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

ANPR Ltd lost contract with Preston Council

May 29, 2015, 3:58 am
$
0
0
The following email has been forwarded to The Prankster from a concerned motorist.
Good morning Mr X,
Following on from our meeting yesterday , a decision has been taken to terminate our contract with ANPR Ltd. The Company has been served with notice in accordance with the contractual requirements and instructed not to undertake any further parking management on behalf of the Council.
Kind regards
Caron.
This will not affect previous charges - The Prankster understands that ANPR Ltd have started court action in regard to some of these. However, as the charges are for trespass, it is not apparent to The Prankster why ANPR Ltd have the standing to bring the case, or why the loss to the landowner is £100.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧
Search

Henry Greenslade throws lifeline to legitimate parking companies

June 4, 2015, 2:46 pm
$
0
0
Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA has today made a brave decision which will send shudders through the rogue elements of the parking companies. His full statement is available here, but the essence is that now Barry Beavis has filed an appeal, all POPLA cases where the operator relies on the ParkingEye v Beavis result will be stayed until the case is heard at the Supreme Court. This may be some time after July 2016.

The main areas parking cases are contested are

  1. did the event occur
  2. was the signage sufficient
  3. does the operator have authority
  4. were consumer regulations complied with
  5. are the conditions which make the keeper liable fulfilled
  6. is the charge appropriate
If the parking company complies with the first 5 conditions, then POPLA's decision will depend on the result of the sixth. Of course, if they do not comply then POPLA will uphold the appeal.

If the operator is legitimate and the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, then POPLA will rule for the operator; existing case law covers this. Legitimate operators therefore have nothing to fear from Mr Greenslade's decision.

The rogue operators who have artificially inflated their charges will have to rely on the ParkingEye v Beavis result to justify themselves, and this will result in the case being stayed until the Supreme Court hearing. It will be very interesting to be a fly on the wall to see which operators are making angry phone calls to POPLA and Steve Clark of the BPA over the next few days.

The Prankster considers that a parking charge of around £25 in line with council charges is likely to be in the region of a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore this level of charge is likely to be allowed by POPLA. Ironically, the ParkingEye v Beavis result also ruled that charges in line with council charges are likely to be allowable. 

With further irony, this level of charge is likely to be perfectly acceptable to the parking operators who offer genuine management services to the landowner. These operators will charge a management fee and therefore be interested in providing a genuine service, in minimising transgressions and will only issues charges when hey are justified.

The rogue element who offer their services for free have to rely on sharp practices and targeting the motorist to maintain their income stream. These companies will have to reassess their way of operating if they want to win at POPLA.

Will it matter

Currently only around 1% of cases go to POPLA. In theory the operators can therefore afford to ignore this and go for business as usual.

However, what may matter more is if the courts take the same view. Judge Jones in Reading is postponing all cases involving ParkingEye until the outcome of the Supreme Court is known. Other courts and judges may well follow suit.

ParkingEye file around 30,000 claims a year, and to each of these claims they add a filing fee of £50. Of course, their claims are electronically generated using templates, so it actually costs almost nothing for them to file the claim, and the £50 is almost all profit. Only around 3,000 claims actually get to court, so if we assume that in most of the rest the motorist caves in and pays up, then this £50 generates around £1.3 million. ParkingEye's last accounts (2013) showed a pre-tax profit of £1.6 million.

This means that ParkingEye are relying on filing court claims to generate most of their profit; if the courts stayed all cases then ParkingEye could be in serious financial difficulty.

Of course, the 2014 accounts may show a different picture so The Prankster eagerly awaits their arrival to see if ParkingEye have cooked their own goose or if they have other income streams.

Legitimate Operators

Currently legitimate operators have difficulty winning contracts away from the rogue operators who come in and offer landowners parking 'management' for free. Of course, once the landowner realises that they have let the wolf into the hen-house it is too late and the landowner finds there are large penalty clauses if they want to cancel. 

This new ruling may tip the balance and make it more of a level playing field if all operators need to charge a management fee to make the contract viable. This will be a welcome change.

The Prankster and Mr Greenslade have clashed before and no doubt will again, but for the second time The Prankster tips his hat to Mr Greenslade.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧
↧

DEAL turn up in court - ordered to pay costs

June 5, 2015, 2:01 pm
$
0
0
This thread on pepipoo details yet another case where DEAL failed to turn up. The claim was filed by that well known non-solicitor Mswarts, and the defendant filed a robust defence, virtually ensuring the claimant would not turn up.

