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

ParkingEye ANPR flaw at M40 Oxford Services

October 30, 2016, 11:29 am
$
0
0
ParkingEye have yet again failed to cancel a parking charge wrongly issued by their flawed ANPR.

In this case the vehicle keeper (Stan) visited a friend for her 50th birthday party in Oxford, travelling in convoy with another vehicle. They stopped at the M40 Oxford Services between 13.55 and 14.10 for 15 minutes. On the way back, they popped in to fill up with petrol, stopping from around 18:35 to 18:45.

Some days later Stan received a parking charge from ParkingEye accusing him of staying in the car park for 4 hours and 52 minutes.

Stan appealed, explaining that he visited the car park twice on his way to and from a party.

ParkingEye requested proof.

Stan sent them 3 witness statements confirming he was at the party.

ParkingEye ignored this, and sent a letter asking Stan who the driver was.

Stan sent another letter, telling them to read his previous two letters and witness statements

ParkingEye told Stan he had reached the end of their internal appeal process and gave him a POPLA code

Stan appealed to POPLA, including as evidence the witness statements and also a photo he took at the party.


ParkingEye submitted a 93 page evidence pack, including 40 pages listing the last 3 digits of all the vehicles that had entered and exited the services that day.

The registration details of Stan's friend's car was not listed amongst all these numbers, despite the fact that he, too, had also visited the service station twice.

Stan sent an email to POPLA pointing this out, along with a signed statement from his friend including his registration number.

POPLA upheld the appeal

Prankster Note

It is clear that ParkingEyes ANPR is fatally flawed. Stan's friend passed the entrance/exit four times, yet his registration was not listed even once in ParkingEye's printout.

Stan also passed four times and his registration was only listed twice.

ParkingEye are fully aware their ANPR is not fit for purpose yet their appeals service fail to cancel charges even when faced with overwhelming evidence.

This situation is not healthy and need to be addressed.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧
Search

ParkingEye clock accuracy claims a myth

October 30, 2016, 11:29 pm
$
0
0
ParkingEye claims that their systems are time synchronised appear to be not totally accurate.



This ticket from Asda in Hemel Hempstead was purchased on 30/10/2016, but expired in March.

Oops.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster



↧
↧

Excel Parking - You've been Gladstoned. Judge rules Elliott v Loake as not relevant

October 31, 2016, 2:02 pm
$
0
0
Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016

Mr C's vehicle was parked at the Peel Centre. For some reason, Excel Parking issued a parking charge which Mr C did not think was appropriate. BW Legal filed a claim on behalf of Excel, and Ms Kauser from Elms Legal represented them at the hearing.

This was a PPA Production, with Bargepole preparing the papers and John Wilkie coming to court.

Mr C may, or may not, have been driving his car on 8 April 2014 when he and his wife went to PC World at the Peel Centre to buy her a laptop; he genuinely doesn't remember.

Excel issued a NtK that they claimed was compliant with POFA, including the warning that if, 28 days after the issue of the notice, the sum was not paid or the driver notified to Excel, they would invoke keeper liability.

Ms Kauser kept coming back to the fact that as Mr C was in the car, even if he wasn't driving, he knows who was, and if he's not prepared to name the driver, it's a reasonable inference that he was driving, quoting Elliott v Loake as case law.

Bunkum, said Mr Wilkie, Elliot and Loake is a criminal case, which has no bearing on a civil matter, as Elliot was prosecuted for S.172, which cannot apply here.

The Claimant's witness statement was adjudged to be less than useful, and indeed part of it was entirely destructive to the case.

Locus and Agency were discussed and dismissed, and Mr C performed excellently on the witness stand, demonstrating memory issues making his failure to name the driver entirely credible and reasonable.

Following a long, hard discussion, the Judge asked for a few minutes, and when we returned made a finding of fact that the Excel wording does not comply with the mandatory requirements of POFA to invoke keeper liability. As Excel did not adduce evidence of the driver, and as Elliott v Loake
is not persuasive and can be distinguished, the claim was dismissed.

Defendant's costs of £98.60 to be paid by Excel in 14 days

This is another example of Simon Renshaw-Smith's competence knowing no beginnings. Excel must be fully aware that their NtK are not compliant with POFA, as they were losing for this reason at POPLA right up until the jump in with Skippy and the Team at the IPC - indeed it's one of the
reasons they did jump. For a "professional car parking management company" to be losing in court on this basis, a full four years after the implementation of POFA, is ludicrous.

This is yet another loss at the Peel Centre for BW Legal - this is looking less and less profitable for them if they are paying £2-300 per advocate-day, as there were 2 advocates for 2 Excel cases today as well as a third for a ParkingEye case. Mr Wilkie recognised all three faces and noted that he was likewise acknowledged and recognised.

Excel Parking - You've been Gladstoned


Prankster Note

The IPC's "Independent" Appeals Service swears by Elliott v Loake. and regularly rules that the keeper must therefore be the driver even when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The Prankster has seen IAS decisions ruling Elliott v Loake applies in cases where the driver has proof of being elsewhere, where witness statements state the driver was not the keeper, and even when the driver according to the operator was a different sex to the keeper.

Following this bunkum, Messeurs Hurley and Davies quickly switch hats and file a claim using Gladstones solicitors, persuading their clients that their flawed legal reasoning is likely to hold up in court. Bunkum. All these court claims do is swell the Hurley and Davies bank balances.

Now BW Legal are following in Gladstones footsteps, with Sean Barton and Rachael Withers at the helm. These two are filing claims like confetti for Excel and VCS, with no due diligence to ascertain whether the claim has the remotest chance of succeeding.




