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

Civil Enforcement Limited fail to turn up in court. It's a numbers game

December 11, 2014, 2:00 am
$
0
0
This thread in pepipoo details yet another case where CEL failed to turn up in court. The motorist stated:
The judge was scathing about them and indicated that they were "very well known" on his circuit. He was most grateful of the McCafferty transcript I provided for him and he will refer to it in all future cases
The motorist was awarded around £86 in costs.

CEL play a clever numbers game. In the 18 months from 1 October 2012 to 31 March 2014 CEL filed 2094 claims, or 116 a month (FoI 85865 from the MoJ) . Only 55 cases were heard between August and October (inclusive) or 18 a month (MoJ figures).

If we assume that all the cases which were not heard were settled for the claim amount (£130 not including court fees), then the monthly figures play out as follows:

Settled cases: 98 * £130 = £12,740

For each hearing they fail to turn up to, it costs £35 filing fee, £25 hearing fee, plus defendant's cost. Not all judges will award costs, while some will regard CEL's behaviour as unreasonable and award more costs than are normally allowed in the small claims court. Let us set an average figure of £100 for costs, which is probably on the high side.

Aborted hearings = 18 * (£35+£25+£100) = £2880

Profit = £12,740 - £2,880 = £9,860

This is an exceedingly good profit, using the court system as a form of scary debt collector, but rarely following through to actual hearings. In all reported cases when they do turn up, CEL get soundly spanked at court, because their claims are without basis.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster



↧
Search

District Enforcement appeal after all

December 12, 2014, 2:33 am
$
0
0
The Prankster previously reported that District Enforcement Ltd had decided not to appeal a case regarding Staffordshire University car park where the judge ruled the signage was ambiguous and the car park markings not obvious.

This was incorrect - the court staff were a few days behind, and it has now been discovered the appeal was lodged after all.

The Prankster's view remains the same.

The Unfair terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR 1999) apply.

Written contracts
7.—(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language.
(2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most
favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under regulation 12.
As a judge has already ruled the contract (signage) is ambiguous, then 7(2) will apply, which means, in The Prankster's opinion, District Enforcement have no hope in enforcing tickets for parking completely outside marked bays. He suggests that rather than chuck money away in legal fees for an appeal, they spend the money to change the wording of the signs, or paint markings such as hatchings, or both.

District Enforcement will of course know all about UTCCR 1999 because the company was formed by 3 fast-track law graduates from Staffordshire University. Mystery shrouds their contract with Staffordshire University and why it was apparently awarded without any tendering process. Meanwhile, 2 of the original directors have left, leaving only Danil Kurpil. Graham McKie was the latest director to leave on 27/10/2014, with documentation filed on 3/12/2014.

Here is the signage in question.


The 6th condition clearly implies you can park outside marked bays as long as no obstruction is caused, and as long as conditions 3 and 5 are not broken.

However, it is also apparent from the signage that there is no genuine offer to park and that the charge of £70 is a disguised penalty, and therefore unenforceable.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧
↧

Have DVLA learnt lessons from RAME charity case?

December 17, 2014, 1:35 am
$
0
0
The RAME charity bus case was featured on BBC TV and can be seen here: http://www.nmag.co.uk/nmag-tv/.

An 84 year old man was pursued by a parking company as the keeper of a vehicle. His details were obtained from the DVLA who had no right to hand them out as the driver had already been identified. During the investigation the parking company lied to the DVLA; the DVLA accepted at face value the parking company account and did not check them, thus compromising the investigation.

Lynette Rose, Deputy Corporate Director of the DVLA, wrote in a letter dated 13th June 2013;

"DVLA officials accepted at face value the account of events provided by Premier Parking Solutions (PPS) and did not check thoroughly enough the information provided. This compromised the investigation and led to the Agency making a decision with only some of the facts"

and


"I have also asked for work to be undertaken to improve the way in which complaints of this nature are handled. This will ensure that they are processed through the appropriate channels at all stages. I can assure you that the staff concerned recognise the need to ensure that each complaint is investigated properly"

The investigation into the complaint made the following recommendations.

Now we are a year on from the parking event, The Prankster asks if any lessons have been learned by the DVLA. What is the nature or the work undertaken to improve the way in which complaints are handled?

Many people have contacted The Prankster to say their complaints to the DVLA are being fobbed off. Here is a typical example.

Thank you for your email received on 2/12/14. Your email reference number is xxxxxxx.
I am afraid we cannot assist you at DVLA. Please contact:
British Parking Association - 01444 447300

If the DVLA are not regulating the private parking industry, and the British Parking Association are not regulating the private parking industry, just who is?


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧

Independent Parking Committee Kangaroo Court Exposed

December 18, 2014, 2:34 am
$
0
0
The British Parking Association run an appeals system (POPLA), which although it has its faults, is at least mostly independent, mostly open and in its own way mostly fair to the motorist.

The Independent Parking Committee on the other hand run an appeals system (IAS) which is held behind closed doors, can be provably influenced by the IPC and from the results, is biased towards the parking companies.

Nothing illustrated this more than two results for G24 Parking who recently left the BPA for the IPC.