As usual DEAL did not send the Directions Questionnaire to the defendant, only to the court. The defendant wrote to the court who were interested in the behaviour of the claimant, and asked for evidence of other hearings. The defendant therefore sent in copies of other orders from The Prankster's blogs.

DEAL failed to comply with the court's orders and so the claim was duly struck out. This was confirmed by phone with the courts...but later proved to be premature. DEAL paid the £55 hearing cost at the last minute so 15 days later the defendant turned up for the hearing. There the mystery deepened as to why DEAL bothered...DEAL had discontinued by email at 15:40 the day before.
is. The clerk stated this had happened to another case that day too. The defendant explained to the clerk that this was typical behaviour for DEAL and the clerk suggested they write to the court.

They did so and the court wrote to DEAL explaining that unless they contested the costs, they would be awarded in due course.

DEAL did contest the costs, so another hearing was held. Ironically they did send a person to this one, a paralegal from their London office. This proved just to be more wasted costs for DEAL and the judge awarded the full costs to the claimant.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧

DVLA reverse position on charging to find out if a parking company have accessed your data

June 8, 2015, 11:59 pm
$
0
0
The DVLA previously charged if you wanted to know if a parking company has accessed your data.

They have now apparently changed their mind on this, at least according to this post on pepipoo.

Due to the nature of your request for information we are unable to provide this via email under the Data Protection Act. However, data-subjects have the right to request information held about them by the DVLA. Requests for such information from the vehicle record must be made in writing providing full name and address and details of the vehicle registration mark(s). The fee for this service until today was £5, but this is now a service which is provided “Free of charge”. Requests should be sent with any necessary documents to: Vehicles Fee Paying Enquiry Section, DVLA, Swansea, SA99 1AJ."
The Prankster welcomes this change of position - it is only fair that keepers know if a parking company has correctly accessed data. Going further, it would be even better in future if a keeper could register to be automatically informed if an operator has accessed their data. The Prankster suggests that email would be a cost effective method to do this, with post as a back up for keepers who do not wish to rely on email. This can be easily funded by the current charge to the operators of £2.50.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


↧

Smart Parking manager admits £45,000 embezzlement

June 11, 2015, 5:38 am
$
0
0
The Courier has reported that David Edmeads, formerly of Smart Parking, has admitted embezzling £45,000

As previously reported by The Prankster, Smart Parking regard this as small beer, and confirm no motorists were affected.

Sentencing will occur on 14 July at Perth Sheriff Court.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


↧
↧

ParkingEye sharp practices cost them £313.90 in set-aside judgment

June 11, 2015, 7:31 am
$
0
0
This post on pepipoo details how ParkingEye's sharp practices in court ended up costing them £313.90.

ParkingEye have a habit of filing court claims if no reply is received from their letters. They do this without checking if the motorist address is correct. Of course, one very good reason that no reply is received is if they are writing to the wrong place. Once they receive a default judgment they then use a tracing agent to find the correct address, and try and enforce the judgment. The Prankster believes the correct time to use a tracing agent is before the claim is filed, not after.

In this particular case however the situation was more straightforward - the court papers did not reach the defendant in time.

ParkingEye not only failed to turn up to the set aside hearing, but also threatened the use of bailiffs, despite the set aside application being filed. They also failed to write to the court which is unusual - normally they send in a small forest opposing the set aside.

DDJ Buckley considered that PE not attending, not notifying the court, and threatening enforcement while a set aside was outstanding was vexatious and unreasonable behaviour and therefore awarded full costs under rule 27.14(g).

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27#27.14
(g) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably;
These were itemised as
£155 set aside fee
£60 defendant loss of earnings
£98.90 lay representative travel and disbursements

Total = £313.90

The judgment was set aside and the defendant was ordered to file a defence by 26 June, and ParkingEye to respond by 24 July. The case would then be referred to POPLA in the first instance. If POPLA find for the defendant, then the defendant can seek extra costs pursuant to rule 27.14(g).

(Prankster Note: this seems fair because ParkingEye often file no defence at POPLA, so the defendant can claim their preparation time if they do this)

Otherwise, the case will be relisted if the defendant considers the POPLA verdict to be incorrect.

