British Parking Association deny proper appeals process for 4,000 stayed cases despite ISPA concerns

December 27, 2015, 1:25 pm

≫ Next: Can motorists take action against the British Parking Association for failing to provide a proper appeals service?

≪ Previous: Town and City Parking worth less than they thought

$

0

0

Shortly before the Court of Appeal heard the ParkingEye v Beavis case, ParkingEye wrote to POPLA asking that all cases which depended on the charge not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss be stayed pending the judgment.

Henry Michael Greenslade, the Lead Adjudicator of POPLA, agreed, and a number of cases were stayed. The Court of Appeal judgment came out and it was almost immediately appealed further to the Supreme Court. In line with normal practice for statutory parking appeals the stay remained until this new judgment was available. Mr Greenslade wrote to all stayed cases explaining that they would by held over until at least November 2015.

POPLA then changed hands from London Councils to the Consumer Ombudsman and at the time of the changeover there were around 4,000 stayed cases. As the British Parking Association had omitted these from the tender, the Consumer Ombudsman politely refused to take these on.

The Prankster has previously analysed the invoices London Councils sent to the BPA, showing that the average cost per appeal was initially around £140. After the service had been running for a while, this fell to around £117. Analysis is further complicated by the fact that London Councils now want to charge the BPA an extra £200,000, which the BPA are disputing.

The BPA now had to find a a way of getting the stayed cases adjudicated, and decided to tender out to yet another party. On the previous analysis the cost of getting these cases properly adjudicated will be around £120 per case; the BPA would be better off paying the parking companies £100 and pocketing £20.

A slightly farcical set of emails were sent out in the last days of the old POPLA. These were intended to convey the message that the stayed cases would be held at some time in the future, but the wrong email was sent out. This was hurriedly corrected and a fresh batch of emails sent out.

The letter is clearly designed to give the impression that an assessor has looked at the case, and decided that the only matter outstanding is the issue of the level of charges. However The Prankster can confirm this is not true. The Prankster has been made aware that in a large number of cases the operator has not yet filed an evidence pack. This is particularly true of ParkingEye cases.

The assessor cannot therefore possibly have made an assessment on issues such as whether keeper liability applies, whether signage is sufficient in quantity or wording, or whether the operator has authority to issue tickets.

These are all areas which have been raised in the stayed appeals, and points with which companies such as ParkingEye have lost appeals both with the old POPLA and the new POPLA. The Prankster would therefore normally expect that either the British Parking Association would allow all such appeals on the grounds that the operator has declined to defend the case.

The British Parking Association contract with POPLA, signed on  23 December 2013, explicitly states that all operator evidence packs must be filed within 28 days.

It would seem therefore that the operator has already been timed out and should not have the right to submit an evidence pack. After all, if the operator is claiming a charge for an overstay of 30 minutes on the part of a motorist, then an 'overstay' of 7 months on the part of an operator is a far greater transgression. However, as the British Parking Association is a trade association for operators they might well be lenient on this point and allow the operators to submit an exceedingly late evidence pack. The POPLA contract then allows the motorist to send a rebuttal, which should be communicated to the operator.

However, this appears not to be the tack that the BPA are taking. According to letters between the BPA and the POPLA scrutiny board ISPA, the BPA have gone for the nuclear option and have decided to save money by not having the outstanding cases fully adjudicated on all points. They have decided to tender to get the cases decided purely on the issue of charges.

ISPA are firmly against this. Here is their first letter to the BPA. The letters are also hosted on the ISPA home page.

 Here is Patrick Troy's response from the BPA.

And here is the ISPA's response.

The Prankster believes that Patrick Troy does not understand the significance of the Beavis case and how the law works. Although he states the decision 'was comprehensively in favour of the operator' this is of course purely based on the facts of that case. Other parking cases have different facts, and applying the guidence of Beavis will come to a quite different conclusion. For instance, there are a large number of car parks which are farmed shamelessly for penalty charges by the operators with no apparent car park management taking place. In such cases the lessons of Beavis would appear to be that the charge would be held to be a penalty in that case. In other cases, where the charge is for trespass and not breach of contract, the Beavis result comes down firmly in favour of the motorist.

The POPLA Lead Assessor made it clear that whatever the Supreme Court verdict, the claimant must make their case and it would be the operator's responsibility to state how Beavis applied, if indeed it did.

The Supreme Court also made it clear that the judgment was based on the use of the particular car park, and the clear wording of the notices, when they tweeted following the judgment.

Indeed, even HHJ Moloney made this clear in his initial judgment.

It is of course also a possibility that had ParkingEye been entirely truthful with the Supreme Court, had not produced false information and overly redacted evidence and had produced the true facts on which the court wrongly inferred then the judgment may have gone the other way.

Therefore making a judgment on 4,000 stayed POPLA cases EVEN JUST ON THE ISSUE OF THE LEVEL OF CHARGE would not appear to be valid if the operator is not allowed to make their case on why Beavis applied, and the motorist allowed to make representations on why it does not.

Prankster Notes

So, to summarise

• There are 4,000 stayed cases which would cost around £400,000 to assess properly
• The BPA are trying to save money by not getting the cases properly assessed
• The BPA are trying to pretend that the stayed cases have been assessed on all grounds except for GPEOL
• They are fully aware this is not true as they have been robustly informed of this by many motorists and organisations, including The Prankster
• It is impossible for the cases to have been assessed because in many cases the operator has not even filed any evidence
• In at least one case, the case is being heard on grounds not connected with GPEOL at all because the case is being reheard due to the operator not following correct procedure
• Even the Beavis case relied on evidence including signage maps, signage copies, and the operator contract with the landowner
• The ISPA is prepared to call the BPA's bluff and get a sample set of cases independently assessed
• The Prankster can give the ISPA a large number of POPLA codes which should form part of this assessment
• The BPA are relying on an alleged undocumented conversation between Patrick Troy and the Lead Assessor of POPLA of which they have no written proof, and which is in direct contrast to the claims of conversations ISPA have had with the Lead Assessor
• Patrick Troy has a long history of telling lies and distorting the truth. For instance, he previously misled the Government regarding the number of court cases parking companies brought per year in order to justify getting POFA 2012 schedule 4 passed
• There is no written proof that any assessments have taken place at all
• The Supreme Court, HHJ Moloney, ISPA, Motoring Organisations and The Prankster all believe each case must be heard on the facts. Only the BPA is in disagreement with this. 

The Prankster suggests that the next step should be to get a number of cases completely assessed, based only on the evidence currently filed by both parties. The Prankster can supply a large number of POPLA cases suitable for this assessment. If any of these cases can be decided for the motorist on non-GPEOL grounds, then all 4,000 cases should be fully assessed...or perhaps the BPA should just cut its losses by negotiating a fee to pay to the parking companies for each outstanding case.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

---

Can motorists take action against the British Parking Association for failing to provide a proper appeals service?

December 29, 2015, 11:26 pm

≫ Next: Keeper Liability Impact Assessment due for review January 2016

≪ Previous: British Parking Association deny proper appeals process for 4,000 stayed cases despite ISPA concerns

$

0

0

Unlawful Interference with a contract? Tort of Conspiracy to injury by unlawful means?

In a recent blog the Prankster pointed out that the BPA were trying to change the appeals process for 4,000 motorists. The BPA were trying to restrict the grounds on which the appeal was to be decided to a single point, that of the level of charge. To do this, they tried to pretend that all other points had been considered even though they had no written evidence to back this up and they knew this was not true from information provided to them by motorists. The most telling information of course, it that evidence packs have not been filed by the parking companies.

The question then arises, is there a case of Unlawful Interference with a contract, or perhaps even Tort of Conspiracy to injury by unlawful means?

If either of the above actions are taking place, there may be a claim available to any motorist awaiting the settlement of his/her appeal. There may also be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 for which, perhaps Trading Standards should investigate.

It is clear that often there is a contract between a parking enforcement company and a motorist when that motorist parks. What of the terms of that contract though? Do they include a term that the motorist can apply to POPLA for arbitration? Beavis indicates, quite rightly, that the terms of the Code of Practice do not form part of the initial contract but compliance with the CoP is an indication of fairness for the purposes of Consumer Protection law compliance.

Is there another contract though? Once a demand has been made for the parking charge, if it is not paid, the parking company can sue for the breach of the parking contract. It seems that what actually takes place when the demand for the parking charge is made is that the parking company indicates to the motorist that “if you wish to dispute the claim I will see you in court. However, in consideration of you agreeing to enter into an ADR arrangement to settle our dispute, and to consider the arbiter’s decision, I agree to waive my rights to pursue you via litigation”. Both parties agree to consider the arbiter’s decision - if the parking company loses it cancels the debt; if the motorist loses and fails to abide by the arbiter’s decision the parking company can sue. Thus there are three stages to this parking process and each has its own distinct legal nuances.

This argument of a new contract where arbitration is agreed is given weight by a change in the 2008 Regulations which took effect from the 1^st October 2014. The Consumer Protection Amendment Regulations 2014 amended the definition in the 2008 Regulations of a “product” such that when the parking company  demands damages and agree to settle at £100 a “product” is offered to the motorist which is the purchase of “the settlement of actual or purported liabilities” (the product). That is what the 2014 Regulations now say. Thus there is a consumer contract, under the 2014 regulations when the parking company and the motorist agree on how to deal with the acquisition of the “product”.