Here is the result from POPLA

The Appellant raises several grounds of appeal but it is only necessary for the purposes of this appeal to deal with one. This is the submission that the parking charge does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Where such a submission is made, there is a burden on the Operator, and not the driver, to provide a genuine pre-estimate of loss which details how they calculated the parking charge amount. It does not need to be particularly detailed or amount to exactly the charge amount because it is simply an estimate. However, one must be provided.
The Operator has not provided any evidence which establishes the charge reflects a genuine pre-estimate of loss. They simply state that their charge amounts to liquidated damages and is in accordance with the recommendations of the BPA. This is not sufficient to discharge their burden and so I cannot find that the charge is justified in this case. Therefore, I find that the charge is unenforceable and the Appellant is not liable to pay it.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Ricky Powell
Assessor

Here is the result from the IAS
The appeal is here, for completeness
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
The Appellant raises a number of challenges, which I will respond to in turn.
1a This appeal is not concerned with the failures or otherwise of the internal appeal. The Operator is a member of the IPC.
1b In this appeal the Operator does not have to prove anything, the onus is on the Appellant. A breach of the code of practice does not automatically mean that the charge is invalid. The requirements of the code are best practice. Falling short of best practice does not mean the Appellant had insufficient notice. I can read the content of the sign the Appellant claims is unreadable and the significant terms are no different from the other signs at the site.
2 Genuine pre-estimate of loss. Again it is not for the Operator to prove but for the Appellant. Where the claim is for breach the test to decide whether the charge is valid is to consider whether the charge is proportionate, has a tendency to deter, and is commercially justifiable. The intention was clearly to deter drivers from parking beyond a period of time. When one considers the likely cost of managing checking and enforcing the site, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I find the charge proportionate, and as the Operator’s only income commercially justifiable.
3 The Appellant has provided no evidence this sign was nearest their car.
4 This is not relevant. The Operator contends they are bringing the charge not for overstaying but on the basis the Appellant was not a customer. This is clearly a term and the other terms on the contractual sign make it clear that by breaching this term the Appellant is liable to pay the charge.
5 This is therefore irrelevant since I consider a contract has been formed.
Finally I do not find the contract ambiguous and therefore the doctrine of ‘contra proferentem’ does not apply.

The IAS is not fit for purpose because

  • the operator sees the motorist's evidence and makes representations, but the motorist is not allowed to see the operator evidence or make representations
  • the adjudicator is anonymous and the selection process for choosing an adjudicator is capable of being abused
  • the normal rule of law, where the claimant is required to prove their case is turned on its head
  • there is no independent board overseeing the appeals process, as there is with POPLA
  • there is no requirement to have an annual report published, as there is with POPLA
In this particular case there are even more worrying elements.

The adjudicator dismissed a statement by the keeper as untrue because the keeper had provided no evidence to back this up. This is clearly absurd. 

 The sign which was nearest to the car, according to the driver
         The Appellant has provided no evidence this sign was nearest their car.

The adjudicator also made up his own 'facts' to suit his arguments.

 This is not relevant. The Operator contends they are bringing the charge not for overstaying but on the basis the Appellant was not a customer
This is clearly not true. The NtK clearly states the charge is for overstaying.

Furthermore, the assessor clearly does not understand contract law, and is not therefore fit to be an assessor.
I can read the content of the sign the Appellant claims is unreadable and the significant terms are no different from the other signs at the site.




The first sign shows the charge is a contractual charge (you can stay longer than 3 hours. The charge is £50). The second shows the charge is for breach of contact (You can only shop here. If you go elsewhere you are in breach of contract) (Prankster note. Staying longer than 3 hours does not appear to be one of the 5 terms and conditions which attract a parking charge).

This is fundamental to parking contracts and any assessor who does not understand the difference is not fit to work as an assessor.

Furthermore, the assessor is clearly lying when he says 'I can read the content of the sign the Appellant claims is unreadable'.

The Prankster defies anyone to read the sign from the photograph above. An assessor who cannot tell the truth has no place in being an assessor.

The Prankster considers this is ample proof the IPC appeals system is a kangaroo court and not fit for purpose.

How can a parking company which has had its Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss calculations consistently ridiculed by POPLA for 2 years suddenly come up with a convincing explanation of its losses to a different appeals system?

How can a charge which it is admitted is the 'Operator’s only income' possible equate to a loss if it is used to run a profit making company?

The Prankster calls on the DVLA to suspend the ATA status of the IPC until they use a system which runs on the same lines as POPLA, and which is seen to be fairly run.

Furthermore, the Prankster calls on the DVLA to require the IPC to name the assessor used for the above case, and to ban them from further assessments.

Meanwhile The Prankster notes that should G24 want to proceed to court if the keeper does not pay up, then keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2014 does not apply. Under the act, the reason for issuing the charge must be stated. As G24 have confirmed the charge is for not being a customer to the IAS, they cannot change their tune in court. In any case, staying longer than 3 hours is not one of the terms and conditions which attracts a parking charge.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧

Ransomes v Anderson judgment available

December 18, 2014, 8:57 am
$
0
0
The transcript of the appeal judgment in Ransomes Park Limited v Anderson is now available on The Prankster website, and will make useful reading for anyone who is being sued by Proserve Ransomes or any other site which uses Proserve.

Several useful points arise

1) The signage is gibberish and cannot be used to create a contract. HHJ Moloney concisely deals with this in points 13 to 16.