The Prankster considers ParkingEye's options to be as follows

1) Bail out now
Cost £313.90 plus £25 filing fee

2) Fight at POPLA
Cost £313.90 plus £25 filing fee
Cost of preparing a court defence
POPLA cost of £27
Cost of preparing a POPLA defence

If they lose, then they will also face paying the defendant's POPLA preparation costs.

The Prankster has not heard of any POPLA cases where ParkingEye have won post-Beavis (when a good appeal is filed), and has heard of plenty of ParkingEye losses, so assumes this is where the case will be put to bed. However, assuming ParkingEye do win and carry on to court they will then be facing further costs of around £200-£300 for their LPC Law representative.

However, The Prankster has known ParkingEye spend £1,000 on small claims cases to get £100 back, so he assumes they will carry on regardless.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Duff v DVLA - judgment handed down tomorrow

June 11, 2015, 2:00 pm
$
0
0
The Duff v DVLA judgment is due to be handed down tomorrow, according to the Royal Courts of justice website

COURT 3
CHESTER CIVIL JUSTICE CENTRE
Before MR JUSTICE EDIS
Friday 12 June, 2015
At 10 o'clock
FOR JUDGMENT
HAND DOWN
CO/100/2015 The Queen on the application of Devindra v Upper Tribunal (immigration And Asylum Chamber)
CO/4140/2014 The Queen on the application of Duff v Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency



The two parties will already know the result, but it will be embargoed until 10am tomorrow.

Steven Duff wants the right to issue tickets to vehicles and get driver details without any controls on signage, charge levels, having to obey a code of practice or having an independent appeals process. The DVLA want him to belong to an Accredited Trade Association (ATA) before they hand out details.

If Mr Duff wins we can expect other parking companies to follow suit and dispense with the annoying restrictions imposed by the ATAs. If Mr Duff loses, parking companies who do not belong to and ATA like ACE Security can also expect their access to also be the subject of scrutiny

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Duff's arguments found to be duff. Proserve must join an ATA to get keeper data

June 12, 2015, 5:57 am
$
0
0
The judgment in the case of Duff v DVLA has now been handed down, and is available here.

In a nutshell, the judge found that the DVLA had ample reason to require Proserve to join an ATA, and brought attention to his previous failings in signage, charge level and access to independent appeals services.
I agree with the Deputy High Court Judge who refused permission on the papers, prior to its grant at an oral hearing. She observed that this claim for judicial review is really a merits challenge to the decision rather than a true public law claim. The claimant does not agree that he should be subject to a requirement that he should join an ATA if he wishes to be able to access large amounts of data from the register in order that he can profit by recovering sums of money from the keepers or drivers of vehicles which have trespassed on his clients' land. He is no doubt entitled to that view. However, the Secretary of State took a different view and his decision is plainly not irrational and there is no other arguable basis for quashing it.
Full costs were awarded against Duff.

In light of the above The Prankster expects the DVLA to stop providing data to other companies such as ACE Securities and ANPR Ltd who also operate car parking enforcement without belonging to an ATA.

Background

The Prankster
Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧
Search

'Incompetent' VCS lose Scottish test case - IAS baristas take note!

June 17, 2015, 9:48 am
$
0
0
This newspaper report describes how VCS's attempt to establish a precedent in Scotland went horribly wrong.

Vehicle Control Services filed multiple court claims in Scotland, and eventually went all the way with one case for £700 worth of parking tickets. However, Sheriff Alastair Brown dismissed the case on the grounds that there was no evidence whatsoever that the defendant was the driver in any of the parking events.

In Scotland, only the driver is liable for parking events. In England and Wales the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4 also makes the keeper liable if certain conditions are fulfilled.

The Sheriff ruled that VCS were incompetent, but that they had not conducted themselves inappropriately, so awarded expenses at the small claims level but did not award punitive expenses.

The defendant's solicitor, Gary McIlravey warned that the decision was not a test case on the legitimacy of future private parking claims, and that each case will turn on the facts..

Prankster Analysis

The Prankster agrees with Mr McIlravey's comment in so far as each case will turn on the facts. It is clear in Scotland that if the facts do not establish who the driver is, then the case must fail.

Once the driver is established of course, then the fundamental nature of the claim still needs to be examined.

The Prankster considers it is also worth comparing the verdict of a proper judge, with a typical kangaroo court verdict returned by the 'Independent' Parking Committee's appeal service, the IAS. The IPC state they use solicitors or barristers, but the general level of legal knowledge and competence suggests they are probably using baristas by mistake.