So, the parking company and the motorist have entered into a contract in relation to a “product” and the terms of that contract are clear in relation to the agreed terms of reference for the arbiter.

The BPA is now seeking to unilaterally change the terms of that contract. Thus it is arguable that it is seeking to interfere in a contract to which it is not a party and which, on the face of it, appears to be a tortious interference with a contract and for which it could have a liability in damages.

We know from the Beavis decision that a defence at arbitration that the claim is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss is likely to fall on stony ground, especially in the case of a free car park.  However, Beavis was only concerned with the quantum of damages and not the actual liability for damages. That had already been agreed at an earlier hearing.  Thus a motorist may have any number of other valid defences to a claim e.g that the signage does not specify that there is a liability for damages; that the defendant did not own the motor vehicle and was out of the country at the time of the parking event; that the car park was visited twice.

It appears clear that, if the arbiter is to reach a decision on liability solely on the grounds of the relevancy of a GPEoL, the motorist could be prejudiced. Further, that the BPA is seeking to engineer a situation whereby the motorist will undoubtedly be found liable such that it can be argued that the BPA is deliberately trying to cause a financial loss to the motorist.

In any claim for an interference with contractual relations the claimant would need to satisfy a court that

1.       The BPA had knowledge of the contract – it is difficult to argue that it doesn’t!

2.       The BPA has offered an inducement to bring about a breach of contract. Clearly a decision based solely on GPEoL and in ignorance of other defences put forward by a motorist will have a benefit to a parking company.  The parking company’s silence suggests that it is in agreement with the BPA’s conduct such that an inducement could be found by a court.

3.       The contract was breached causing loss. At the moment there is an unwillingness by IPSA to travel the road suggested by the BPA. However, the building blocks appear to be in place to leave the BPA with a liability in tort for a loss if the terms of reference are altered. The parking enforcement company would also have a liability as it would be in breach of its contract with the motorist. That could give rise for a claim for costs against the parking enforcement company if it then proceeds to litigation. Imagine – a parking company awarded damages of £100 but told to pay the motorist costs at £19 per hour of his time (litigants in person rate) and which could easily be in excess of £200.

The motorist could be faced with litigation at which his other defences can be properly aired.  That incurs a loss in terms of time and costs. It would be best if motorists keep a spread sheet of all the time they spend on any subsequent litigation if the arbiter’s terms of references are unilaterally altered. The motorist could also plead unreasonable conduct by the parking enforcement company for going along with the BPA’s proposals

So, there may well be an arguable case for the BPA to answer.

Then we have the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Regulation 5 makes misleading actions unlawful. Presumably parking companies are in agreement with the conduct of the BPA and are, through the BPA, seeking to change the rules under which they agreed to proceed to ADR. Has it committed a misleading action? Perhaps the manipulation of the ADR rules to benefit the trader amounts to an aggressive practice and perhaps at a criminal level. Has the BPA considered this? Should this whole sorry saga be reported to Trading Standards?

Then there is Regulation 5(3) (b). Altering the terms of reference of the arbiter, after the arbitration process has commenced, is at odds with the Code Of Practice. Where a parking enforcement company fails to comply with the requirements of a CoP it is a breach of regulation 5(3) (b) and leaves a potential civil liability.

An interesting can of worms. Perhaps BPA it is time to stop digging?

Any motorist considering taking action against the BPA or a parking company should of course seek legal advice on their own case, as every case is different and will turn on the facts of that particular case.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Keeper Liability Impact Assessment due for review January 2016

December 30, 2015, 2:50 pm

≫ Next: British Parking Association may be invalidating keeper liability for stayed cases

≪ Previous: Can motorists take action against the British Parking Association for failing to provide a proper appeals service?

$

0

0

In 2011 an impact assessment was undertaken by the government to help decide whether to introduce a law regarding keeper liability. That impact assessment is available online here, and comes up for review in January 2016.

In this blog The Prankster takes a look at the impact assessment in light of the data available since the keeper liability act was passed.

The first question is whether the act is necessary at all. If we look at keeper data released to parking companies in 2014 by the DVLA we see the following are the top 5 most unsuccessful companies at managing car parks properly:

975352 ParkingEye
317593 ICES (Smart Parking)
291941 Ranger Services (Highview, CP Plus)
152335 Excel
151027 Euro Car Parks

Of these, only the first and last (ParkingEye and Euro car parks) use the keeper liability legislation. The others all issue deliberately non-compliant notices to keeper and do not use keeper liability legislation; they pursue the keeper on the basis that they are likely to be the driver.

(The DVLA releases more detailed data here.)

If 3 of the top 5 parking companies do not need the keeper liability legislation, the big question is whether the legislation is needed at all?

Description and scale of key monetised costs by ‘main affected groups’ 
We do not believe that this change would increase costs to government. Parking companies would have a one-off cost to amend signs/paperwork and to set up an independent appeals service. There would also be annual costs thereafter to fund the independent appeals service. 

The annual cost of an appeal service was estimated at £0.6m. This appears to be an underestimate. The BPA currently have a disagreement with London Councils over an apparent £180,000 amount still owing, and of course there are two appeals services as the IPC have entered the sector.

Other key non-monetised costs by ‘main affected groups’ 
A reduction in the number of complaints/appeals where the defence is that the keeper of the vehicle was not the driver at the time. An increase in the number of tickets being paid. This has not been costed as the rate of increase is unknown.

The number of appeals where the defence is that the driver is not the keeper may have decreased, but other appeal reasons are equally valid. Data which ParkingEye filed in court admits they issue 65% of tickets in error. A further 45% of tickets are then cancelled by the appeals body, POPLA. It appears then, that most tickets are issued without a valid reason.

Description and scale of key monetised benefits by ‘main affected groups’ 
Reductions in administrative burdens on DVLA due to fewer claims being processed from the issue of parking charges (costs to DVLA are recovered via the fee charged for providing vehicle keeper information). 

In 2010/11, the year before POFA 2012 started, Parking Companies made 1,178,034 keeper enquiries. In 2014/15, Parking Companies made 3,083,276 enquiries. In the 6 months April-September 2015, Parking Companies made 2,273,254 enquiries, or an extrapolated 4,546,508 enquiries per year. So, the legislation has increased the burden on the DVLA fourfold.

The impact assessment predicted that the number of extra tickets issued would only be 500,000.

The DVLA are not too unhappy about this. At £2.50 a pop, this represents substantial income to the DVLA. Senior members of the DVLA have KPIs which depend on this income, so in effect they are financially benefiting by allowing this to continue. The DVLA attempted to erect a smokescreen about this and told the Government it costs £2.80 to process an enquiry, so actually they made a loss. However, The Prankster can reveal this is an accounting trick The DVLA have stonewalled a number of FoI request to find the true costs, but eventually the figures have been prised from their grasp.

Total cost of running the system          = 12.2m
Total number of enquiries                    = 17,998,048
Total enquiries by parking companies =   2,430,130
Average cost per enquiry = 0.75p  (note - although some types of enquiry are more expensive to handle)

Parking companies make 13.5% of enquiries but pay 45.2% of the costs

This biggest category is LA/TfL/Police/Gov who made 10,200,707 enquiries (56.7%) but pay nothing.

The DVLA are therefore using the parking company income to subsidise other services and are artificially inflating the parking company costs to try and justify this.

Other key non-monetised benefits by ‘main affected groups’
There will be consistency between the enforcement regimes on the public road and private land. Motorists
may have a clearer understanding of their responsibilities.
Enables landowners to effectively enforce parking charges.
A reduction in the number of cases taken to court, due to the introduction of an independent appeals
service, which in turn would benefit the Criminal Justice System.

"The BPA has said that of the 1.8 million parking charges currently issued each year around 2-5% (36,000 to 90,000) of cases are taken to civil court per year. Court costs are not expected to increase 10 and have not been forecast because keeper liability will not be brought into force until an independent appeals service is operating throughout the country. "

In fact this was false information provided by the BPA. Only 845 cases were filed that year, of which 49 went to a hearing. This can be contrasted with data from 2014 from the MoJ, which shows that over 37,000 claims were issued;  ParkingEye issued 30,309 of these.

Overview

The number of tickets issued has massively increased from 1 million a year to over 4 million. If all these were paid at a discount rate of £60, this would result in £240 million being taken out of the economy each year to line the pockets of parking company bosses. This is money which shoppers will no longer spend in the shops and so is a blow to high street retailers. This charge level is also a serious concern to pensioners and other vulnerable members of society - the people who are most likely to fall foul of the parking companies. As this is most of the weekly pension it leaves pensioners struggling to pay for food rent and heat, all  because they are too slow and frail to shop as quickly as able bodied people.

The key question is; has the number of tickets increased because motorists have become much more badly behaved, or is this because parking companies have introduced ingenious schemes which are hard to obey so they can milk the motorist? The answer is obvious.