2) A trespass has occurred and so some damages are payable. HHJ Moloney had no idea what these would be, and to order a re-trial to assess these would be out of proportion to the costs involved. With the consent of both parties, he therefore took the pragmatic view that he would guess at an amount. However, he made it clear that this was a guess and that this would not set a precedent for future cases.
 37. I do not want this assessment to be regarded as a precedent, or a sum that ought to be awarded in other cases. I have indicated the desirability that proper evidence is produced that will justify whatever sum is in fact claimed in a particular case
He also made it plain that in cases of trespass, it is the actual damages incurred which count. It was laughable that all 18 cases on one invoice were charged at one hour each.
29. I note that all 18 of the cases on the invoice I have seen are charged at precisely one hour each. That is inherently improbable. To be frank, it smacks to me of an attempt to introduce into a trespass claim the sort of “agreed flat fee” approach commonly used in contractual parking cases, which as I have explained cannot apply in a tort case
3) In future cases, Ransomes will need to prove it was liable to pay Proserve the amount invoiced.
30. What I am referring to here is an apparent failure by Ransomes to prove that it was
ever liable to pay Proserve, based on the fact that it did not seek or receive any proof from Proserve that the time had been expended. That is not a ground of appeal in this case, but in future cases I consider that as part of proving its loss Ransomes should plead and prove the amount of work that Proserve did, or is likely on the basis of its general business model to have done, in relation to the particular case in question. 
4) It is also open to any defendant to prove the work could have been done cheaper.

22 Fourthly, even in a case where the loss is foreseeable, and is actually incurred, it is
open to the defendant to reduce the amount of his liability by proving that the claimant has failed to mitigate his loss. That is to say, proving that there were reasonable steps open to the claimant to reduce his loss but the claimant unreasonably failed to take those steps and thus, in effect, unnecessarily increased the amount of his own loss. If a defendant can show that, then he need only pay the lesser sum that the claimant ought to have lost and not the greater sum that he in fact lost. 
At this point, The Prankster would like to introduce the relevant part of the costs document used by Excel Parking in POPLA appeals.

As you can see, Excel can do the job of issuing a ticket and getting DVLA data for the sum of £11.21 + £9.67, or a total of £20.88.

Numerous other parking companies also have figures that come out around the £20 mark for this kind of activity.

The Prankster therefore suggests that any motorist who believes he has trespassed makes an offer of £20.88 to settle.

However, it is also worth noting two other points.

1) HHJ Moloney failed to take into account the fact the Proserve were already paid a fixed fee by estate residents to patrol the estate. This should therefore not form part of any costs and an estimated 'patrol' fee can be deducted from the £11.21.

2) If a trespass occurs the trespasser should be given sufficient warning to depart. If you abandon your vehicle, you may therefore be liable, but if a Proserve employee comes up to your vehicle while you are there and photographs it without first asking you to move, you may not be.

3) If you are there, you can also mitigate Proserve's loss by offering to pay up there and then. This will remove the £9.67 costs and most of the £11.21. The Prankster suggests an offer of £5 would be sufficient to cover costs. Make a note of your offer, and if rejected, get the Proserve employee to sign they he has rejected your offer.

On a side note, Proserve have been given permission to move forward to a Judicial Review to see whether they need to join an ATA before the DVLA will give them keeper details again. This will take place sometime in 2015.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧
↧

ParkingEye win in court. Shooting fish in a barrel

December 19, 2014, 1:46 am
$
0
0
A1JD0339 ParkingEye v Mr M. Chippenham Court, 16/12/2014 in front of DJ Asplin. Not being the driver is no defence. £100 awarded for claimant, plus £90 costs.

The Prankster rocked up in Chippenham Court to observe a ParkingEye case. He was primarily there to see if ParkingEye informed the judge that the case law they most rely on, ParkingEye v Beavis case was being appealed. As it turned out, that was not relevant to the case in hand.

ParkingEye were represented by Stacy Payne from LPC Law while the defendant represented himself. DJ Asplin conducted the hearing, and began by apologising for the formal setting. He explained he would summarise the case. The case concerned a Holiday Inn car park in Bath. The defendant's vehicle was parked there for 3 hours without being a guest of the hotel. The published charge for parking there for that length of time was £100. There are other charges for parking if you are a guest.

Prankster note. Without seeing the signage, The Prankster assumes the learned judge was wrong on this point. In all other ParkingEye car parks The Prankster has seen, the charge is for breach of contract; not a contractual charge as the judge described.

The judge made a wry comment as to the size of ParkingEye's bundle he had been forced to wade through beforehand, but commented that it contained authority from the hotel for ParkingEye to act, photographs of the number plate and signage, and that it went on at considerable length regarding the legalities of the case.

The defendant's case, on the other hand, consisted of the single point he was not the driver. The car was owned by his company and was a pool car which could have been driven by any of 5 other people, none of whom had admitted to being the driver.

The judge explained kindly that although the defendant might think that a clever defence, parliament had fixed that loophole 2 years ago,  and that was no longer a valid defence.

He explained ParkingEye had a right to levy charges, that the driver was not staying in the hotel, and that the driver was responsible for the charge. As no-one had come forward admitting to be the driver, the responsibility therefore fell on the keeper of the vehicle. The case was over in 5 minutes without the claimant needing to speak, and with only a few sentences from the defendant.

DJ Asplin awarded the parking charge of £100, £15 court filing fee and £25 hearing fee. He explained he was not convinced about the solicitor filing fee of £50 but after some debate between himself and Ms Payne, in which the motorist did not join in, decided to award it.

Prankster note. There are several reasons why this fee of £50 is not valid. HHJ Moloney in ParkingEye v Beavis did not award this fee.

Ms Payne, looking somewhat embarrassed, explained she had also been requested by ParkingEye to ask for her costs. The judge asked where she came from, which turned out to be Great Malvern. The judge queried that although Chippenham's solicitors were in decline, surely ParkingEye could have found someone local. Ms Payne explained she was not asking for travel costs but her fee of £175 plus VAT. The judge ruled these were not allowable costs in a small claims court unless the defendant had behaved unreasonably, which he had not.

The final total came to £190 which the defendant paid immediately.

Prankster note. The defendant was lucky. Not being the driver has no hope of being a valid defence. Other judges may have ruled he behaved unreasonably in defending the claim, and so awarded higher costs.