Here is one barista's comments on a similar case.

The appellant claims in his appeal that he was not the driver, however fails to identify the driver to the operator. Under well established case law, the owner of the vehicle is presumed to be the driver unless the contrary can be proved. 
The Prankster considers this one paragraph epitomises all that is wrong with the IPC appeals service.

  • there is no such established case law
  • even if there was, any properly legally qualified person would quote it
  • there are plenty of cases where the case was dismissed because keeper was not the driver. The assessor therefore shows clear bias by not taking these into consideration
  • there is no requirement to identify the driver
  • the assessor shows their bias by believing everything the operator says (although the recent BBC Watchdog program shows operators routinely lie in appeals), but does not believe the appellant even though the appellant is required to sign a statement of truth when making the appeal.
Although Scottish law is different to English, The Prankster believes the comparison between the two cases is valid and instructive. The Prankster calls on the IPC to name and shame the barista involved, and to remove him from their assessor panel as he is clearly either incompetent, biased, or both.

The Prankster has seen other verdicts from the IAS where the assessor lacks basic parking knowledge such as the requirements of the Protection of Freedom's Act and assessors are unable to properly decide whether a notice to keeper is compliant or not. With such basic lack of knowledge it is hard to see how the appeals service can call itself 'Independent', let alone legitimate.

By comparison, here is POPLA verdict where the assessor does understand Protection of Freedom's Act
The Appellant states that the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have not been met and keeper liability has not been established and the burden of proof is on the Operator to prove its case on balance of probabilities. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 outlines the relevant criteria and there are 4 conditions to be fulfilled in order for the Operator to recover any unpaid parking charge notice from the registered keeper. The first condition is that the Operator has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the parking charge notice. The second condition is that the Operator has given a notice to the keeper in accordance with paragraph 9. The third condition is that the Operator has made an application for the keeper’s details in relation to the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate and the application was made during the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 9 (4) where no notice to the driver was given. The fourth condition is that any applicable requirements prescribed under this paragraph were met at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.
The Operator states that they do not work, issue or seek payment under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 however, they are pursuing the Appellant under keeper liability and they have not shown that the requirements of POFA have been met and I am therefore, not satisfied that the Operator has complied with the criteria of Schedule 4 of POFA 2102 and I am unable to find the Appellant liable as the registered keeper for this charge.

The Prankster is interested in compiling a list of bizarre IAS results. If you have had a result where the assessor showed bias, incompetence or lack of parking knowledge, please email it to The Prankster - prankster@parking-prankster.com.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster



↧
↧

Barrow Council compensate motorist for illegal ParkingEye signs at The Range

June 29, 2015, 1:09 am
$
0
0
Following a request to Barrow Borough Council in January 2014 as to whether ParkingEye had advertisement consent for its car park signage at The Range, Barrow in Furness, it became apparent to that Council that no consent had been obtained. It is a criminal offence to display such signage without the necessary consent in place. That crime took place between 2012 and February 2015.

Upon a compliant being lodged with the DVLA, it consulted the BPA and both agreed with ParkingEye that ParkingEye could not legally apply for any such consent so ParkingEye had not done anything wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth of course - anyone can apply for such consent whether they own the land or not. However, ParkingEye are past masters at lying to the various authorities and pulling the wool over their eyes.

In November 2014, after ParkingEye was threatened by the Council with being prosecuted, ParkingEye applied for consent. ParkingEye has also applied for similar consents at other sites it manages including, fairly recently, Burton Hospital. So a crime is being committed at Burton Hospital as well!

Hurrah! ParkingEye can apply for consent. The DVLA maintains that ParkingEye cannot apply for consent.

A formal complaint was lodged with the Barrow Council, as the Planning Authority, over its failure to act promptly over this crime.

The Council has now accepted that

1. Officers require training - especially in the law it is required to enforce
2. Officers failed to comply with the Council's enforcement policy
3. Maladministration has occurred, and
4. To compensate the complainant in the sum of £100. The same sum as is being claimed by ParkingEye.

Wouldn't it be nice if the powers that be, that we pay to do their jobs, could just do so - properly in the first place?

The Prankster recommends that any motorists who have paid ParkingEye for a charge regarding The Range, Barrow in Furness before February 2015, contacts Barrow Borough Council, lodges a formal complaint and requests compensation.