The Parking Cowboys website 2015 survey shows that most tickets are issued to genuine customers overstaying at retail parks. There is no evidence that this enforcement results in a benefit to retailers. After all, genuine customers staying longer means they buy more things. Some retailers have even been forced to take action due to the drop in sales - both Somerfield and B&Q fired ParkingEye because of their aggressive parking enforcement hit business.

It turns out that the money which can be generated from a car park depends on how it is managed. Car Parks such as Bristol Eye Hospital are well managed; almost all motorists obey the regulations, and only a few fines were issued over a 4 year period. In contrast ParkingEye have introduced ingenious ways of milking motorists which allowed them to issue over £1 million of parking charges at one hospital trust alone. The way this is done is by making it difficult for motorists to know exactly how much to pay, by allowing incorrect numberplates to be entered, and by providing poor and confusing signage. Analysis of a typical ParkingEye car park shows entrapment zones where signage coverage is poor. This gives the car park the air of responsibility while ensuring a steady stream of victims. Rectifying these defects reduces the number of parking victims to almost zero; but this does not fit in with their business model.

Parking management is needed, but allowing parking companies to operate systems which incentivise them to issue as many tickets as possible has led to a massive outbreak of abuse of power in the last few years. Is this what the impact assessment envisaged? How should this matter be addressed?


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

British Parking Association may be invalidating keeper liability for stayed cases

December 31, 2015, 3:00 am

≫ Next: Race to £600 parking charge begins? DCBL inflate charges

≪ Previous: Keeper Liability Impact Assessment due for review January 2016

$

0

0

The Prankster previously blogged that the British Parking Association are attempting to change the terms of the appeals process by only adjudicating on a single point. Although the BPA are attempting to claim all other points have been adjudicated on, they have no credible proof of this. In fact this is an impossibility for many cases because the operators have not yet filed evidence packs, so there is nothing to adjudicate on. In at least one case the BPA have admitted by email that the case was not fully adjudicated.

Ironically, their own actions may invalidate the parking charge, even if all other points are later considered (eg by a court) and would have been found in the operators favour had not the BPA intervened.

Under the provisions of the PoFA in order to claim keeper liability the parking company has to comply with certain conditions. One of those conditions (7.2.d or 8.2.g or  9.2.g) is to serve a notice which must “inform the driver of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available.” In all of those 4000 cases that will have taken place. However, if the arrangements have altered, because the BPA has changed them, the keeper can then argue that the parking company cannot pursue keeper liability because the arrangements are not the same as those disclosed.

If you have a stayed case at POPLA, it may be worth you writing to the parking company.

Dear Operator,

I understand that the BPA is considering changing the arrangement for the resolution of my case currently under appeal. If this occurs, then as the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available to me are different to those set out in the notice you served on me under paragraph [7(2)(d)/ 8(2)(g)/9.2(g)] of Schedule 4 of PoFA then you have not complied with that condition and as such you will then be unable to pursue keeper liability. I expect you to formally withdraw your claim in such a case, as you will no longer have a cause of action.

You can also write to the BPA at aos@britishparking.co.uk

Dear BPA,

I understand that you are considering changing the arrangement for the resolution of my case currently under appeal. If this occurs, then as the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available to me are different to those set out in the notice served by the operator on me under paragraph [7(2)(d)/ 8(2)(g)/9.2(g)] of Schedule 4 of PoFA then they will have not complied with that condition and as such will no longer be able to pursue keeper liability. I therefore wish to add this as an appeal point in my case. Please confirm that this has been added and will be considered by any assessor.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Race to £600 parking charge begins? DCBL inflate charges

January 2, 2016, 6:40 am

≫ Next: Race to £600 finishes. DCBL hit £605

≪ Previous: British Parking Association may be invalidating keeper liability for stayed cases

$

0

0

Bailiff company DCBL has hit on a wheeze to massively increase parking charges.

They chase up old parking debts and add on massively inflated 'collection' charges to push the charge to way beyond the initial levels. The danger is that they could escalate  the charge beyond £600. They could then file a small claim, which if undefended will result in default judgment for £600.

At that point they could then ask for a high court writ, and can then use their bailiff powers to enforce the judgment. They could then start to really ramp up charges, adding hundreds of pounds. A £100 parking charge could easily become £1000 or more.

As bailiffs they could then seize goods, such as your car or high worth items in your home.

Parking companies know from experience that many people ignore parking letters, which means this is likely to be a successful strategy in many cases.

As this letter shows, they are attempting to ramp up the initial parking charge by sending a 'Notice of Enforcement' and adding a £240 'compliance fee'. The letter also states DBCL are 'Certified Bailiffs'

There is such a thing as a compliance fee, but this is only £75 (plus VAT) and only applies after high court enforcement starts once a sealed writ of control has been obtained by the high court. There is also such a thing as a 'notice of enforcement'. Again, this only applies after the high court stage.

A very useful website explaining all this is Bailiff Advice Online. They will also give advice by email on individual circumstances.

It therefore appears this is an 'impersonation of authority' scam by sending letters implying they are acting as Bailiffs when they are not, and by using terminology which is the same as a bailiff would use. In reality, they are acting as Debt Collectors, and have no legal powers at this point in time.

The most important advice if you receive a letter like this is not to ignore it.

You should write to DCBL explaining that the debt is denied, which must give a genuine reason why you believe the charge is not owed.

Dear DCBL,

The debt is denied. Please refer the case back to your principal. The debt is denied for the following reasons
(eg The signage did not create a contract; no contravention occurred. The signage did not contain the information required by distance contracts. Keeper liability does not apply)

Debt collection activities are therefore not appropriate and wil be wasted costs on your part. I am prepared to attempt to settle the matter using alternative debt resolution and suggest the Consume Ombudsman.

Alternatively please endure your client follows practice directions if they wish to settle the matter in court. Practice directions are here.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct

I wish also to raise an internal complaint with yourself that your letter is an impersonation of authority scam and that you are failing to follow OFT guidance regarding several matters, inclusing the level of charges which bear no relation to the cost of sending one letter and are out of all proportion to the allaged debt.



Contacting the BPA

DCBL are also AOS members of the British Parking Association, so you should also contact them to complain along the following lines.

aos@britishparking.co.uk

Dear BPA,

I enclose a letter I received from DCBL, one of your AOS members. I wish to complain that they are misrepresenting their authority by sending a letter purporting to come from bailiffs, and using bailiff terminology, while actually acting as debt collector.

While not specifically banned by your code of practice, section 14 concerns 'Misrepresentation of Authority' and I believe this is a clear example of misrepresentation.

The 'compliance fee' of £240 is in any case far higher than the statutory figure of £75+VAT.

Please ensure they cease sending such letters.

Contacting the DVLA

DEBT Collection practices like this are not allowed by the DVLA, and it is a violation of the KADOE contract between the DVLA and parking operator to behave like this. You should therefore complain to the DVLA about the parking operator.

Instructions on contacting the DVLA are here

Dear DVLA,

I wish to complain about New Generation Parking Management limited. They are using debt collection agents DCBL in direct contravention of their KADOE contract with yourselves. I enclose a copy of the letter sent to me by DCBL which shows they are using an impersonation of authority scam by purporting to be acting as bailiffs and using bailiff terminology, while actually acting as debt collector. The letter is also in violation of many OFT Debt Collection Guidance principals. 

This is contravention of condition C3.1 which states:

The Customer shall abide by the OFT Debt Collection Guidance whenever it seeks to recover payment of unpaid Parking Charges from any person.

and D5.1 (b)

 (The Customer shall respect the confidentiality of the Data and shall not disclose it to any person, except in the following circumstances...)to a sub-contractor who engages in debt collection, with whom the Customer shall have entered into a written contract which requires the sub-contractor to abide by the requirements in SCHEDULE 2, and the OFT Debt Collection Guidance;

The OFT Debt Collection Guidance States:

2.2 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:
a. use of official looking documents intended or likely to mislead
debtors as to their status, e.g. documents made to resemble court
claims.
b. leaving out or presenting information in such a way that it
creates a false or misleading impression or exploits debtors' lack of
knowledge
c. those contacting debtors not making clear who they are, who they work for,
what their role is, what the purpose of the contact is

False representation of authority and/or legal position2.3 Those contacting debtors must not be deceitful by misrepresenting their authorityand/or the correct legal position.2.4 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:a. falsely implying or claiming authority, e.g. claiming to work oninstructions from the courts, claiming to be bailiffs or, inScotland, sheriff officers or messenger-at-arms.
2.10 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:a. claiming collection costs from a debtor in the absence of express contractual orother legal provisionb. misleading debtors into believing they are legally liable to pay collectioncharges when this is not the case, e.g. when there is no contractualprovisionc. not giving an indication in credit agreements of the amount of any chargespayable on defaultd. applying unreasonable charges, e.g. charges not based on actual andnecessary costse. applying charges which are disproportionate to the main debt.

Please therefore take the necessary action to ensure this practice ceases and that any necessary sanctions are taken.

Other bodies

You can also complain to your MP and to trading standards regarding the misrepresentation of authority.

Prankster Note

Extortionate collection charges are not normally allowed in the small claims court, but will still need to be contested if it gets that far. The most important point is not to ignore the letters.