So as it turned out, Beavis was not mentioned at all, and all Ms Payne had to do was quibble about costs. The Prankster recommends that motorists research the legal aspects of the case more fully before preparing a defence, and that if they don't want to do this, the safest option might be to pay up rather than risk an extra £200-£300 of costs.

Of course, the best option is to fully engage with the appeals process and get the charge cancelled at POPLA. So far, all ParkingEye's charges have been found to be penalties (and therefore invalid) by POPLA.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧

When Parking Companies go rogue

December 19, 2014, 3:49 pm
$
0
0
The Prankster advises potential customers of parking companies to check up on their previous customers before committing themselves. Some parking companies have cordial relationships with their customers...and some do not.

Take Civil Enforcement Limited, for example. The Co-op engaged them to manage their car parks some time ago but seem to have lost total control. Even when the Co-op want CEL to cancel parking tickets, they are ignored.

Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your email and your comments are noted.
As advised in my earlier response, it is simply a statement of fact that CEL and DEAL will not respond to requests from Co-op to discontinue Court actions, regardless of the reasons for such requests. Accordingly, it is not a question of this issue being escalating to another level of authority within Co-op, but that CEL/DEAL will not accede to such requests, regardless of who they emanate from within Co-op.
Where Co-op is able to comment further, I have endorsed responses below.
I trust this clarifies the position, as I do not think that Co-op is able to assist further in this matter.
Yours sincerely


Deborah Misell-WilliamsExecutive Customer Careline Team

The Prankster understands that CEL are no longer used by the Co-op, which is not surprising. Civil Enforcement Limited destroy Co-op's customer base by pursuing Co-op customers to court for minor parking transgressions. A customer overstaying for a few minutes by shopping is not expecting to have to fork out several hundred pounds for the privilege - CEL claim around £300. This no doubt ensures the customer will never return to the Co-op.

The Prankster suggests landowners who want their car park managed find a parking company who will work with them to maintain and improve their customer base rather than destroy it.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster



↧

Mr Duff needs help for judicial review

December 22, 2014, 12:30 pm
$
0
0
Mr Duff is seeking witness statements from individuals for his upcoming Judicial Review. If anyone wishes to assist him here is a draft you may like to personalise by inserting the relevant information into the red sections and deleting any sections which do not apply. Just check your paperwork and if Mr Duff

1. Sent you a charge notice more than 14 days after the alleged parking event

2. Did not serve you with a valid Notice to Driver

3. Claimed VAT on top of damages (which he was doing until recently) and which Ransome's Counsel advised the court was unlawful

4. Included references to rights to chase the Registered keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act, when he couldn't because his Notice to Keeper was more than 14 days after the event

5. Signed the County Court claim form statement of truth
Then why not send this witness statement to the DVLA DSP@dvla.gsi.gov.uk


                                                               1. On behalf of the DVLA
                                                               2. Witness Statement of Name
                                                               3. Date of Statement Date
                                              


           

In the High Court
Queen’s Bench Division
   

               Case Number number
Between

The Queen on the application of Duff
v Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency                                               
(DVLA)



____________________________
Witness Statement of Name on behalf of the DVLA
____________________________



1.         My full name is nameof addressand I am a job title or retired or unemployed
2           I am making this witness statement in support of the DVLA                                             
3.        I have read the letter dated the 4thJune 2014 from the DVLA to Mr Duff of Proserve Enforcement Solutions and noted that it comments that “Although you have made the point that your primary purpose is to take action to ensure that your clients are protected against unlawful interference with their land, the nature of this interference is parking-related trespass, which is regarded as a relevant obligation in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. The measure adopted by ProServe to enforce this where the use of DVLA data is involved is the same as those of traditional parking operators, i.e. the imposition and pursuit of charges.
The introduction of the ATA model and its subsequent extension to all parking companies came about in order to put in place parameters for operators without formal regulation or governance. You have set out your position with regard to matters such as signage, ticketing, charge levels and appeals, but these are matters which successive ministers have regarded as being for an ATA to monitor and ensure compliance with, so as to provide the necessary assurances to DVLA that our data is being used appropriately. I should also point out that the minister's requirement is that motorists are offered an independent appeals service if the appeal is rejected by the company that issued the charge”.
4.      On the date I received a Charge Notice from Proserve Enforcement Solutions demanding from me damages for an alleged trespass or breach of contract for a vehicle allegedly parking at name of site. Added to the claimwas a sum allegedly for VAT although VAT could not lawfully be added to any claim for damages. I regarded this as a false representation.
5.      The notice referred to in paragraph 4 was served more than 14 days after the alleged parking event yet referred to an ability on the part of Mr Duff/his client to exercise rights under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle. I understand that such rights cannot be exercised when such a notice is served more than 14 days after the parking event (paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 refers) where no Notice to Keeper had been served. No valid Notice to Keeper was served upon me. This notice appeared to be misleading and legally incorrect
6.      On the date I received from the County Court a claim form claiming damages for a breach of contract or a trespass and which appeared to have been issued by Mr Duff. Mr Duff had signed the statement of truth on that claim form although, I understand, he is not a Solicitor or otherwise authorised to sign such a statement of truth. It is my understanding that Mr Duff is not authorised by an appropriate regulatory body to conduct litigation under the terms of the Legal Services Act 2007 nor to act as a Solicitor under the Solicitors Act 1974.
7.      I understand that Mr Duff/Proserve Enforcement Solutions is contracted to undertake enforcement action against any party allegedly parking in contravention of a land owners requirements at the site and has caused to be erected at sitenotices setting out the land owner’s requirements. I understand that in the case of Ransomes Park Limited v Nicolas Anderson the Judge, on appeal, concluded that the signage used by Mr Duff was unclear and ambiguous and could not be relied upon. Mr Duff has not amended his signage at site since that decision.
8.      Mr Duff did not permit me to have any access to any independent appeal service.