Similar councils may also compensate motorists for other car parks where signage is illegal.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧

Supreme Court confirm Beavis Appeal date

June 29, 2015, 1:32 am
$
0
0
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/beavis-v-parkingeye-ltd.html

The Supreme Court have confirmed that Mr Beavis has been granted leave to appeal against ParkingEye, and that the hearing will take place alongside Cavendish v Makdessi, which also involves the enforceability of penalty clauses.

The hearing will start on Tuesday 21 July 2015. It is likely to last 3 days, with the Beavis case being heard on day 3.

The hearing will be in court 1 which has an 80 seat capacity on a first-come first-served basis. However, the entire proceedings will be streamed live online here https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html.

The Lord Justices assigned to the case are Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge. Their biographies are here.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

SIP Parking fail to pay CCJ

July 4, 2015, 1:58 pm
$
0
0
The Prankster has been informed that SIP Parking have failed to pay a CCJ. The CCJ was awarded against them when they started a claim against a motorist, but failed to turn up in court once the motorist filed a robust defence.

The judge therefore struck out the claim and ordered the claimant to pay for the loss of earnings of the defendant.


SIP Parking failed to pay the charge by the 14 April deadline, and are still in default. The motorist contacted the appropriate ATA, The Independent Parking Committee, to see if they wanted to take action against this operator bringing the Parking Industry into disrepute.

However, the IPC were not interested and to date have taken no remedial action.

The Prankster understands The British Parking Association take a more robust attitude to parking companies who fail to pay CCJs, and require their members to pay them. The Prankster therefore recommends any parking company who wish to ignore judges applies to join the IPC, where they will apparently be in good company.

Happy Parking 

The Parking Prankster


↧

ParkingEye scam exposed by judge

July 11, 2015, 10:42 am
$
0
0
Friday 10 July. Blackpool County Court. B9FC691N ParkingEye v Mr C. DJ Oldroyd.

ParkingEye's latest parking scam was exposed in court this Friday. ParkingEye tried to charge a motorist for staying more than 1 hour 20 minutes at Corporation St Preston

The judge at Blackpool made the valid point today that the ParkingEye Greenbank witness
statement is a templated formulaic response which often does not address issues pleaded in the defence.

In today's case, the judge pointed out that the defendant did not deny entering Corporation Street car park at 12.14, nor leaving at 14.08, but he pleaded that he had also left at 12.16, and returned at 14.06, and during this time he was elsewhere. (Prankster Note - there is a one hour no-return policy at this site)

PE didn't directly respond to this in the witness statement of their reply to the defence, merely claiming by rote their ANPR is subject to 19 separate checks. The judge correctly dismissed as they were not listed so there was no way of telling if they related to the situation at hand. However, the judge was clear that the Defence statement saying "I wisna there" was of equal evidential weight as PE's statement that "ANPR does not show any other entries or exits" and as PE were not present to give further oral evidence on this point, the claim was bound to fail.

Prankster Note

It is well known that ParkingEye's systems miss entries and exists, causing them to issue charges when no contravention has occurred. The recorded number of these scam tickets has now reached the size where it can be clear that the ParkingEye system is not fit for purpose, especially as ParkingEye regularly fail to cancel tickets when they have been informed their system malfunctions, and instead persist in taking innocent motorists to court..


The main flaw can be summed up in the following diagram.

ANPR systems do not have X-Ray capability. thus if your numberplate is blocked by another vehicle, your entry/exit will not be registered. (There are also other problems which cause misreads)

ParkingEye are well aware their system contains inherent flaws, but to continue to issue tickets to innocent motorists in a well-rehearsed scam.

More documents explaining ANPR can be found here.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧
↧

Gladstones Solicitors score another big pay day

July 11, 2015, 1:17 pm
$
0
0
Friday 10 July 2015. Blackpool County Court. TESGB v Ms L

TESGB took a motorist to court for parking at the offices where she worked. Representing TESGB were their managing director, ex-clamper William Taylor, and a solicitor. A lay representative from the British Motorist's Protection Assocition represented Ms L.

The judge opened proceedings by stating that Mr Taylor's witness statement contained apparent falsehoods. Mr Taylor had stated that TESGB had authority to issue parking charges. However, the parking contract supplied as evidence was in a different name - The Parking Ticket Company Ltd. A sample copy of their contract is contained on their website here.