A useful case to quote is ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores, where although the main parking charge of £75 was found to be valid, the increase to £135 was held to be a penalty and not enforceable. The later case of ParkingEye v Beavis, where a charge of £85 was found to be enforceable does not appear to contradict this.

Office Of Fair Trading

Although the Office of Fair Trading is of course no more, its guidance is still valid and used by the DVLA in their current KADOE contracts.

More information is available here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/kadoe_contract_2#incoming-728930
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/guidance_for_businesses_engaged
.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Race to £600 finishes. DCBL hit £605

January 4, 2016, 1:12 pm

≫ Next: Are DCBL guilty of 'passing off'?

≪ Previous: Race to £600 parking charge begins? DCBL inflate charges

$

0

0

In a previous blog The Prankster surmised that DCBL were perhaps trying to inflate a parking charge over £600 so they could get a high court writ and then enforce using bailiffs.

Somebody then suggested The Prankster might look at the back of the notice. Oops.

The charges on the front of the notice come to £340. The next step is to add a £265 'Third Stage Enforcement Fee' (who knows what happened to stages 1 and 2). This takes the total amount claimed to £605. Kerchingg! No doubt DCBL will be galloping off the the high court as soon as the ink dries.

As per the previous blog post The Prankster strongly suggests these letters should not be ignored and should be robustly contested.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Are DCBL guilty of 'passing off'?

January 4, 2016, 2:55 pm

≫ Next: MIL Collections lose in court. Fail to pay their own debts

≪ Previous: Race to £600 finishes. DCBL hit £605

$

0

0

DCBL are sending out letters titled 'Letter of Enforcement' which appear to be impersonating a Letter of Enforcement which a bailiff would send out following a High Court Writ.

Here is what a real 'Notice of Enforcement' looks like, together with DCBL's fake notice of enforcement. The differences are highlighted for your convenience.

This therefore appears to be a clear case of impersonation of authority scam.

The Prankster suggests anyone who gets one of these letters complains to Trading Standards, their MP, the BPA and the Parking Operator.

Here is some information on real Notices of Enforcement from Citizen's Advice.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

MIL Collections lose in court. Fail to pay their own debts

January 6, 2016, 11:58 am

≫ Next: DCBL race to £605. New letter chain gets there a different way

≪ Previous: Are DCBL guilty of 'passing off'?

$

0

0

MIL Collections were in court again today, once again in Manchester. The parking company they had allegedly purchased an alleged debt from was CPMS.

The defendant, Ms AC attended court with her parents, as well as John Wilkie, a Lay Representative from the British Motorists Protection Association. Mr Wilkie has a 14-2 record in court against parking companies.

The defence used was a standard defence which can most likely be used against all MIL claims, and is available on the pepipoo web site provided by HO87.

As is now commonplace, MIL didn't show.

The Judge was, by all accounts, a stickler for the rules. As well as the attendance sheet, he asked Mr Wilkie for his bona fides. In the small claims track any person can act as a lay representative as long as the person they are representing also attends court, and Mr Wilkie provided the judge with a copy of the The Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999, which satisfied him.

The judge pointed out that MIL had written to the court under CPR 27.9 asking for the case to be heard on the papers. Mr Wilkie objected to this, since the defendant hadn't received any such notification.

The judge asked to see the correspondence received, which was handed up, and he agreed this position.

Mr Wilkie handed up a copy of the order made in the previous MIL case heard in Manchester and reported by The Prankster in December. The judge considered it persuasive, and suggested that this may be a course of conduct by MIL. 13 represented cases and losses were mentioned as well as many unrepresented defaults.

As a result the case was struck out pursuant to rule 27.9(2) for non-compliance with rule 27.9(1)(a) and (b)

Costs were ordered under rule 27.14(2)(d) and (g) of £85, to be paid in 14 days with liberty to enforce.

In the meantime, the order of £142 for MIL's last non-attendance hasn't yet been paid, so Ms AC made it clear that she would be sending in bailiffs on day 15, and a BMPA rep may well attend to record the event.

Mr Wilkie now has a 15-2 record in court against parking companies.

Prankster Note

If you ignore MIL, it appears you will get a default judgment against you which will be hard to reverse. If you defend your case, it appears they will not bother to turn up and you will win. The Prankster therefore recommends a robust defence rather than sticking your head in the sand.

MIL are playing the numbers game, first perfected by Civil Enforcement Limited (who incidentally are in court on criminal charges on January 12, Court 5 in Aberdeen Sheriff Court). They hope far more people pay up than defend. It does not matter if they have no case and no real prospect of success - if the defendant does not file a defence, they will win by default.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

---

DCBL race to £605. New letter chain gets there a different way

January 7, 2016, 2:45 pm

≫ Next: ParkingEye and Equita pursue person who has never driven and never owned a car

≪ Previous: MIL Collections lose in court. Fail to pay their own debts

$

0

0

The Prankster previously blogged that DCBL may be guilty of passing off by sending letters impersonating genuine Letters of Enforcement. However, this may not be the correct offence.

Perhaps the question should be “Are DCBL guilty of offences under The Administration of Justice Act1970 section 40 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997?" Another possibility is that this is fraud by false representation according to the Fraud Act 2006 .

Anyone who receives one of DCBL's letters which impersonates a genuine Letter of Enforcement should therefore refer the matter to Action Fraud as well as Trading Standards. The more complaints they get, the more likely it is that the matter may get to the top of the pile for an investigation.

There are some letters from DCBL which may not fall under these remits.

In this letter it does not appear that DCBL are attempting to act as bailiffs, but as plain debt collectors. Once again the original alleged debt of £100 is magically transformed to £605, this time by inflating to £340 and then by adding ''escalation of legal proceedings" costs of £265 to get to £605. Thus two template letters have somehow cost DCBL £505 to post. If DCBL manage to get a default judgment for this amount they can then apply for a high court writ and 'send in the bailiffs' to enforce the writ.

Although this letter might not be a fraud, there are still problems.When parking firms use a third party debt collection company, their KADOE contract with the DVLA requires that all correspondence follows the FCA and OFT guidelines for debt collection.

D5. Restrictions on Disclosure of the Data
D5.1. The Customer shall respect the confidentiality of the Data and shall not disclose it to any person, except in the following circumstances:
b) to a sub-contractor who engages in debt collection, with whom the Customer shall have entered into a written contract which requires the sub-contractor to abide by the requirements in SCHEDULE 2, and the FCA Debt Collection Guidance;

This is defined as:

“FCA Debt Collection Guidance” means any guidance and/or codes of practice issued by the Financial Conduct Authority from time to time for businesses engaged in the recovery of consumer credit debts, including the guidance document entitled “Use, format and content of standard debt collection letters” produced by the Credit
Services Association and in association with the Office of Fair Trading and is available on the FCA website.

The FCA guidance is details in the answer to this FoI request and can be found here.

The various DCBL letters may fall foul of one of more of the requirements

• Letters which set out the potential enforcement actions following non payment of a County Court Judgment (e.g. bailiffs seizing goods, employers deducting money from wages) without indicating that a further application to the court is required before enforcement action can be taken (i.e. to obtain a warrant of execution, attachment of earnings, charging order etc)
• Members are reminded that the granting of judgments and other orders are court decisions and letters should not pre-empt a particular outcome e.g. that a judgment WILL be made
• The OFT referred to the use of standard demand letters set out in a boxed format that closely resemble the layout and appearance of such documents as a County Court Judgment. In the OFT's view, and despite the use of disclaimers such as 'this is not a court or legal document', the format of such letters has the potential to be misleading and breach paragraph 2.2a of the DCG.

• 7.3.14 (1) A firm must not take disproportionate action against a customer in arrears or default.
• 7.7.2 A firm must not claim the costs of recovering a debt from a customer if it has no contractual right to claim such costs
• 7.7.3 A firm must not cause a customer to believe that the customer is legally liable to pay the costs of recovery where no such obligation exists
• 7.7.4 Where a firm has a contractual right to levy default charges, a regulated credit agreement must state the charges and the conditions for making the charge under, as the case may be, the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/1014) or the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553).
• 7.7.5 A firm must not impose charges on customers in default or arrears difficulties unless the charges are no higher than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the firm.
• 7.11.1 When contacting customers, a firm must not misrepresent its authority or its legal position with regards to the debt or debt recovery process.
• 7.11.2 For example, a person misrepresents authority or the legal position if they claim to work on instructions from the courts as bailiffs or, in Scotland, sheriff officers or messengers-at-arms, or in Northern Ireland, to work on instructions from the Enforcement of Judgements Office when this is untrue
• 7.11.3 A firm must not use official looking documents which are designed to, or are likely to, mislead a customer as to the status of the firm
• 
  

Any persons getting letters which fall foul of these requirements should immediately contact the DVLA with copies. As this is a breach of the KADOE contract the DVLA is then able to take action.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye and Equita pursue person who has never driven and never owned a car

January 7, 2016, 3:18 pm

≫ Next: Another misleading letter from DCBL

≪ Previous: DCBL race to £605. New letter chain gets there a different way

$

0

0

This thread on moneysavingexpert details the story of both ParkingEye and Equita attempting to pursue a debt from somebody who has never driven and never owned a car.