I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true


Signature

Name

Address  

Date  
↧
Search

Civil Enforcement Limited fail to turn up in court

December 30, 2014, 4:38 am
$
0
0
Always good fodder for a slow news day, and when The Prankster needs to concentrate more on festive jollifications than blogging.

Yet again, Civil Enforcement Limited fail to run up in court. Yet again it seems an attempt may have been made to trick the defendant into not turning up as well, with an email from 'Sharon' asking the defendant to urgently get in touch..

It is not known whether the defendant was awarded costs.

Here are the full details on pepipoo





↧
↧

Excel Parking jump ship to the Independent Parking Committee

January 1, 2015, 2:08 pm
$
0
0
Excel Parking have apparently jumped ship from the British Parking Association to the IPC, following the lead of their sister companies VCS and Conkai.

No announcements are on the BPA or IPC websites, so this is entirely based on new signage which has appeared at Currys and The PC World on Old Shoreham Road Hove.



The signage shows the orange IPC roundel, but not the BPA Logo.

Of course, Excel and VCS have a history of mixing their signs up so this may just be a boo boo by their signwriter.

Of interest is the fact they charge £15 to cancel PCNs. This is roughly equivalent to their true genuine pre-estimate of loss unintentionally given away by them from the large amounts of conflicting information thay have published regarding their calculations.

The Prankster will keep an eye on the BPA and IPC websites to see if there is any news.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

New tactic - VCS use High Court Writ against student who moved house

January 2, 2015, 2:08 am
$
0
0
[Note. The Prankster is not an expert on High Court Writs and bailiffs. Take legal advice if you are in the same situation. If any information is wrong, please contact with corrections at prankster@parking-prankster.com].

This pepipoo thread tells the story of a student who unwisely ignored parking tickets. Although they could have all been cancelled by appealing them the student did not. Eventually the parking company, Vehicle Control Services,  took the student to court. However, as the student had moved they did not know about the court claim and the parking company got a default judgment against them.

The next step is extremely clever. The parking company then traced the student and took out a High Court Writ against them. Normally if you find you have an unknown CCJ against your name, you can apply to the court to get this rescinded and the case reheard. This happens with ParkingEye cases every day of the week.

However, once you have a High Court Writ against you, bailiffs can turn up and seize your goods. You can still apply to get the CCJ overturned, but this will not happen for several months, and the bailiffs may not wait; you may therefore be in the position of having to pay up, and then having to try and claim your money back from the parking company.

If this new tactic from the parking companies is successful, The Prankster expects other companies to follow suit. The Prankster believes this should be outlawed in the Code of Practice. The Parking companies should be required to confirm the address of the motorist before taking court action, not after. The DVLA should provide this information to them if they previously provided incorrect or out of date information; otherwise, the parking company should trace the address if the motorist has never made contact or if there has been a substantial period since the last communication. If the address turns out to be incorrect after a default judgment has been achieved then the parking company should apply for the CCJ to be removed at their cost if they did not take these steps and then restart proceedings.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster



↧

Civil Enforcement Limited, er, fail to turn up in court

January 2, 2015, 10:45 am
$
0
0
This pepipoo thread tells the tale.

As normal, CEL failed to turn up. The judge awarded some costs against them. Apparently they did not try their tricks of getting the motorist to fail to turn up too.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

POPLA board raises issues

January 8, 2015, 4:22 am
$
0
0
The POPLA board has published an open letter to the BPA in which it raises various issues.

The full letter can be read here.

The main points are:

  • The board does not have enough funding to do a proper job.
  • The board is concerned that parking operators can forum shop and use a different appeals service with fewer safeguards which has a more favourable outcome at a lower cost.
  • Proposing a levy on DVLA release of information to establish one board to oversee all the different appeals bodies



The Prankster considers this to be of extreme concern.The ability of operators to effectively use a 'kangaroo court' undermines the whole appeals service.

Here is POPLA's verdict on a case where the Notice to Keeper was not compliant.


As you see, the onus is on the operator to prove who the driver was. This is a complete opposite to the IAS view of the burden of proof.


And here is an IAS decision where the NtK was not compliant.


As it happened, in this particular case the keeper was not the driver, so the assessor made a completely incorrect inference.

The appeal result completely depends on which appeals service is used. Furthermore, the IAS appeals service is clearly a travesty of justice. One of the points of the appeals service is to reduce the burden on the court. There is no point, therefore in running an appeals service in which the burden of proof is on the motorist. No motorist in their right mind would pay up after receiving such a judgment. Instead, they would be far better off by using the court process to force the operator to prove their case - since the operator was not able to prove their case to the IAS, they are not likely to be able to prove it in court either.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧
↧

CEL turn up to court. 50 cases of ticketing their own customer's employees

January 9, 2015, 10:15 am
$
0
0
The Prankster has been given this report from a British Motorist Protection Association representative.

On 9/1/2015 in Bristol HHJ Roderick Denyer QC heard the directions hearing for two related cases, Civil Enforcement Limited v Curtis A93YM708, and DEAL v Colclough A79YP365. Mr Ritchie was there for CEL and Mr Fealey for the defendants. DEAL was not represented. Also present were representatives from the Coop, who were apparently funding the defence.

