itself. 
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. 
Paragraph 45 “I recommend that, in its response to this review, the DVLA provides you with an inventory of all the documents it holds in relation to your case together with an explanation of why it has struggled to provide them to me.” Then what? So, they give the list and say “We just couldn't be bothered to help you because we think all complainants are daft buggers” and they are not penalised for that? No, the ICA has made an error here and is a matter for the Ombudsman to consider. So far, no inventory or reasons have been supplied.
I recommend that, in its response to this review, the DVLA provides you with an inventory of all the documents it holds in relation to your case together with an explanation of why it has struggled to provide them to me. 
Paragraph 46 “Concluding, the issue of real concern to me here is the lack of evidence of vigilance in the DVLA’s dealings with the BPA “ Again, this should be quoted in all complaints so that this lack of vigilance becomes evidenced as a norm in the DVLA to build up the picture to the ICA/Ombudsman. There also needs to be a timescale for the bullet points to be implemented with names of those responsible for ensuring that these matters are properly implemented and monitored. Again the ICA talks of code compliance being delegated to the BPA. The ICA is saying that code compliance is the province of the DVLA to monitor and investigate but that it has delegated it to the BPA. The principles of delegation in the public sector still mean that the party delegating it is legally responsible for it. I wonder if the ICA realises what he has said? Perhaps he is correct and has revealed what we have maintained for so long but which the DVLA has sought to deny/hide?
Concluding, the issue of real concern to me here is the lack of evidence of vigilance in the DVLA’s dealings with the BPA in this case and the lack of credibility of the assurances it relayed to you on 14 March. The existence of a well-oiled process in the Agency for dealing with complaints about code compliance by private parking operators accessing vehicle keeper data has not been evident to me in your case. However, it seems to me that such a process should underpin the Agency's assurance to the public about its disclosures of keeper details to private companies. I would expect such a process to include:
 A clear arrangement with the ATA for complaints which engage code policing and compliance to be investigated and responded to within a set timescale
 A statement of how the DVLA is assured that the tough safeguards delegated to the ATA are working effectively
 An explanation of how evidence of code breaches is handled by the DVLA.
 
Paragraph 47 it must be from the CEO and not a subordinate. Watch the CEO change this “oversight of ATAs’ response to complaints “ to “ about the ATAs’ response to complaints about private parking companies.”. The DVLA’s responsibility, oversight and monitoring will disappear. When it does the ICA should be notified. In fact the ICA should be asked to add to his report that he will act as an arbiter of the DVLA’s response to this report to ensure that the DVLA properly corrects the failings revealed in this report. Without that independent view the DVLA can just whitewash. So far the CEO of the DVLA has done nothing.
Finally therefore, with the above in mind, I recommend that in his response to this review, the CEO of the DVLA sets out how the Agency has responded to complaints from you and other people about its oversight of ATAs’ response to complaints about private parking companies.
Paragraph 44. 
 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.

Mr Griffiths did indeed received a cheque from the DVLA but it came on it's own; no note, no covering letter, no suitable apology from Oliver Morely, just a cheque in an envelope. This speaks volumes about the mindset of the DVLA hierarchy and what they think of consumer complaints - it was a deliberate snub, designed and intended to show complete and utter disrespect.


Meanwhile it is the view of Mr Griffiths that the ICA has allowed the DVLA to mislead him over the critical issue regarding compliance with the Code of Practice and he is in the process of referring his complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Prankster Note

The DVLA employs several people whose job it is to run interference with motorists genuine complaints and to protect the bonuses of high level DVLA employees who rely on the income from private parking companies to meet their bonus targets.

These employees are only exposed when tenacious people like Mr Griffiths are prepared to devote time and energy to pursuing complaints.

The Prankster recommends that complainants refuse to be fobbed off, and that they continue to escalate complaints to the ICA. Only if this happens will the deadwood in the DVLA be removed and genuine civil servants acting for the public appointed.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


Prankster guide to getting a ParkingEye CCJ set aside

$
0
0
With help from members of the BMPA, The Prankster has produced a guide to getting a ParkingEye CCJ set aside. The web page and sample witness statement are at this link.

Salient details are below.

Getting a ParkingEye CCJ set aside.

You may have received a letter from ParkingEye out of the blue telling you you have a CCJ.