This is clearly a case of mistaken identity, and by refusing to resolve the situation properly ParkingEye are in violation of the KADOE contract with the DVLA which requires debt collection best practices to be used.

• 7.5.3 A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt has been settled or is disputed and must not continue to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid.
• 7.13.2 A firm must take reasonable steps to ensure that it maintains accurate and adequate data (including in respect of debt and repayment history) so as to avoid the risk that:(1) an ndividual who is not the true borrower or hirer is pursued for the repayment of a debt; and (2) the borrower or hirer is pursued
• A firm must endeavour to ensure that the information it passes on to its agent or to a debt collector or to a tracing agent (a person that carries on the activity in article 54 of the Exemption Order), whether for the firm's or another person’s business, or to any other person involved in recovering the debt or, where appropriate, to a credit reference agency is accurate and adequate so as to facilitate the tracing and identification of the true borrower or hirer.
• Before pursuing a customer for the repayment of a debt, a firm must take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy and adequacy of the available data so as to ensure that the true customer is pursued for the debt and that they are pursued for the correct amount.
• 7.14.1 (1) A firm must suspend any steps it takes or its agent takes in the recovery of a debt from a customer where the customer disputes the debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds.
• 7.14.2 Valid grounds for disputing a debt include that: (1) the individual being pursued for the debt is not the true borrower or hirer under the agreement in question; 
• 7.14.3 Where a customer disputes a debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds, the firm must investigate the dispute and provide details of the debt to the customer in a timely manner.
• 7.14.4 Where there is a dispute as to the identity of the borrower or hirer or as to the amount of the debt, it is for the firm (and not the customer) to establish, as the case may be, that the customer is the correct person in relation to the debt or that the amount is the correct amount owed under the agreement.
• 7.14.5 A firm must provide a customer with information on the outcome of its investigations into a debt which the customer disputed on valid grounds.
• 7.14.6 Where a customer disputes a debt and the firm seeking to recover the debt is not the lender or the owner, the firm must: (1) pass the information provided by the customer to the lender or the owner; or [Note: paragraph 3.23h of DCG] (2) if the firm has authority from the lender or owner to investigate a dispute, it must notify the lender or owner of the outcome of the investigation.

ParkingEye and Equita should be referred to the DVLA and BPA so they can take the appropriate action.

ParkingEye did eventually cancel the charge, but begrudgingly and are disputing that they should be liable for any costs for their mistake. It seems like they are happy to issue huge charges for minor overstays, but unwilling to admit responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of tickets they issue in error each year. ParkingEye cancel 65 of tickets on appeal, and approximately half are cancelled by POPLA if a further appeal is made.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Another misleading letter from DCBL

January 9, 2016, 11:36 am

≫ Next: Is the Independent Appeal Service a kangaroo court?

≪ Previous: ParkingEye and Equita pursue person who has never driven and never owned a car

$

0

0

Debt Collectors DCBL seem to be specialising at misleading their victims. Here is another of their letters.

The letter states this is a 'Notice of Debt Assignment'. Normally you might expect that to mean that the original debt owner no longer has an interest in the debt and that is is now owned by the new organisation.

This would mean that DCBL are no longer acting as debt collectors, who are powerless to do anything but send scary looking letters. Instead, as owners of the debt they would have power to take you to court.

However a closer look at the letter reveals the truth.

"has now been assigned to DCBL to recover..."

This means all DCBL can do is send scary letters. However once again the sum has been pushed to £605, which means that if uncontested DCBL can eventually apply for a high court writ, and from there send in their bailiff arm.

The Prankster recommends that you do not ignore DCBL but respond as per previous blogs.

The letter is also using terms which real bailiffs would use at the enforcement state. It should therefore also be reported to Trading Standards and Action Fraud so they can investigate.

More DCBL letters

have you received a letter from DCBL regarding a parking charge which is misleading and different to the ones already featured? Have DCBL failed to follow FSA guidelines and pretended they can act as bailiffs at the debt collector stage?

If so, please contact The Prankster at prankster@parking-prankster.com

Is the Independent Appeal Service a kangaroo court?

January 10, 2016, 3:05 am

≫ Next: Yet more scams by UKPC

≪ Previous: Another misleading letter from DCBL

$

0

0

Sign Barry Beavis's Petition Here

Hello to any BBC readers. This blog examines the practices, good and bad of the private parking industry.

Independent Appeals - Background

Since October 2012 private parking companies have been required to provide an independent appeals service for motorists who disagree that the ticket has been validly issued. Initially, the British Parking Association offered the POPLA service. Statistics show that around 50% of appeals are upheld by POPLA. A new trade association, the Independent Parking Committee, then formed, run by Will Hurley and John Davies of Gladstones Solicitors. They created their own appeals arm, called the Independent Appeal Service, which was run on entirely different lines. Parking Review reported that only 20% of appeals were upheld. Many parking companies decided to forum shop' and move to the IPC. Excel Parking, for instance, in the February 2015 issue of Parking Review revealed they had decided to forum shop and move to the IPC so they could win more appeals.

Kangaroo Court

Possibly because so few appeals are won by motorists, a number of online forums refer to the IPC Independent Appeal Service as a kangaroo court. But is that fair? This blog takes a close look at the IAS to decide whether it is a fair and unbiased appeals service or really is a kangaroo court.

To start with, the definition of a kangaroo court is taken from Wikipedia.

A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. Merriam-Webster defines it as a "mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted".[1] The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations.

A kangaroo court is often held to give the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict has in reality already been decided before the trial has begun.

At first sight, the IAS appears to fit this definition perfectly, but to be fair to Will Hurley and John Davies, the geniuses who mastermind the IAS, a more detailed look should be taken.

We can start with the opinions of the parking companies who use the IAS. Here is an email from Northern Parking Services which was accidentally sent to the motorist rather than to 'Darren'.

On the face of then, Northern Parking Services are of the opinion that the verdict has already been decided and the IAS process is futile for the motorist. However, they are considering letting the motorist use it anyway, so as to give the appearance of being fair and just.

A kangaroo court is often held to give the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict has in reality already been decided before the trial has begun.

What do other legal experts think of the IAS system? Here is the opinion of the last Lead Adjudicator of POPLA, Henry Michael Greenslade, in his 2015 annual report on the types of process the IAS use.

Here is step 3 of the IAS appeals process

OPERATOR RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
The operator is provided with 5 working days to provide written representations and evidence in support of their response to you. You will be notified by email when this has been submitted and the case will then be placed before an adjudicator for a decision to be made.
Please note, you are not able to respond to these submissions but you can view them by logging into the system.

As the IAS does not allow motorists to see and comment on the operators entire evidence, it is by Mr Greenslade's definition an unfair service. This has been borne out in practice. In a number of appeals seen by The Prankster, the parking company has submitted false evidence or distorted the truth, yet the motorist has been refused permission to bring this to the attention of the assessor.appeal. The IPC have also refused to reconsider any verdict. In contrast, in cases where false evidence has been presented to POPLA which has come to light after the event, the case has been reheard.

It is of course a matter of record that on BBC WatchDog an undercover journalist caught IPC company PCM UK admitting they provided false information in appeals.

What does POPLA's scrutiny board think? In an open letter to the BPA they recognised that the IAS 'seems to operate with fewer safeguards.

The ISPA Board recognises that the BPA has acted in good faith in establishing POPLA and the Independent Scrutiny Board, as it had been encouraged to do by Government. While the Board has actively pursued a proper resourcing solution to discharge its remit it is aware of the cost pressures facing the BPA particularly since government appears to have endorsed the establishment of a second Approved Operator Scheme that seems to operate with significantly fewer safeguards for the independence of the service. This has led to a potential for ‘forum shopping “ where operators might seek to use an appeals service that provides a favourable outcome at low cost.
The British and Irish Ombudsman Association has clearly stated that such a situation is not best practice. In its guidance on development of appeals and ombudsman schemes it has stated the following;

 “If there are ‘competing’ ombudsmen in a particular sector, this can create confusion  or the public – who are unsure which business is covered by which ombudsman scheme. And public confidence is less where it is the business that has the choice of which ombudsman scheme to use.

This raises the appearance, and the risk, of businesses attempting to exercise an influence over the ombudsman schemes – by favouring the one that they like best and/or by threatening to undermine one scheme financially by threatening to move to another.

What doe the IAS's own scrutiny board think? Nothing, because there is no such board. Although the Government required the BPA to set up an independent board to oversee POPLA, they made no such requirements of the IPC. Here is Norman Bakers' letter to Patrick Troy of the BPA explaining that an independent board of trustees is important to establish public trust.

Of course forum shopping is now rife, and operators are leaving the BPA in droves for the IPC. Excel Parking explained in Parking Review in February 2015 that their decision to leave was based solely on forum shopping.

Excel cites frustration with the operation of POPLA as the main reason for its decision to swap trade bodies. An Excel spokesman told Parking Review: “Moving away from POPLA was the key motivation. Despite ongoing lobbying, POPLA continues to pursue its (hidden) 50/50 appeals rule, at the gross expense to AOS operators. In contrast, on the other side of the pond, the IPC adjudicates each appeal on factual evidence disclosed, and relies solely on current law, not ‘POPLA Law’!”