Although ostensibly a parking case the judge hinted that there was a large back-story which he was not concerned with at this moment in time. Apparently there was some contractual disagreement between CEL and the Co-op, which resulted in the parking contract being terminated, CEL finally moving out on December 19th. CEL retaliated by ticketing Co-op employees then refusing to cancel tickets, with the result that CEL (and their debt collectors DEAL) currently have 50 court claims on the go against Co-op employees.

In the hearing, the Co-op were seeking a part 19 (rules 10 and 11) agreement (group litigation order) so that all the cases could be heard together rather than scattered all over the country, and so that new cases could also be added.

HHJ Denyer explained that although he initially leaned towards the order, he did have his doubts, especially as to how the administration would work. He would prefer a different solution.

Mr Fealey suggested a test case could be heard. Mr Ritchie explained that the claimants conduct so far was an indication of the nature of the beast. In the papers already submitted CEL had suggested that the test case be CEL v Ms Ferris which has already been held. However, in that case the papers had been submitted to Co-op funerals rather than Co-op stores, which resulted in the Co-op legal team not turning up. They were therefore currently seeking a set-aside for that case, which was objected to by CEL and that case was therefore not suitable to be a test case.

HHJ Denyer stated he had seen the letter CEL wrote to Ms Ferris. He explained this was no slight on Mr Ritchie as he was not involved, but he had serious concerns over the letter, which he stated was 'a disgrace'.

However a test case would save court time if suitable directions could be found. He explained there was a third party, Creative, and that the Co-op's contract was with Creative rather than CEL, although this was a simplification.

Mr Ritchie stated that the upcoming appeal case of ParkingEye v Beavis may sort out a lot of the issues in this case and that nothing should proceed until then.

Mr Ritchie also pointed out that the nature of the people the court were dealing with was that they had opposed the stay of this case, CEL v Curtis until after this directions hearing, and he feared there may be more of the same in the absence of good faith cooperation.

After some discussion and breaks for Mr Ritchie to take instruction from CEL, HHJ Deyner gave his judgment.

The 50 outstanding cases would be stayed until at least 31st of March. If the co-op identified any more cases involving employees, then CEL agree to stay these too. The two claims discussed today would be used as test cases and moved to the multi-track, to be re-listed as soon as possible after 23 January. Directions could be applied for, which may also include asking for a stay until the Beavis appeal.

Prankster Note

CEL seem to be slitting their own throat. What sensible company would employ them to manage their car park after learning how they have acted in this case?

The Co-op also seem to be in something of a Morton's Fork. If they win their case then all car park charges in their stored may have been invalid. This may lead them open to claims from customers going back to the start of the contract. Moving forward, they will have to find a way of managing their car parks which is legitimate. The Prankster suggests they engage an operator on a fixed fee basis, and make sure charges are not penalties.

Meanwhile, anyone with a Co-op parking charge should note that the Co-op have a contract with Creative and not Civil Enforcement Limited, and therefore this needs to be examined further to establish if Civil Enforcement Limited have the right to issue charges.

Lastly, anyone with a court case with Civil Enforcement Limited should ask for it to be stayed until the test case of Civil Enforcement Limited v Curtis A93YM708 is heard. Anyone with a court case with DEAL should ask for it to be stayed until the test case of DEAL v Colclough A79YP365.

The Prankster also wonders who will sign the landowner witness statement in this case. Previously, Ashley Cohen of CEL has signed these on behalf of landowners.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Are Smart Parking the next ParkingEye?

January 10, 2015, 11:04 am
$
0
0
The Prankster's Smart Parking mole has informed him that they have poached Ben Johnson from ParkingEye, and he is now Smart Parking's new Managing Director. Ben is rumoured to be ruthless, and his first action was to made a large number of redundancies, sweeping out unnecessary senior operations managers to streamline the operation. It appears the company will now concentrate primarily on ANPR only operations and remove manpower from sites.

He is said to have bought over a number of other ParkingEye employees, including all his technical and operational staff.

The Prankster wonders whether Smart Parking will also be following the ParkingEye litigation model. Previously they have not been known to take court action. With 6 years worth of old parking charges to play with, this could be a much needed source of revenue if they ever lose the Asda contract, which is estimated to be worth 70% of their turnover.

If Asda do decide to terminate the contract, The Prankster advises them to make sure their employees are safe from tickets, given Civil Enforcement Limited's recent actions.

If any other Smart Parking current or former employees would like to get in touch with the Prankster to confirm this information, his email address is prankster@parking-prankster.com.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster



↧
Search

Civil Enforcement Limited fail to show up at Court

January 16, 2015, 9:38 am
$
0
0
Civil Enforcement Limited failed to show up at Court on Wednesday, 14th January 2015 (Claim No A58YM418). 

In a pattern familiar to readers of this blog, CEL rang the defendant and even sent a letter to advise that they had decided to withdraw claims and discontinue proceedings. However, they failed to advise the Court. The afternoon prior to the case being heard the defendant wisely contacted the Court who confirmed it was still listed. The defendant attended and as usual CEL did not. 

The Prankster warns all defendants to always check with the court even if CEL tell them the case is cancelled. If both parties fail to turn up, the judge may well find for the claimant.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧

POPLA competency called into question

January 17, 2015, 2:15 pm
$
0
0
The Prankster has been made aware of a POPLA case which calls into question the competency of the POPLA assessors and also the POPLA administration team.

As aside issue, the case also calls into question the competency of the car park operators, CP Plus, but then that was probably a given.

The motorist overstayed at a service station because of a breakdown. The car was at all times parked in the recovery area and not the main car park. The Prankster has some file pictures for this service station, and believes there are no signs whatsoever in the recovery area. The motorist was therefore unaware there was a time limit.