You have three options.
1) You can ignore it. This many lead to escalated costs against you as they try ad enforce the judgment, and so this is not recommended.
2) You can pay it. The CCJ will then be marked as satisfied, but will remain on your credit record for 6 years. You should therefore think very carefully before taking this option.
3) You can fight it. This will cost you £155, which will be refundable if you win (not guaranteed). However, this is your only chance of removing the CCJ so if this is important to you, this is the only way forward.

The way this works is you will have a set aside hearing where the judge will decide whether to set aside the CCJ. If he does then the claim starts afresh in that there will be a second hearing about the claim itself. If the claim then gets dismissed you get all your money back from ParkingEye.

If in that second hearing the claim gets allowed then normally you wouldn't get your £155 back, unless the judge thinks ParkingEye behaved unreasonable by not verifying your address. But at least your CCJ will disappear from your credit report so this may be the best way forward. Also, your chances of winning are potentially quite good - particularly if Beavis wins the Court of Appeal test case in Feb 2015, or if you were not the driver.

You have to have a good reason for ignoring the court process - not having received the paperwork is usually a good reason, and you can use ParkingEye's own letter as proof. You also have to have reasonable prospects of getting the result overturned. ParkingEye file claims under the Protection of Freedoms Act. One of the requirements of this Act is that a notice to keeper is served. Again, you can you ParkingEye's own letter to prove it was not. You will therefore have a very good chance of at least getting a second hearing, which will remove the CCJ.

The Process

You need form N244 which you can find here: https://www.moneyclaimsuk.co.uk/PDFForms/N244.pdf

You need to complete this with the claim details (what court, what claim number etc). If you don't have this information then you will need to call the Moneyclaims centre at 0300 123 1057 or 01604 619 402 and ask for this information:
Claim number
Judgement date
Judgement amount

On the form N244:
1. - state the person's name who has received the CCJ
2. - tick Defendant
3. - "Set aside Default Judgement dated xx/xx/xxxx and dismiss the claim"
4. - tick No
5. - tick At a Hearing
6. - 8. - leave blank
9. - state "Claimant"
9.a - use the address from ParkingEye's letter
10. - tick The attached witness statement

then you need to sign the Statement of Truth

11. - again you need to sign and complete this.

On this page is a sample template of the witness statement, please have a look through this and complete this as much as possible. You can also add more details about what address ParkingEye used, when you moved address, when you informed the DVLA, etc.

You will have more chance of a set aside if you correctly informed the DVLA of your new address at the time you moved. If you did not, the judge may decide it was your fault for not informing the DVLA.

Once this all sorted then you need to sign the Witness Statement and attach a copy of the letter ParkingEye sent to you.You also need to sign the Form N244.

You then need to send two signed copies of each, plus a cheque for £155 to
County Court Business Centre (CCBC)
St. Katharine's House21-27
St. Katharine's Street
Northampton
Northamptonshire
NN1 2LH

Be mindful of the fact that you need to send this off as soon as possible so you'll need to spend some time on this quickly.As an alternative to either doing the set aside yourself or with a solicitor, a cost effective way may be to get parkingticketappeals to take care of the paperwork for you, for which they would charge a small fee (but much less than a solicitor) http://www.parkingticketappeals.org.uk/ 
The BMPA may also do this for you, for a similar fee.

Lastly, when you get the judgment set aside, you will then need to file a solid defence within a short timescale. This may be the time to get a solicitor, or again use parkingticketappeals, the BMPA, my guides, or a website like pepipoo (or all of the above) 

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

The Prankster misses out on $8 million

$
0
0
The Prankster received this email today


Sadly, The Prankster's surname is not Pranky, so he will be unable to share in the $8 million. If anybody called Pranky is reading this, they are more than welcome to contact Davidson, who may as a result one day be able to afford a real email address.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster





ParkingEye roundup. ParkingEye lose in court.

$
0
0
ParkingEye continue to attempt to deceive courts up and down the land by quoting the Beavis case while not informing the court that the case has been appealed and is scheduled for re-hearing in February 2015. The reason for this is plain; when judges are informed that Beavis is being appealed, and shown HHJ Moloney's leave to appeal, they take this into account. When judges are kept in the dark, they tend to follow the Beavis judgment and rule for ParkingEye.

While this strategy earns ParkingEye more court wins than otherwise, the legal professionals involved should be ashamed of themselves. The Prankster regards them as a disgrace to their profession. The first duty of a solicitor is to the court, and not to their client. They have a duty to make the court aware of relevant facts, including those which do not assist their case.