The contract does contain provisions that The Parking Ticket Company Limited can use agents, but TESGB had brought no evidence to court that this was the case.

The judge stated that he was minded to dismiss the case unless such evidence was produced. TESGB asked for an adjournment. Ms L's representative pointed out that they were litigants in person against a company represented by solicitors, who should have known what they were doing. Moreover, they had already pointed out this deficiency in the claimant's case prior to the hearing.

The judge agreed with this, dismissed the claim and awarded costs against TESGB.

Prankster Note

Both parties came out losers in this case; the motorist had to suffer through many anxious months while TESGB will have spent money on the claim. In the recent BBC Watchdog program, a company (which the Prankster believes was PCM-UK) revealed costs to take a motorist to court could be up to £1,000. In this particular case The Prankster believes TESGB may be more than £2,000 worse off.

So who were the big winners?

Well, after the case TESGB apparently put the blame squarely on Gladstones Solicitors for the debacle. Gladstones could potentially have charged TESGB for services such as writing debt collector letters to the motorist, filing the claim, corresponding with the motorist, helping prepare the witness statement and so on.

The typical cost for a solicitor to attend a claim hearing will be somewhere between £150 and £300.

Most of these costs are not recoverable in the small claims court. Gladstones seem to have perfected the trick of persuading parking companies to take motorists to court, guaranteeing that the parking company will lose money even if they win the final hearing, while the money pours in to Gladstones coffers.

Gladstones directors are also directors of the Independent Parking Committee. It has not escaped the Prankster's notice that they have created an appeals service which artificially raises parking companies expectations as to the validity of their case. The structure of the appeals service allows the Gladstones directors to select baristas who either are incompetent, have poor legal skills, or who are biased towards parking operators. This is because the identities of the baristas are never revealed; thus, anyone who wished to bias the system could simply start with a large pool of adjudicators, but gradually only pick baristas who give the answers Gladstones directors want. The Prankster recommends that to remove the easy possibility of such bias all baristas are named. It is a fact that there have been a number of decisions where in The Prankster's opinion the baristas have exhibited poor knowledge of the law surrounding parking, dubious logic abilities and decisions which are the opposite of those given by judges.

A typical example of raising expectations is the current case. Similar points to those raised in court have also been raised in IPC appeals in TESGB cases. The IPC baristas made decisions directly opposite to those made in court and dismissed the appeals. This could of course have raised expectations at TESGB, leading them to believe they had an actual case.

However, the truth is that the case was riddled with holes which a real judge with actual legal knowledge picked out in a few seconds. Result? Case dismissed.

The Prankster recommends that any IPC Parking company being egged on by Gladstones to take motorists to court considers carefully the following facts.

The IPC appeals service is staffed by baristas hand picked by Gladstones directors. The IPC produces decisions which are directly opposite to those taken by the courts and also by other appeals services such as POPLA. Gladstones validate operator contracts and signage. Gladstones take their money for assisting with court action, win or lose. The costs of taking a motorist to court using any solicitor will far outweigh any amount awarded, win or lose, because of the cost limits in the small claims court.

Parking companies who go to court with their own personnel can make this cost effective; companies using legal services cannot.

The new Transport Commitee has been decided. The Prankster suggests they look into the possibility that Gladstones Solicitors are financially benefiting from the poor quality of the IAS appeals service constructed by Gladstone's directors.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster




↧

Highview Parking at Warrington Hospital

July 11, 2015, 1:30 pm
$
0
0
The Prankster has received the following information regarding parking at Warrington Hospital from Appeal My Ticket      

Latest news about Highview Parking Ltd at Warrington Hospital & Halton Hospital

This information may be of considerable interest to people facing PCNs at Halton Hospital.

1] Halton Council has confirmed this week that the ANPR Camera operated at the Hospital Way entrance is located on adopted Council owned land, not on Hospital land.
2] Hospital Way also has adopted status as far as to extend to the main Phase 1 entrance of the hospital. In effect any enforcement on Hospital Way is being carried out on Council land.
3] The Council has given no permission for Highview Parking Limited to undertake parking control or enforcement on the Councils' land or install ANPR on Council land.