The Registered Keeper originally appealed with several reasons. However, one reason was that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and therefore keeper liability did not apply. The appeal was quite detailed, listing several reasons why the notice was not compliant.

The assessor just picked one of these reasons, and declined the appeal point without considering the full list of reasons. There were several other completely valid appeal points which the assessor bafflingly ruled against as well.

The Registered Keeper therefore asked POPLA to reconsider on the grounds they had not properly considered the appeal points.

POPLA replied they would not.

The keeper insisted.

POPLA declined.

The keeper pointed out they had never received an evidence pack from POPLA.

POPLA stuttered. Er...whoops.

They supplied the evidence pack. A short time was allowed for the motorist to rebut the evidence before the appeal was reheard. The motorist found it was closer in content to the inside of a cracker than a proper evidence pack. The signage map was from the wrong car park (the other side of the motorway). No photographs of signage in the area parked were supplied. The GPEOL explanation was copied from a different operator, and they had forgotten to change the name to CP Plus. The initial loss to the operator was stated to be a sum which was not due to the operator but to another party. Most of the GPEOL was due to appeal costs which only occur in 2% of cases. The Notice to Keeper was clearly deficient.

Any competent assessor could have upheld the appeal for a number of reasons.

The keeper send in the rebuttals and waited.

CP Plus complained that they had emailed the evidence pack to the keeper on time, and so the result should stand. The keeper replied he had not received it, it was not in his spam box, and if POPLA wanted to rely on an unsafe mechanism for evidence pack delivery where the operator emailed the motorist, then they should expect to have to hold a few rehearings now and then.

POPLA reconsidered the case with a new assessor.

Not surprisingly, the assessor ruled the NTK was not valid after all, for exactly the same reasons the keeper put forward in the first place. The parking charge was cancelled.

Prankster Note

This puts the whole competency of POPLA at issue. If the assessors cannot get the basic issues right such as the correctness of the Notice to Keeper, then this is a big concern. If the administrators will not allow a rehearing when the assessor has made a clear mistake, this is a big concern. If POPLA rely on operators to send out evidence packs this is a big concern. There are well known postal black holes at ParkingEye and Armtrac, let alone the other operators. Not one of the evidence packs sent to the Prankster by CP Plus were sent on the date they told POPLA, giving The Prankster an unfairly short time to rebut the evidence.

The Prankster wonders how many other appeals have been lost due to errors by the assessors. There needs to be a proper system where assessor errors can be fixed.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


↧
↧

Picture of the week - not so Smart Parking are 'bad mongs'

January 18, 2015, 11:02 am
$
0
0

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧

British Parking Association says fines for short overstays are unfair and not legally enforceable

January 20, 2015, 1:17 am
$
0
0
The interview can be heard on iplayer at this link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02ghk7d

It is about 1:21 in. Iain Lee is interviewing Dave Smith from the British Parking Association.