Simon Renshaw-Smith is the owner of Excel and his attitude to the law is well known. When he lost a court case against Martin Cutts he described the court ruling as "an embarrassment to the judicial system" and described the judge as "not fit to serve the civil courts". The car park in question, the Peel Centre, remains one of the most complained about car parks on forums. The signage at the Peel Centre remains appalling

Not everyone thinks the IAS are a kangaroo court. Malcolm Daughtrey, the IPC’s business development manager, said: “The IPC offer a more robust appeals service which is attractive to operators in providing efficiencies in the way the appeals are administers and the independent and impartial adjudication process. New members who have not be part of any Accredited Trade Association (ATA) have been attracted to the IPC and are currently going through the IPC rigorous audit process before being accredited with membership status."

However, it can be fair to say that a large number of respected people agree that appeals services run on the lines of the IAS are not fair to the consumer.

Official Standing

A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides.

It is fair to say that the IAS does not meet this particular criteria as it currently has ADR Entity status, awarded to it by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute.

However, there is a big but...

The criteria to become an accredited ADR Entity are laid down in law. The IAS falls woefully short of those standards, but once accredited has a short time to fix any problems. The CTSI did a poor job in awarding the IAS ADR Entity status and did not realise the many failings the IAS has. They have now been appraised and so the clock is ticking - either the IAS will have to conform or lose its ADR Entity status.

The failings of the IAS to meet the standards have previously been blogged here

The IAS has addressed some of these failings, but a number continue.

For instance, the names of assessors are not disclosed and neither is the full selection method. Thus Will Hurley and John Davies can choose assessors who align with their own world view, and not for instance, accidentally hire someone with the views of Michael Greenslade.

The IAS continues to stop motorists from responding to operator evidence.

Disregards Standards of Law or Justice

A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides.

To assess this one can look at the process flow of a number of cases. Once the IAS (owned by Will Hurley and John Davis) has ruled for the parking organisation many motorists quite rightly view the judgment as completely flawed and refuse to pay. The parking company can then get a 15% discount from Gladstone Solicitors (run by Will Hurley and John Davis) to help them take the case to court.

However, in all cases reported back to the Prankster, Gladstone Solicitors have fallen flat on their face and the operator has spectacularly lost. A number of these have been blogged.

Here is a typical comment from one of Will Hurley and John Davies IAS assessors. In this case the operator was pursuing the vehicle keeper who was not the driver. The keeper was appealing that they were not the driver, and keeper liability did not apply because the notice to keeper did not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4:

Non-compliance with POFA 2012. From the same case [ParkingEye v Beavis], Moore-Bick LJ said that the provisions in the POFA strongly supported the conclusion that Parliament considered it to be in the public interest that parking charges of this kind should be recoverable.

Thus we see the assessor is ruling that Statutes laid down by Parliament count for nothing, and because a judge ruled on a completely different issue on one case (the level of charges), the assessor will disregard the law of the land on keeper liability, and fail entirely to properly consider the issues

This of course is completely bonkers and shows what a sham the whole appeals system is. This is a typical appeal result which motorists have forwarded to The Prankster.

This also confirms that the IAS fails to meet another ADR Entity criteria, which is to use competent and unbiased assessors. It is difficult to argue that the assessor who made that judgment is not either incompetent or biased.

Complaints About IAS Decisions

When the Prankster complained about UKPC doctoring photographs to POPLA, the matter was investigated, and ended up with the operator being banned from the DVLA.

When the Prankster complained to the IAS about operators falsifying evidence and potentially doctoring photographs, The Prankster ended up being banned from the IAS.

Dear Prankster,

It is with some regret that we find ourselves in a position where we feel no longer able to communicate with you constructively. Unfortunately, we have tried to engage with you but increasingly your comments and approach lack any objectivity or credibility. It is increasingly clear that your only objective is to antagonise anybody who is connected to the parking industry and that you are not willing to appreciate any other viewpoint than your own. This polarised and warped approach makes communicating with you a complete waste of time.

Due to your vexatious approach we will no longer consider any communications from you. For the sake of clarity I can confirm we will not read, respond or consider, in anyway, any correspondence received from you or any company you are affiliated with whether the correspondence relates to you or any other individual.

Obviously this is a completely different approach from POPLA:

Is The IAS A Kangaroo Court

The Prankster has his own opinion but everybody is free to make up their own mind. Certainly the IAS seems to fit all the criteria of the Wikipedia entry for a kangaroo court.

A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. Merriam-Webster defines it as a "mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted".[1] The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations.

A kangaroo court is often held to give the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict has in reality already been decided before the trial has begun.

To summarise

• From the evidence available the IAS appears to blatantly disregard recognised standards of law and justice 
• The IAS carries official standing, but does not met the legal minimum criteria for an ADR Entity
• It is used by operators to give the appearance of a fair hearing, although internally they know they are just going through the motions

Should Motorists Use The IAS?

The IAS have two services, standard and non-standard.

Opinions are divided on using the standard service. One view is that the judgments are so perverse that the motorist should use the IAS because the operator would not dare use the judgment in court. The judgment can also be publicised on forums to put pressure on the Government to change the system. The other opinion is that using the IAS legitimises them and so it should not be done.

The non-standard service charges the motorist a non-refundable £15 and requires them to sign an agreement that they will not dispute the verdict, that they will pay the parking company in full, and they will also pay any debt collection charges added. They are also not allowed to dispute the verdict on any grounds whatsoever.

The non-standard verdict should therefore not be touched with a bargepole!

With the non-standard service the fox is not only in the henhouse  but was invited there by the farmer!

Right To Reply

The Prankster always allows the right to reply, and if the Lead Adjudicator of the IAS disagrees with any of the facts in this blog, he is welcome to put his case or ask for corrections by emailing prankster@parking-prankster.com

The Solution

The solution is to remove the right to run an 'Independent' appeals service from those who have vested interest in parking companies winning appeals, and place them in the hands of those who are truly independent.

The Prankster therefore backs the call of the British Parking Association for there to be one appeals body which services all trade associations, which is truly independent.

The Prankster believes this appeals service should conform to all ADR Entity regulations, not just pay lip service to the idea,

The service can be funded, as IPSA point out, by a small levy on keeper enquiries to the DVLA.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Yet more scams by UKPC

January 10, 2016, 11:16 pm

≫ Next: Have you had a fake Notice of Enforcement from DCBL?

≪ Previous: Is the Independent Appeal Service a kangaroo court?

$

0

0

The Prankster has been informed of more scams by UKPC. Apparently UKPC have been copying statutory council no waiting 'At any time' road signs and placing them underneath their own signs. Of course, it is also possible a random passer by placed the no waiting signs there and UKPC then just happened to place their signs above them.

Here are two examples:

These signs were present at St Mary's Park, Hook, RG27 8EQ in October 2015 when the photographs were taken.

This appears to be a case of misrepresentation of authority. Parking companies have been found in the past to be guilty of making their tickets look like council tickets so that motorists believed there was statutory force behind them. This is exactly the same thing.

The BPA code of practice specifically bans this practice

14.1 You must give clear information to the public about what parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised. You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority. You will be breaching the Code if you suggest to the public that you are providing parking enforcement under statutory authority.

The Prankster understands that UKPC have been reported to the BPA for this breach of the code of practice, but that the BPA have decided to take no action. This appears to run contrary to Patrick Troy's statement to the BBC

"If there's a repeat of any kind of misbehaviour, that will almost certainly result in expulsion or further suspension."

It appears that Mr Troy may have had a change of heart.

Regulations and guidance regarding illegal copies of crown copyrighted traffic signs

The familiar yellow No-Waiting-At-Any-Time sign is a Crown-copyright traffic sign from Diagram 637.3 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) to be used
exclusively for placements on the public highway.

Even on the public highway its placement is expressly prohibited by the Road Traffic Regulation
Act 1984 and by item 1 of TSRGD General Direction 24(1) otherwise than in conjunction with a
kerbside double yellow line (which is to TSRGD Diagram 1018.1). There are no yellow line road
markings at St Mary’s Park.

In respect of roads which are private land not of the public highway, the Department for Transport
has confirmed the applicability of Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual. The attached extract
shows at section 1.20 the consequences of wrongful placement of public highway traffic signs on
private land adjacent to public highways.

1.20 Authorities should consider requiring the removal of any object or device erected privately on land adjacent to their roads which has the apparent or express intention of guiding, warning or directing road users. In addition, private advertisements should not resemble or incorporate prescribed traffic signs or their symbols. United Kingdom signs are crown copyright and may not be reproduced without permission. In no circumstances will the Department permit the use of traffic signs on advertisements at road side locations. When prescribed traffic signs are used illegally action should be
taken to secure their removal.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Has UKPC used this trick in a site near you? If so, please email in photographs of the signs together with information about the location to prankster@parking-prankster.com

Have you had a fake Notice of Enforcement from DCBL?