Rachel Ledson is ParkingEye's solicitor, and so has failed in her duty countless hundreds of times by failing to brief her LPC Law advocates properly. The alternative would be that large numbers of LPC Law advocates, including barristers, have failed to properly inform the courts of facts which they have been briefed.

The following cases indicate what happens when a judge is made aware that Beavis is being appealed. These should be quoted in any case where a parking company mention ParkingEye v Beavis.

3JD01272 ParkingEye v Wood. ParkingEye won the initial hearing by providing a fake witness statement (for use only at POPLA and photocopied without the witness knowledge) to the court. After a permission to appeal hearing, during which the judge repeatedly stressed he was not impressed such a small case was taking up so much of the court's time, HHJ Butler gave permission to appeal and the case will be reheard after the Beavis appeal.

3JD04003 ParkingEye v de Meza. DDJ Jones ruled for ParkingEye but enforcement of judgement and right to appeal have been suspended until after the Beavis appeal.

A0JD0153 ParkingEye v Green. Judge Dodd (of ParkingEye v Shelley fame) adjourned the case on the day without hearing from either party, until after the Beavis appeal.

A0QZ8099 Excel v Brunt. DJ Lettall was aware that Beavis was being appealed, so adjourned the case. He was not impressed that Excel had not informed him the case was under appeal and that he had found out himself by other means.

3JD09497 ParkingEye v Howell. Telford Court. ParkingEye sent all correspondence to the wrong address. When the defendant found out they had a CCJ against them, they asked for judgment to be set aside. DJ Chapman ruled the judgment be set aside and the case be stayed until after the Beavis appeal.

District Enforcement v Jones, Telford Court. The case has been stayed until the Beavis appeal.

A0JD0402 ParkingEye v Mason at Walsall Court. The judge brought up the case of Beavis and questioned ParkingEye's capability to repay any fines which would be overturned if the Beavis case was to be successful. He also mentioned that Dudley county court and Telford county court are adjourning all future ParkingEye cases until the Beavis appeal is heard and ruled upon. He ruled for ParkingEye, but deferred enforcement of the judgment. The order ruled that if the Beavis appeal is successful the judgment will be overturned. However if ParkingEye are successful the charge must be paid in full within 21 days.

It is clear then that large amounts of court time are being wasted by ParkingEye due to their failure to inform the courts of the whole facts. All cases should be suspended until the Beavis appeal.

The Prankster would be interested to hear of any other motorists who have had their case adjourned until after Beavis, and would be especially interested to know how the judge became aware that Beavis was being appealed; from the defendant, from the claimant, or from their own knowledge.

The Prankster recommends that any motorist as well as informing the judge about the above cases, also takes a copy of HHJ Moloney's leave to appeal.
http://www.parking-prankster.com/exhibits.html 
ex039

The motorist should also go to this link:
http://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/listing_calendar/search.jsp
Type in 'Beavis' and then print out the current case status and bring this to court.

The Prankster also recommends that if the case is adjourned the motorist asks for their costs on the grounds that ParkingEye were acting unreasonably in not informing the court that Beavis was being appealed.

A0JD5113 ParkingEye v Park Furnishers Ltd (17/11/2014, Bristol) DDJ Melville-Shreeve
DDJ Melville-Shreeve was pointed to ParkingEye v Beavis extensively by the ParkingEye's advocate from LPC Law, Mr Binns. However Mr Binns did not inform the judge this case was being appealed, and the judge was not aware of this either.

The DDJ was strongly persuaded by HHJ Moloney and the argument around commercial justification. However, he also noted the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) 1999 reference in HHJ Moloney's judgment. The DDJ held that the charge was not fair under the UTCCR because it was obviously a penalty and at a similar level to statutory penalties whose intention is to be the opposite of fair - to penalise people in order to avoid them doing things like this. So a penalty could never be fair under UTCCR.

The LPC Law advocate argued the car was there on business and therefore UTCCR did not apply. Melville-Shreeve held that on the balance of probabilities as the car was there during lunch break it was not there to furnish the park, and it was more likely that it was on private business. Otherwise UTCCR would not apply and he would have fallen in line with HHJ Moloney.

The claim was dismissed.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Motorist gets parking charge back in court. Judge lambasts parking company for lack of proportionality

$
0
0
Our story begins when Ms X turned up to work one day at Fort Dunlop, Birmingham. As far as The Prankster can work out, Fort Dunlop is owned by Urban Splash. Parts are then rented out to Regus, an office management company, who then sublet to other companies. Ms X's car parking space was occupied by someone who should not have been there. Ms X had a parking permit issued by Regus. Regus photocopied parking permits to use a range of spaces which were then issued to Ms X's company, and from there one was given to Ms X.