Iain Lee: But those ones that for for a hundred quid fine for being fifteen minutes over, it's a bit tight isn't it?
David Smith: Yes I think 15 minutes is, is, is a little, a little  ..and I think most motorists wouldn't receive a ticket for that..overstay 15 minutes
I: But they do it's automatically generated isn't it? By a computer so there is no human element going "Well this is only 5,10,15 minutes we'll let them off"; it's generated automatically
D: No there's always a human element involved. I've seen behind the scenes where these operations take place and you know it's not in these companies interests to issue a ticket that is wrong. They will want to make sure they are providing a service on behalf of the landowner
I: Well 15 minutes wouldn't be wrong and we know that it does happen so how is that justified?
D: Well, its not justified, I mean...
I: So why do they do it?
D: Well the parking operators are managing the land on behalf of a landowner, typically a retailer. They're providing a service to the landowner. What we don't want is a situation where motorists are parking all day every day in a car park they're not actually using the service available
I: But you've still not quite answered the question. Why is is fair to fine someone £100 for being 15 minutes over when they've spend a few hundred quid in the shop?
D: Well I mean its not always £100. I mean there are guidelines in place and we recommend that the maximum charge is £100...
I: Ok
D: ...its around £80, £75 and then there's a discount as well to 40%. If people feel the ticket is unfair they can appeal that ticket.
I: I'm going to ask the question one more time Dave because maybe you're not hearing. Why do you think its acceptable to fine people up to £100 if they are 15 minutes over their limit?
D: Well it doesn't happen. In the majority of cases...
I: Well it does happen though. We know it happens. We've just spoken to someone who has instances of it happening. So why do you think its fair?
D: Well if it isn't fair Iain, then people should appeal that ticket and there are processes in place to allow them to do that.
I: Why do YOU think its fair?
D: I don't think it's fair that...
I: So it's unfair. You're from the British Parking Association and you're saying its unfair that people who are 15 minutes over the limit should be fined £100. Up to £100.
D: It simply isn't the case in the majority of instances
I: No but it happens and you just said its unfair
D: It happens in a minority of cases
I: Is it unfair?
D: It happens, but it isn't the norm Iain. It isn't something that happens...
I: Ok those minority of cases it happens, is it unfair?
D: That's for the appeals service to decide
I: Well not you from the...you can give me your opinion as someone from the British Parking Association. Is it unfair?
D: There are so many different instances that...
I: Ok here's an instance. Someone has parked for 15 minutes longer than they should have done. they get a fine of lets say £80. Is that fair?
D: As the current situation stands that is what motorists have to contend with and they should appeal that ticket if they think its unfair.
I: But is it (laughs) is it fair?
D: Iain it's not for us to decide it's for the appeals service to decide.
I: But you did just say it was unfair a minute ago and you seem to be backtracking
D: Well no, well no I'm just thinking about what I said and um er...
I: You're regretting it? So you thought it was unfair, then you reconsidered it and now you think its fair?
D: No, no, no you're twisting my words I'm afraid.
I: Ok, well you did say its unfair. That's not twisting, that's what you said.
D: I think what I'm saying is that there is a process in place for any motorist...
I: (laughs)
D: ...who wants to appeal a ticket...
I: Right
D: ...and it's for the appeals service to decide whether that ticket issued was fair or not.
I: Ok. Making it difficult for people to go shopping and do things isn't it?
D: Well no I think we've got to think about the landowner here. The landowner is providing a service for the motorist and what we don't want is a situation where the cost of that charge is £10..£20 and therefore the motorist says "Oh well I'll just park here all day then as I'm happy with that cost"
I: Yes yes, its a nice little earner isn't it?
D: I don't think so no.
I: How much do these companies make?
D: Parking is never free Iain we have to realise that
I: How much do these companies make Dave?
D: Well it varies you know
I: Well go on then give us an example
D: I don't know. I mean I don't know the financial figures of all these companies. That's not the way we operate, We're a membership association
I: Right cos a private landowner isn't going to do it for free are they?
D: Parking isn't free
I: Its a business
D: Well I think the misconception is that parking is free. A free parking space costs money. The cost of providing that service is the...
I: How much does it cost?
D: It depends. It depends on what the operator says that it costs
I: What about this thing that we've heard that if you get one of these they are not enforceable by law?
D: Well I mean they have to justify their costs to us
I: Are these fines sent out by these private parking companies...are they enforceable by law
D: They are not enforceable by law because...
I: So then why would anyone want to pay them
D: Because they are parking in a car park
I: Right
D: They are agreeing to the terms and conditions in that car park which are clearly set out in signage at the entrance to the car park and throughout the car park. Those guidelines are in place and they should be adhered to.
I: But if its not legally enforceable - and thanks for telling everyone that Dave because that's certainly going to help a lot of people - then you get one of these fines through the letterbox you might as well just rip it up if they can't enforce it. No ones going to pay it voluntarily are they?
D: Well they can be pursued by the parking company
I: But if its not legally enforceable whats that pursuance going to do apart from be classified as harassment?
D: Well no,  it's not harassment it's..they've agreed when they park in that car park to abide by the terms and conditions; then they are agreeing in a contract...
I: You've just said it's not legally enforceable
D: What I'm saying is legislation doesn't exist on private land in the same way that...
I: So its not legally enforceable?
D: Well no. There is no legislation that exists...
I: So don't pay it then
D: What we would like to see is for government to regulate private parking
I: Well! One final question Dave. If someone is 15 minutes over their limit is it fair they should get an £85 fine?
D: It depends on circumstances of that particular parking act
I: Dave thank you very much indeed.

Prankster Note

Always appeal your parking charge if you think the amount is too high. If the charge is for breach of contract then the law currently is that the charge must equal the loss, so a charge of £20-£40 may well be enforceable, while a charge of £100 would not.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


↧

Is Chris Dawson's The Range operating a criminally based parking operation in Barrow with ParkingEye's help?

January 22, 2015, 3:43 pm
$
0
0
Chris Dawson owns CDS Superstores, who run the successful 'The Range' series of stores. One of these is in Barrow-in-Furness, and has a respectably sized car park adjacent, which is run on behalf of The Range by ParkingEye. Unfortunately no one bothered to apply for advertisement consent, under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended), for their signage in the car park. Regulation 30 indicates that this is a criminal offence.

The Local Planning Authority wrote to the Land owner back in March 2014 and nothing happened. The actual occupier is CDS (Superstores International) Limited trading as The Range. The planners then wrote to ParkingEye in August asking for a formal application for consent. Parking Eye showed their contempt for the law by just ignoring the request. Finally they wrote again in November 2014 spelling out their criminal conduct in no uncertain terms and threatening a prosecution.
Please be aware that anyone who displays an advertisement or knowingly permits someone else to do so, without the consent required, is acting illegally. It is then immediately open to the planning authority to bring prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court for an offence under section 224 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990.
It is trite law that if a crime has to be committed to create a contract then that contract is illegal and unenforceable. To create the contract they had to have the signage. Thus all parking contracts that ParkingEye have alleged they have had over the past two years have been unenforceable.

Under the contract between ParkingEye and The Range clause 3.5 indicates that it was the responsibility of The Range to obtain the necessary consent. Regardless, a prudent business should have checked that the consents were in place before they started to operate.

ParkingEye/The Range have known, from the planners, about this issue for 10 months during which it has continued to issue parking charge notices to motorists with whom it has entered into illegal contracts. There may be an issue here around fraud.

ParkingEye's standard contract (clause 3.11) shows they collect charges for breach of contract on behalf of the landowner. If this is in force with The Range then Chris Dawson's store will have trousered a lot of cash from parking charges illegally from his own customers in the last few years. The ParkingEye v Somerfield case established that each parking space is worth 0.4 parking charges per week. At £100 a charge, that is £4,000 a week per 100 spaces, and £208,000 a year.

The Prankster suggests that any motorist who paid a parking charge for The Range in Barrow in Furness applies to both ParkingEye and The Range to get their money back. This may also apply to motorists who have had court judgments against them. In this case the Tort of Deceit may apply which could mean the motorist can bring a fresh case. Motorists interested in this should take legal advice first.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster 
↧
Viewing all 1127 articles
Browse latest View live
Search