These three  matters could have serious consequences for the Trust and Highview Parking but most importantly for motorists you if you have had a PCN. The surveillance coverage of the camera at the Hospital Way entrance is capturing images of drivers on the adopted highway and the value of the images to prove you were on Hospital land is now open to question. This also means that if your car was pictured on Hospital Way the parking company have retrieved personal data on you doing no more than lawfully driving on the highway. For all Highview knows you were simply parked in Hospital Way and you did not overstay at all.

Guidance in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charge, Section 4.1 states, ‘The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body)’. In other words Highview have absolutely no rights to issue PCNs if you were on Council owned adopted highway.

The BPA Approved Operator Scheme ‘Code of Practice Control and enforcement of parking on private land and unregulated public car parks’ Version 4 – February 2014. Section 7.1 of the Code of Practice requires landowners consent and it is now evident that Highview Parking do not have Halton Council’s permission to undertake parking enforcement on those areas of hospital grounds for which the Council is responsible or to photograph vehicles on the public highway. We must all await to see how the Trust reacts to this information but it must seriously undermine the issuing of PCNs at Halton Hospital.

Prankster Note

The Prankster awaits with interest to find out the result of ongoing investigations.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧
Search

Fastidious vandal attacks car park

July 11, 2015, 2:22 pm
$
0
0
A vandal has attacked a Morrisons car park in Devon managed by CP Plus, carefully removing stickers which covered references to car clamping.


Car clamping is now illegal for private parking enforcement in England, Wales and Scotland, and signage should not mention clamping. If it does, this is potentially a Trading Standards offence.

The vandalism came to light when a concerned motorist reported the signs to the BPA. The BPA investigated and were told by the operator that the reference to clamping had previously been covered by a sticker. However, the signs were vandalised and the stickers removed without authorisation. The BPA were told that the operator was already aware the signs had been vandalised and was already in the process of fixing them.

The Prankster can report that the vandal was diligent, methodically removing the stickers from every single sign in the car park.



The vandal was also fastidious, carefully removing every last trace a sticker was there. The vandal was so good that looking at the picture below, it is hard to imagine a sticker was ever there.



Of course, there must have been stickers, because the car park operator says so, and the BPA believed them.

The signs are so high a ladder would have been needed to vandalise them. The Prankster asks motorists in Devon to look out for either a person carrying a ladder, or someone really, really tall. Hopefully this heinous person can be stopped before more acts of vandalism are perpetrated.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

ParkingEye cases stayed in Warrington, Durham, High Wycombe

July 11, 2015, 2:44 pm
$
0
0
More reports are coming in of parking cases being stayed until the Beavis case has been heard in the Supreme Court.

Here is one case which was stayed in Warrington.


DDJ Dr K A Shaw sitting at Durham county court stayed another ParkingEye case


In High Wycombe on 9 July a ParkingEye case regarding Morrisons was stayed until Beavis.

In Burnley on Friday, UKPC case B9QZ2975 was also stayed until Beavis.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧
↧

PCM UK case stayed until Beavis

July 11, 2015, 3:11 pm
$
0
0
The Prankster has received this court report.

PCM (UK) v Day, Brentford County Court, B7GF2707, before District Judge Nicholls.

Claimant represented by Mr Pacanowski (a solicitor’s agent) and Georgina Philpott (PCM UK employee). 

Defendant was represented by Bargepole, with assistance from another BMPA representative.

We assembled in the waiting area, and the Usher called both parties together to say he had a message from the Judge. He would like to know if we wanted the case heard today, or to request a stay pending the Supreme Court ruling.

The Claimant’s rep said they wanted to go ahead; Bargepole consulted with Mr Day, and they agreed there was nothing to lose by requesting a stay, as the case was distinguishable from Beavis anyway (visitors permit in block of flats).

At the hearing DJ Nicholls said he was minded to stay the case in any event, because the penalties issue in Beavis was of widespread public importance. If he made a ruling for the Claimant today, and then Beavis won, the Defendant would be able to submit an out of time appeal application, and a new hearing, which would take up more court time.

He said that his decision was heavily influenced by the fact that the Court of Appeal had themselves given Mr Beavis permission to appeal to the SC, rather than Beavis having to apply direct to the SC, which he felt meant that Beavis had a very strong case.

He asked if Mr P wanted to make any submissions, and he referred the Judge to CPR 52.7 “an appeal shall not operate as a stay of any order or decision of the lower court”. The Judge said that didn’t apply, because no decision or order in this case has yet been made.