Ms X therefore parked temporarily in someone else's space (Capita) and asked her boss what to to. The boss went to Regus, who had issued the permit, and asked what to do. Regus replied that she could stay there for the time being, but may have to move if someone complained.

However, later on Ms X found she was issued with a windscreen ticket. She therefore appealed against the ticket to the parking company, Parkshield. They turned down the appeal. She therefore appealed to the IPC. Unfortunately, although the IPC are mandated by goverment to run an independent appeals service, it is anything but. Motorists are not allowed to see the car parking company evidence, are not allowed a right of reply or to highlight new evidence. Worst of all, the process is easily open to corruption and manipulation because the assessors are chosen by the IPC without naming them.

Unsurprisingly the appeal was denied by the IPC. Ms X therefore decided to limit her losses by paying up, but to recoup the amount by filing a court claim. The claim was filed against both ParkShield and Urban Splash. A counterclaim was filed.


The case was heard by DJ Sehdev in Birmingham on 18/11/2014.

In court, Ms X was represented by Craig X, while ParkShield had Andrew Fitton, their commercial director present. Ms Bennett, a lawyer for hire from LPC Law, acted for both defendants. She was instructed by Gladstones solicitors who had done all the paperwork. Ms X was not present.

Ms Bennett immediately tried to ambush the claimant by providing the contract between ParkShield and the landowner. The judge explained he would not see the document because it should have been filed earlier. Ms Bennett said this was not done due reasons of commercial sensitivity. DJ Sehdev explained this was not a good enough reason. Craig pointed out that the claimant had written twice asking for the contract. He explained the claimant would be disadvantaged if the contract was allowed because he would not have time to study it properly, or contact named parties to verify its authenticity.

The judge explained his options were to disallow the document or adjourn the case. Craig stated if the case was adjourned he would apply for a wasted costs order.

Ms Bennett stated the defendants had been ambushed because they were expecting the claimant to appear so they could cross examine her. The judge was having none of that and explained that even if he adjourned the case now, there was no guarantee the claimant would turn up next time; as long as her representative had right of audience he could conduct the case without her.

The judge explained that without disrespect for both parties the case was wholly disproportionate to the time needed. If he adjourned it, the next hearing was likely to need a day of court time to go through all the legal points raised, not the hour scheduled. he explained that anyone sensible acting for the parking company should have taken a long hard look at the circumstances and waived the charge. The claimant had taken reasonable steps to ensure she did the right thing.

Ms Bennett stated that they disagreed with the Ms X's witness statement, that Regus did not have authority to allow Ms X to use a different space and that in any case the Parking attendent's photographs showed that there was an empty space Ms X could use.

The judge rubbished this, stating it was a movable feast and the space would not have been empty when Ms X tried to park.

Craig pointed out there was no evidence Regis did not have authority, because the defendants had not coughed up the contract.

Ms Bennett said the claimant had accepted the charge by paying it. The judge stated she had paid at the point of a gun and it was entirely reasonable to pay up to limit her losses and then to file a court claim to reclaim them.

DJ Sehdev then reiterated that a great deal of money had been spent on this case, out of all proportion to the costs involved, and that he was sure Mr Fitton had better things to do with his time than to spend another day in court.

Was there any way this could be resolved, he asked?

He gave both parties 5 minutes to discuss the situation and everyone left the room.

After some to-ing and fro-ing both parties agreed to a Tomlin order (no admission of liability by either side).

ParkShield agreed to refund the £61.50 parking charge, the £25 filing fee, the £25 hearing fee and to drop the counterclaim.

In return they asked the judge to adjudicate on the £155 fee for an application to adjourn which Ms X was forced to file because she could not get time off work for an earlier hearing. Craig explained that the defendants had refused to agree to an adjournment, although they had nt good reason, and this changed the cost from £50 to £155. He thought it would be fair for the claimant to pay £50 and the defendants the rest.

In the event DJ Sehlev decided to split the costs 50/50. He apologised that the fee was £155 even though the hearing fee was only £25, but explained it was not in his remit to change this. He explained it was to the benefit of Ms X employers that the case was rescheduled, while also chiding the defendants for not cooperating with rescheduling. He explained both parties should cooperate even if they did not agree on other aspects of the case. As it was six of one and half a dozen of the other, costs would be split. He hoped Ms X's employers would pay her half (Prankster's note - they did).