January 12, 2016, 12:03 pm

≫ Next: Civil Enforcement Limited in court today on fraud charges

≪ Previous: Yet more scams by UKPC

$

0

0

DCBL have issued a number of letters titled 'Notice of Enforcement' which appear to resemble statutory 'Notice of Enforcement' but in fact are just debt collector letters.

The letters also appear to artificially inflate the alleged amount owed so that the amount goes over £605 in two stages. This is the amount at which a high court writ can be issued if the claim is upheld at court. No doubt all the other debt collection companies are keeping an eye on proceedings and will shortly be following suit if the tactic works.

DCBL have applied to the Financial Conduct Authority to conduct credit activities and they have been granted interim permission. If you have received one of these letters and think it appropriate to bring it to the attention of the FCA, then they can be contacted at 25 The North Colonnade, London E14 5HS or consumer.queries@fca.org.uk

A sample letter follows, but it is always best to use your own words.

Dear FCA,

I understand Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd, http://www.dcbltd.com/ have been granted permission to conduct credit activities following the changeover from the OFT. In light of that, I thought it pertinent to bring to your attention their debt collection activities.

I attach a copy of the letter they sent to me. As you will see from the attached, DCBL have provided a document entitled Notice of Enforcement. The notice displayed bears an uncanny and remarkable resemblance to the statutory Notice of Enforcement issued in April 2014 under the Taking Control of Goods  Regulations 2013. The truth of the matter is that the notice is not a statutory notice. Instead, it is a notice that (for want of a better word) has been cleverly doctored to resemble a Notice of Enforcement. You can no doubt compare the two.

These letters appear to fall foul of your debt collection guidance on several points:

7.3.14 (1) A firm must not take disproportionate action against a customer in arrears or default.

7.7.2 A firm must not claim the costs of recovering a debt from a customer if it has no contractual right to claim such costs

7.7.3 A firm must not cause a customer to believe that the customer is legally liable to pay the costs of recovery where no such obligation exists

7.7.4 Where a firm has a contractual right to levy default charges, a regulated credit agreement must state the charges and the conditions for making the charge under, as the case may be, the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/1014) or the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553).

7.7.5 A firm must not impose charges on customers in default or arrears difficulties unless the charges are no higher than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the firm.

7.11.1 When contacting customers, a firm must not misrepresent its authority or its legal position with regards to the debt or debt recovery process.

7.11.2 For example, a person misrepresents authority or the legal position if they claim to work on instructions from the courts as bailiffs or, in Scotland, sheriff officers or messengers-at-arms, or in Northern Ireland, to work on instructions from the Enforcement of Judgements Office when this is untrue

7.11.3 A firm must not use official looking documents which are designed to, or are likely to, mislead a customer as to the status of the firm

I hope therefore that you can investigate this matter, and take due note of your findings when the time comes to finally decide whether to grant DCBL a credit licence or not.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Civil Enforcement Limited in court today on fraud charges

January 12, 2016, 12:57 pm

≫ Next: New POPLA staying cases to consider Beavis.

≪ Previous: Have you had a fake Notice of Enforcement from DCBL?

$

0

0

Civil Enforcement Limited were in court today in Aberdeen on fraud charges. The case is expected to conclude tomorrow.

Meanwhile, a number of forum reports and request to The Prankster have noted that recent court filings from CEL have concerned cases where the motorists claim no notice to driver or notice to keeper were ever served.

If this is correct then this would seem to be a far cheaper way of running a parking company. Why bother with actually doing all that tiresome car park management when you can just serve court claims on random members of the public.Enough will pay up to make your business extremely profitable.

As for motorists hit with these outrageous claims, all they need is a watch...oh, wait!

Fake CEL Claim

Have you received a court claim or letter before action from CEL recently for a charge you knew nothing about and for a car park in which CEL have lost the contract to operate? If so, please get in touch at prankster@parking-prankster.com

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

---

New POPLA staying cases to consider Beavis.

January 13, 2016, 1:46 pm

≫ Next: MIL Collections fail in court - Champerty and Maintenance

≪ Previous: Civil Enforcement Limited in court today on fraud charges

$

0

0

As well as the approximately 3,800 cases stayed from the old POPLA run by London Councils, the new POPLA is also staying cases.

No mention of how long the POPLA review will take has been made.

The Prankster considers this a sensible move. The Beavis case was won by the parking operator and parking companies have been calling this a landmark case which justifies all parking charges. Of course it does not and the Supreme Court were careful to point this out.

The Supreme Court judgment is binding case law, but that law may be beneficial to operators in some cases, and to motorists in others. For instance, Parking companies often quote the case of Vine v Waltham Forest to assert that a contract can be made by performance. However, that case was won by the motorist.

It is clear from the tweet that the 'clear wording of the notices' was important, but as a tweet is not binding case law it is also useful to clarify this by looking at the actual judgment.

In the Beavis case the penalty charge was present in huge letters in the largest font on the signage and with high contrast black on yellow, and was therefore found to be transparent and obvious to the motorist. There can be no doubt of the £85 charge

The Beavis judgment relies on the signage being obvious and the amount of the penalty being known to the consumer so they could make their decision whether to park and risk a huge penalty. Here are a few of the references to signage from the judgment:

Para 100: “The charge is prominently displayed in large letters at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals within it” and “They must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for overstaying as an acceptable price for the convenience of parking there.”

Para 108: “But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85”

Para 199: “What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 (reducible on prompt payment) is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.”

Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”

Para 287: In so far as the criterion of unconscionableness allows the court to address considerations other than the size of the penalty in relation to the protected interest, the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable

Case law from Beavis would therefore lead to the conclusion that a vital ingredient is that the signage be ample, the charge clear.

Take for example this sign from Excel Parking from the Peel Centre, one of the most complained about car parks in the country.

The sign is a mass of confusing and contradictory words. The charge, in case you did not spot it, is £100 hidden in the small print at the bottom of the sign. Additionally, large parts of the sign are in blue on yellow, a combination warned against by the British Parking Association code of practice as hard to read.

Binding case law from the Beavis case would therefore appear to support the assertion that the charge of £100 in the Peel Centre would be a penalty and therefore not enforceable.

POPLA will therefore need time to consider this and other issues and The Prankster will keep an eye on developments.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

MIL Collections fail in court - Champerty and Maintenance

January 15, 2016, 11:03 am

≫ Next: Independent Parking Committee operator code of practice breach condoned by the IAS

≪ Previous: New POPLA staying cases to consider Beavis.

$

0

0

MIL Collections Ltd v Stephen B Case No B1QZ7N32, Oldham CC 15/01/2016.

This was one of the Car Park Management Services (sole trader)/Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd cases.

MIL again failed to turn up but had, it seems, made an application for the matter to be heard "on the papers". They had failed to communicate this to the defendant who duly arrived at the court. 25 minutes in, the judge called the defendant who was asked to prove his case.

Mr B attempted to have the case dismissed on the basis of MIL's non-attendance but the judge was having none of it. This does seem a little unusual. MIL are required to inform both the court and the defendant that they want the case heard on the papers, and the small claims track rules are laid out here:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27

Rule 27.9(2) allows a judge to strike out a claim in these circumstances, and given this is a repeated occurrence from MIL The Prankster thinks the courts should not be letting them get away with it.

Mr B pressed on with well prepared arguments - lack of standing, no contract offered on the signs, where there are terms of exclusion motorists cannot be held to a contract etc. However it was the champerty/maintenance argument that the judge latched onto.

He duly found that MIL's claim was founded in maintenance and the matter was dismissed. He specifically observed that had the original company failed and MIL had acquired all the assets then their proceedings would have been permissible.

Costs were awarded to the defendant payable within 14 days but the defendant was on too great a high to record what he was awarded. The judge also ruled that MIL had failed to show a contract exists, and there cannot be a contract if the case is for trespass.

Prankster Note

If you say, fall behind on payments for your car then there is a real debt. A second company could purchase that debt from the original people who sold you the car, and could then try and enforce it.

A parking charge is different. If the parking charge is not paid it is because the motorist disputes the debt does not exist and believes the charge is not valid. MIL collections hawked themselves around the parking companies and attempted to buy up unpaid charges for £1 each as recorded in the British Parking Association council minutes of 3rd June 2015. MIL have therefore bought the right to sue for a disputed charge.

This falls under the category of champerty and maintenance and is not allowable.

Champerty and maintenance consists of dealing in bare litigation where the litigating party does not have a direct interest in the claim. In other words, you can sell an interest in something (e.g. a debt) but you cannot sell a mere right to sue.  Specifically you cannot sell the right to sue for breach of contract.

Dealing in bare litigation is forbidden for public policy reasons - it encourages unnecessary, frivolous or vexatious litigation (as MIL is proving daily).  Champerty and maintenance used to be illegal but, as with so many things, it was decriminalised when better regulation of the legal profession made such behaviour less common (until the advent of PPC’s and their debt collector brethren, that is).

MIL Collection therefore appear to have bought a worthless collection of rights to sue. Perhaps the parking companies will give them their £1 back if they ask nicely.

MIL Defence

The Prankster suggests that defendants who dispute that MIL Collections have a valid claim against them consider adding the following to their defence.

1/ The Claimant has provided no evidence that there was a valid assignment of debt, in the form of a Deed of Assignment signed by the original creditor, pursuant to s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Absent such evidence, the Claimant no locus in this matter.