Mr P then tried to say it was a contractual charge and couldn’t be a penalty, but the Judge shot him down in flames, saying that the Defence arguments clearly point to the “alleged debt” being a penalty.

So he made an Order staying the case until the Beavis decision is published, and within 7 days the Claimant must then inform the court if they wish to continue with the claim.

Prankster Note

As PCM-UK will already be several hundred pounds out of pocket, whatever the final result of the case, they will no doubt be extremely pleased with whoever persuaded them to file this claim and carry on to court.

One again it looks like only Gladstones (and Mr P) have benefited from this case going to court. 

PCM-UK are apparently on record on BBC Watchdog as stating they regularly lie during appeals, so they only have themselves to blame if it ends up that they have deluded themselves they have a valid claim.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Smart Parking 'Parking Person of the Year' nominee jailed

July 15, 2015, 1:14 pm
$
0
0
The courier has reported on the sentencing hearing of David Edmeades. Mr Edmeades was once nominated for Parking Person of the Year by his company, Smart Parking. However, behind the scenes he was cancelling parking charges but pocketing the refunds. To reduce the risk of discovery he only cancelled charges for motorists who paid straight away and did not appeal.

Over 3 years he managed to salt away £45,000. He was caught because he started refunding himself more than the actual charges. A colleague noticed a refund of £140 which was higher than the maximum parking charge of £90. Not so Smart then. Mr Edmeades was jailed for 18 months.

Smart Parking previously issued a press statement stating that the £45,000 embezzled was insignificant.

As their accounts show they are haemorrhaging cash at A$ 1.8 million a quarter, the Prankster would tend to agree that £45,000 is a drop in the ocean.

Around 80% of Smart Parking's UK income is believed to come from their ASDA contract and so losing this contract would be a serious blow to Smart Parking.

The Prankster has noticed that in the past, no ASDA parking charges have been progressed to court, but this may be changing. Gladstones have been issuing threatening letters on behalf of Smart Parking relating to supermarket charges, as reported by pepipoo.


The Prankster believes this is related to an ASDA parking charge, but has not yet confirmed this.

Of course, it might be the case that Smart Parking have decided to do a 'Civil Enforcement Limited' and sue motorists despite the wishes of the landowner. The Co-op know all about that! The Prankster will keep an eye on the situation.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


↧

Highview Parking possibly suspended from DVLA access

July 15, 2015, 1:41 pm
$
0
0
The Liverpool Echo has reported that Highview Parking have been suspended from DVLA access due to a shambolic operation at Halton General Hospital. Tickets have been issued to motorists just driving past the hospital.

Highview Parking have been making hay at Halton General Hospital, issuing thousands of tickets since their contract first started. It has been calculated this will make them an income of over £1,000,000 a year. Nothing more clearly illustrates why the Government issued guidelines to hospitals that car park contracts should not incentivise operators to issue tickets.

The Citizens Advice Bureau has called for 4,000 charges to be repaid, according to the BBC.

As an example of how hospital parking should work, Bristol Eye hospital run a very similar scheme managed by Total Parking Solutions. However there, the motorist cannot make a mistake, and TPS are not incentivised to issue parking charges because they get a management fee. An FoI request revealed that no charges for overstays were issued in a 3 month period.

So, on the one hand, a parking company scams motorists out of £1,000,000 a year. On the other, a fair operator using a sensible solution makes nothing from parking charges, and everybody (motorist, landowner and operator is happy).

The nature of Highview's suspension is not clear. The newspaper report states as follows:
The DVLA also confirmed in writing to Cllr Dave Thompson, Halton Lea ward, that it has launched an investigation over the matter.
The letter said it was suspending Highview’s access to the DVLA driver database ‘due to the serious nature of the complaint’.
A Warrington And Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation trust spokesman said: "Highview Parking have confirmed that they have received a DVLA request to temporarily hold any requests made for alleged parking infringements at Halton General.
The Prankster is therefore not clear whether Highview have really been suspended, or just asked to stop requests for this car park.

The DVLA systems do not have the capability to filter out requests for particular car parks - the electronic system does not pass that information to the DVLA. Therefore if Highview have only been 'suspended' for this one car park, the suspension will have to be voluntary and will rely on Highview not submitting requests for that particular car park.

The Prankster will keep an eye on the situation.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


↧
Viewing all 1127 articles
Browse latest View live
Search