Prankster's Note

ParkShield will have forked out a great deal of money for no good reason when they could have easily cancelled the ticket at first appeal. Their costs will include:

£2.50 DVLA fee
£21 IPC appeal fee
Gladstone solicitor fee
£250 LPC Law fee (approximate)
£25 counterclaim fee
Time preparing the case, travel and parking for Andrew Fitton, and the loss of his day for useful work.
£25 filing fee
£25 hearing fee
£77.50 as half of application to adjourn
£61.50 parking fee returned.

It is not known whether ParkShield operatives or the landowner get s a bounty for tickets paid, and if so whether this will be reclaimed or whether ParkShield will absorb the cost.

Although no verdict was returned, a large number of other motorists have tickets from Fort Dunlop and so The Prankster will keep an ear to the ground to see if more cases are filed by motorists eager to get their money back.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster













DVLA bans Proserve from access to keeper data...nearly

$
0
0
The DVLA has finally grown a pair after two years of sitting on the fence and decided to ban Proserve from access to keeper data...


...almost.

Proserve has applied for a judicial review of this decision. This is extremely expensive; they may well be looking at a £40,000 bill if they lose. This should take place in the near future. The rules are that it should take place "without undue delay and in any case within 3 months."

Until that process is complete the DVLA will continue to abdicate its responsibility to the motorist and provide keeper data to Proserve.

If Proserve win the judicial review then there will be no need for other car parking companies to remain members of the BPA and IPC. There would be a huge financial incentive for them to leave because they can then charge what they like (Proserve charge up to £250 per hour of trespass), they will not have to pay expensive ATA affiliation fees, and they do not have the bother and expense of running a legitimate appeals service, or funding an independent appeals service.

This could then lead to consumer pressure to get the keeper liability provisions removed, due to widespread abuse.

There are of course legitimate ways to enforce landowner wishes which would not have caused all these problems, but which Proserve and the landowner have chosen to ignore. One way to resolve most issues would be for the landowner to use a company which is a member of an ATA, which uses sensible signage and which charges the landowner's true loss for any act of trespass. The company should proactively patrol, and attempt to genuinely resolve problems in a way which does not involve issuing as many charges as possible.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


Civil Enforcement Limited fail to attend court

$
0
0
To save time The Parking Prankster has now created a template so he can quickly report on Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) cases.

CEL's strategy is to file large number of claims and to try and bully people into paying up. However, when faced with a robust defence they inevitably back down and either withdraw the claim or simply fail to turn up in court.

Here then, is the latest report.

Civil Enforcement Limited failed to turn up to a court hearing on [Thursday 20 November 2014] at [Croyden]. The claim reference was [A74YM041]. The motorist, having researched CEL, was aware that they hardly ever turned up, and therefore had a full schedule of costs prepared. The judge awarded [£45] in costs to the motorist.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster










Mick Cooke of Armtrac threatens to break fingers

$
0
0
The Parking Prankster has been informed of a telephone call between Michael Cooke of Armtrac and ParkingTicketAppeals.

Mr Cooke has been visiting houses of ParkingTicketAppeals supporters and posting notes through the doors. Apparently he objects to ParkingTicketAppeals offering to help with appealing parking charges.

ParkingTicketAppeals explained that they would be visiting car parks managed by Armtrac up to Chrismas. Mr Cooke responded by threatening to break the fingers of anyone who did this.

The Prankster feels that violence is not the answer to parking problems and that if Mr Cooke wants to stop losing at POPLA, all he has to do is to reduce his charges until they are a genuine pre-estimate of loss.*

The Prankster also worries that the DVLA are handing out motorist's data to a man who threatens violence and with a record of going round to the houses of people he does not agree with.

No doubt the DVLA will do a thorough investigation and if necessary suspend Armtrac's access to the keeper database.

Mr Cooke has previous form for threatening behaviour, as reported on several newspaper web sites.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1047599/Father-cleared-ramming-van-flee-bully-boy-clampers-threatened-family.html
http://www.westbriton.co.uk/ESCAPE-WHEEL-CLAMPERS/story-11469479-detail/story.html

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

*It seems Mr Cooke has found another way to stop losing at POPLA. He had moved from the BPA to the IPC. The IPC run an appeal system which is demonstrably unfair to motorists and which is capable of manipulation tp produce whatever results the IPC wish. Additionally the Government required the BPA appeal system, POPLA to publish an annual report and to be overseen by an independent board. No such requirements have been imposed on the IPC appeal system.