2/ Even if there was a valid Deed of Assignment, the Claimant has no interest in, or privity to, any purported original contract, and it is submitted that such an assignment would be champertous. The sole purpose is to enable the Claimant to instigate legal proceedings, which is a chose in action, and on that basis the Claim should be struck out by the Court, as was the case in MIL Collections v Stephen Bowker, Case No B1QZ7N32, Oldham CC 15/01/2016

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Independent Parking Committee operator code of practice breach condoned by the IAS

January 16, 2016, 1:49 pm

≫ Next: ParkingEye deceive Supreme Court with false evidence. Judgment built on shifting sands

≪ Previous: MIL Collections fail in court - Champerty and Maintenance

$

0

0

Imagine the situation. You get back to the car park, go to the machine, enter your registration and it tells you how much you owe for parking. This is because the ANPR knows what time you arrived in the car park. So far so good, and The Prankster has previously recommended such systems. However ParkWithEase has found a way to exploit motorists which has been upheld by the IAS.

The way they do it is this. Suppose at time x the motorist owes one amount, but this is the end of one charging period. One second later the motorist owes another amount. ParkWithEase are penalising motorists, even if they leave the car park straight away, saying they did not pay the correct amount.

The Prankster has heard from one motorist who checked the machine and fulfilled the terms and conditions in force at the time. They then left. ParkWithEase charged them £50 for straying 4 minutes into the next charging period, and this was upheld on appeal by the IAS.

Now, The Prankster thinks that 4 minutes is a reasonable grace period to allow for leaving a car park, and in fact the IPC Code of practice states:

Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to leave a site after a pre-paid or
permitted period of parking has expired.

Four minutes would seem to be a reasonable period from the point of paying to get back to the car, strap the children in, and leave. (In fact, the British Parking Association mandates a 10 minute grace period) The IAS barista did not agree, and stated that as the driver had contractually agreed to the conditions they were liable to pay the £50.

The Prankster recommends that motorists avoid visiting the site, which is White Moss (near Rydal) in the Lake District, unless they are happy to risk paying £50 for parking even if the motorist fulfills the conditions at the time they attempt to pay for parking.

There are a large number of online complaints about this car park.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?430396-White-Moss-Car-Park-Parking-With-Ease-(NOT)-**Won-at-IAS**

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5328093

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712690/Ticket-old-theyll-pay-How-ruthless-parking-cowboys-tell-wardens-exploit-vulnerable.html

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t100637.html

http://www.cwherald.com/a/archive/caught-out-by-complex-keypad-at-car-park.429767.html

http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g186318-d187959-r329139664-Lake_District_National_Park-Lake_District_Cumbria_England.html#REVIEWS

The Prankster is not surprised.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye deceive Supreme Court with false evidence. Judgment built on shifting sands

January 17, 2016, 3:24 am

≫ Next: No charges stick against Civil Enforcement Limited - evidence was not allowed

≪ Previous: Independent Parking Committee operator code of practice breach condoned by the IAS

$

0

0

The Prankster can reveal that the evidence filed by ParkingEye in the Beavis case was incorrect and may have had an effect on the final judgment.

It is clear that signage plays a big part in the judgment and that the basis the contract is not unfair is due to the 'clear and plentiful' signage.

Here are a few of the references to signage from the judgment:

Para 100: “The charge is prominently displayed in large letters at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals within it” and “They must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for overstaying as an acceptable price for the convenience of parking there.”

Para 108: “But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85”

Para 199: “What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 (reducible on prompt payment) is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.”

Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”

Para 287: In so far as the criterion of unconscionableness allows the court to address considerations other than the size of the penalty in relation to the protected interest, the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable

Here is a copy of the signage map filed by ParkingEye as evidence.

From this map it is clear that you can hardly move around the car park without bumping into one of the 20 huge blue or yellow signs.

Here is the judges finding of fact based on that information.

Para 90. At all material times since then, ParkingEye has displayed about 20 signs at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals throughout it. The signs are large, prominent and legible, so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature, and would have a fair opportunity to read them if he or she wished to do so.

But what if there were fewer signs? The judges may well have come to a different decision. One possible judgment would be that they still ruled a charge of £85 may be valid, just not in this car park. Another possibility might be that the case would have been thrown out due to false evidence.

At what level might the judges have changed their mind? If there was only one sign in the car park, then this would almost certainly result in the appeal being won. If there was one fewer sign than the evidence claimed, perhaps the judgment would have stayed the same. Somewhere in between will be the tipping point.

The Prankster can now reveal the actual signage in the car park. For clarity, signs are shown at twice actual size.

What? You can't see them? Ah, perhaps twice actual size isn't big enough. Here they are again.

Yes, that's correct - only 15 of the 20 signs ParkingEye claim are present in the evidence are actually there. Five of the twenty signs ParkingEye claim were present are not. Fully 25% of the signs claimed were missing. In addition one sign (number 5) was in the wrong place and there was one extra sign not mentioned, which means that around 1/3 of the signage evidence submitted to the Supreme Court was either plain wrong or misleading.

But would this have made a difference? Here is the map again, together with the area of influence of each sign. Parking spaces within 5 bays of a sign on the same row are shown in green. These are all close enough that the driver would almost certainly spot the sign. Parking spaces withing 10 bays are shown in orange. These are warning bays. A driver might well be likely to miss a sign. Parking spaces in red are danger areas. They are so far away from a sign that a driver would be very likely not to realise restrictions exist.

Although the Prankster has not done this, there is also a case for disabled bays to be given special treatment. A disabled driver isn't going to go mooching around the car park looking for signs; the driver is also likely to be in a wheelchair. Disabled bays could therefore be marked in red if there are no nearby signs low enough to read - disabled drivers are after all likely to need longer to shop than able bodied drivers. In actual fact for this car park, most of the disabled bays are classified as 'red' anyway, meaning there are no nearby signs.

So there you have it. 172 well signed spaces, 233 badly signed spaces, and 67 spaces which can only be classed as entrapment zones, including most of the disabled bays. Of the 472 spaces, 63% are badly signed and of those 14% are ParkingEye's cash cows.

What can be done?

The Supreme Court verdict is water under the bridge and Mr Beavis will not be getting his £85 back. However, there is real doubt that the Supreme Court would have ruled the way they did had ParkingEye not provided incorrect information. The rationale may have remained the same, but the verdict may have gone the other way for this particular car park and this particular set of signage.

This of course is not an isolated car park, and most other ParkingEye car parks have similar signage problems, with large areas of poor signage, together with distinctive entrapment zones. Worryingly, many of the entrapment zones are either in disabled bays, or are at the shopfront, where a motorist would just drive up, enter the store and so never see the signage far behind them.

ANPR car parks are not like warden patrolled car parks - there is no reason of  risking parking a few minutes extra on the chance the warden will not visit. Every single overstay will result in a charge being issued. Therefore as no rational person would overstay, the only reasons this would happen is in the case of an accident, or if the motorist missed the signs and did not realise the time limit. Signage therefore plays a huge part. Unscrupulous operators have a huge incentive to provide poor signage, and the more canny of these will cleverly have good signage in some areas of the car park, while creating entrapment zones elsewhere.

The Government are currently consulting on the bad practices in the parking industry and so there are several ways this problem could be quickly and easily fixed - for instance by defining what the minimum acceptable standard of signage coverage is. Currently the codes of practice of the parking industry fall conveniently silent on any quantifiable standards, preferring instead to define the minimum size a sign must be.

Sign Barry Beavis's petition here to get this matter responded to by parliament

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

No charges stick against Civil Enforcement Limited - evidence was not allowed

January 18, 2016, 1:01 am

≫ Next: ParkingEye fraudulently charging yet again. Morrisons car park this time

≪ Previous: ParkingEye deceive Supreme Court with false evidence. Judgment built on shifting sands

$

0

0

Last week the case against Civil Enforcement Limited was heard over two days in Aberdeen.

In a clever move by the defence, most of the evidence was ruled as inadmissable meaning the meat of the case could not be heard, and inevitably therefore none of the charges were proved.

 In a nutshell, the Sheriff accepted Counsel submissions for no case to answer on the following points:

• No evidence led on locus of each offence
• No evidence led on the content of the PCNs
• In relation to charge of persistent and unwanted solicitations by letter, 3 letters was held to be not persistent. A 4th letter was ruled inadmissible as there was noone from Rossendales to answer for it

As the fraud charge was an all-encompassing charge, because each charge under the Regulations fell, it too fell

After the case, Trading Standards said:

‘We are very disappointed with the outcome of the case.
Trading Standards received a large volume of complaints about private car parks. Many consumers were unaware they had parked on ground which had parking restrictions and several were then given false information as to their legal liability to pay the parking charge. We worked closely with the Procurator Fiscal to secure a conviction and it is disappointing for the case to fail on a technicality.’ 

Prankster Note

The Civil Enforcement Limited bosses blamed everything on their incompetent employees not following the right procedures and sending out the wrong letters.

If you are a CEL employee and know differently, please contact the prankster at prankster@parking-prankster.com

Happy Parking

The Praking Prankster