Civil Enforcement Limited turn up in court

$
0
0
A66YM205 Wed 29 October. CEL v Mr X. Liverpool Civil and Family Court. DJ Murphy/Britlin/Higgins

In a shock development Civil Enforcement Limited turned up in court. Possibly this was because they attempted to trick the Defendant into not turning up, and were therefore hoping for a default win.

The Defendant received several texts the day before the hearing, and contacted The Prankster for advice.


The Prankster advised the defendant to turn up anyway. He advised it was unlikely that CEL had actually instructed counsel because if they had, counsel would have surely advised them to cut their losses and call off the hearing. He stated it was more likely that as the defendant had never requested a stay of proceedings, that it was a trick by CEL, and that if they turned up but the defendant did not then CEL would get a default win.

On the day Mr Weinburgh (or possibly Weinstein) appeared for CEL in court as a 'representative of the company; he did not appear to be legally qualified, let alone a 'counsel'. His suit appeared to cost all of £25 and his tie was last fashionable in the 70's. The defendant stated that the charge was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL). The judge, impressed, asked the defendant if he had been to law school. The defendant had to admit he had an arts degree. CEL retorted that although the charge was not a GPEOL, it was not a penalty either, although he had no convincing explanation why.

The judge ruled that the attempt by the claimant to trick the defendant into not turning up by texting that the case was adjourned for 21 days was not admissible as evidence as it had 'without prejeduce' (sic) on it. (The Prankster disagrees with the judge on this. 'Without prejudice' is only a protection is there is a genuine attempt to negotiate; it cannot be used as protection for a text trying to trick the defendant into not appearing)

As CEL did not file their witness statement in time the judge ruled it was inadmissible. In any case, he did not have a copy if front of him, although he did say it might be filed 'downstairs somewhere'

This was probably good news for CEL. Their updated costs schedule included an extra £140 for drafting a witness statement (£70), handling the file (£45) and the hearing fee (£25).


The Prankster has compared the witness statement signed by Ashley Cohen with other witness statements he has from CEL also signed by Ashley Cohen. It appears to be generic with no identifying features of the actual case, and almost entirely consisting of template paragraphs used in other cases. The Prankster either thinks that CEL were ripped off if someone charged them £70 for essentially a copy of witness statements used in other cases, or alternatively they are trying to deceive the judge which would be a fraudulent action. It is probably lucky for CEL that this witness statement is lost in the court archives somewhere.

In his judgment, the judge ruled that the small grainy black and white photograph was not sufficient evidence that the vehicle was present at the alleged times. The parking event was before 1 October 2012, and therefore keeper liability did not apply. As the keeper was playing golf at the time and had a witness in court to prove this, there was no case to answer.

The claim was dismissed.

The judge did not award costs, even though arguably the claim had no merit and no hope of succeeding.

Prankster Note

The Claimant submitted this schedule of costs. In the unlikely event of them ever having the claim upheld, The Prankster considers most of these not applicable to small claims and would strongly argue against them.



Allowable costs would include the £25 hearing fee, and the travel portion of the 'claimants attending court'. They would be allowed their travel costs at the cheapest reasonable way of attending, but not any amount for loss of earnings as they will be paid for attending court, which is part of their job.

All the other amounts are intended to bump up the claim to scare the defendant into paying.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


Open letter to Oliver Morley regarding http://www.knowyourparkingrights.org

$
0
0
To "oliver.morley@dvla.gsi.gov.uk" , "patrick.mcloughlin@dft.gsi.gov.uk"

Dear Sir,

I would like to complain about the web site, http://www.knowyourparkingrights.org/.

This appears to be a thinly veiled propaganda exercise on behalf of the British Parking Association Limited, and does not correctly state motorist's parking rights at all.

There appears to have been no consultation with other parking ATAs, such as the IPC, or motorist organisations such as the BMPA.

The site uses the BPA Ltd logo.

I would request that you urgently require the BPA to place a big disclaimer on the front web page stating that the site is created and maintained by the British Parking Association Limited, that there is no government backing or approval, that other ATAs such as the IPC have not been involved, and that motorist organisations have not been involved.

The site has no balance, and does not inform the motorists of the large number of dirty tricks used by parking companies, and the steps to take in such situations.

Please address this issue with utmost urgency.

Your sincerely,

The Parking Prankster
BMPA Representative
Website: www.bmpa.eu
Viewing all 1127 articles
Browse latest View live