The Prankster thought it was not possible for a legal firm to be more inept and incompetent that Gladstones, but BW Legal are certainly trying hard. The Prankster believes no competent solicitor would ever claim that Elliott v Loake is authority for the keeper being the driver.

The Government created the Protection of Freedoms Act, schedule 4, so that keepers could be held liable for the parking actions of drivers. If operators like Simon Renshaw-Smith are not intelligent enough to use this Act, then The Prankster respectfully suggests they are in the wrong business.

The Prankster considers that the Peel Centre is the worst run car park in the entire country. The Prankster received more complaints about this car park than any other. If Simon Renshaw-Smith can't sign this car park properly and make sure his machines work, then he is not competent to be a car park operator and the DVLA should remove his ability to get keeper data.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Tenancy Agreement not overruled by Parking signage

November 1, 2016, 10:40 am
$
0
0
Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0 16/09/2016 Croydon.

Mr N had the temerity to park outside his own home, in his own parking space, without displaying a permit. Pace Recovery and Storage (trading as ACE Security) issued him a parking charge, and when Mr N declined to pay it, took him to court.

In the hearing, Mr N produced his tenancy agreement, which showed he had the unrestricted right to park.

District Judge Coonan dismissed the claim and refused leave to appeal.

I have to deal with this on the evidence that is before me now. I have before me a tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that. It has got to be the other contracting party, Affinity Sutton, which amends the terms of the tenancy agreement to restrict the right to park on a place in circumstances in which a permit is displayed but that is not in this tenancy agreement and you as a third party cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.

The approved judgment which may be of use to other people in the same boat, is hosted on the Prankster's site here.

After the hearing, Mr Charman stated his regret that he had relied on the advice of solicitors.

 As you can see from this, we rely on solicitors, which maybe we should not really have done, but we have relied on solicitors who at this point have said, “No, there is not a need” and maybe if they had seen the lease

No doubt a lot of other Parking companies who have lost at the hands of Gladstones Solicitors will be thinking the same think.

Prankster Note

It is a well established legal doctrine that an existing contract cannot be unilaterally altered. Any solicitor, apart it seems from Gladstones Solicitors, could have told Mr Charman that.

In the case of residential parking, the existing contract would normally come into place when the tenancy agreement is signed.

Failing that, the contract next most probably comes into force at the time permits are supplied. If this does not explicitly state parking charges of £100 will be charged for non-display, then this term cannot be unilaterally introduced later.

It would be very unusual for the contract with a resident to be formed by the signage on site. The signage is there only to form a contract with non-residents.

Responsible parking companies will realise this. Spivs and chancers, who have no intention of providing a responsible parking management service and only want to gouge the residents, will have difficulty accepting this.

Paper permits are an outdated and inefficient way of managing a residential car park. They fail to take note of the needs of the residents, who may have to swap cars at short notice, or who may want someone else to use their space at short notice. They also have a habit of disappearing from view or expiring while the owner is on holiday.

Responsible parking companies will either use a modern system which does not need paper permits, or will cancel charges accidentally given to residents or their guests.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster





↧

Smart Parking settle out of court for data protection contravention

November 1, 2016, 2:38 pm
$
0
0
Smart Parking have settled out of court for a data protection contravention.

The claim concerned a parking event at Fistral Beach. The motorist paid for a ticket and entered their registrations details correctly in the parking machine. Despite this, Smart Parking applied to the DVLA for keeper details and issued a parking ticket.

The motorist appealed and Smart Parking refused to cancel the charge. The motorist asked for contact details of a senior executive but was refused. After much time and effort he eventually found contact details at companies house and wrote to three top executives at which point the charge was finally cancelled.

As Smart Parking had obtained keeper details from the DVLA when no parking contravention had occurred, and had falsely insinuated a charge existed, they were misusing the personal data of the motorist and causing harassment and distress. The motorist therefore wrote asking to be reimbursed.
Smart Parking replied "Smart Parking Ltd are not liable for any costs incurred as a result of the motorist disputing or pursuing the charge".

The motorist therefore filed a claim in the small claims court for £250, plus £25 filing costs.

Compensation for distress and harassment
caused by Smart Parking's misuse of personal
information obtained from the DVLA contrary
to the principles of the Data Protection Act
(DPA) 1998. Specifically, Smart Parking's
surveillance equipment and procedures for
gathering and processing data collected are
not fit for purpose as required under the
DPA.

A short time later, Smart Parking sent a cheque for £275 to settle the claim

Prankster Note

Parking Companies issue charges like confetti. In the ParkingEye v Beavis case, ParkingEye admitted they cancel 65% of appealed tickets. POPLA statistics show another 45% of tickets appealed there are cancelled. Most charges are therefore not valid. Sadly, parking companies do not learn from their mistakes and continue to wrongly issue tickets without changing their processes.

When a ticket is issued but no contravention has occurred, the parking company may be causing a data protection violation by misusing personal data obtained from a DVLA to wrongly assert a charge is payable.

When this happens, Vidal-Hall v Google [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) establishes that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages that damages for a breach of the DPA could include non pecuniary damage.
http://www.5rb.com/case/vidal-hall-ors-v-google-inc/

The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.

Motorists have up to 6 years to file a claim.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧
↧

The IAS fails ADR reporting requirements

November 2, 2016, 12:02 am
$
0
0
The "Independent" Appeals Service is an Alternative Dispute Resolution entity, and as such has to abide by the requirements of The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes
(Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015. One of these is to produce an annual report.


Ongoing information obligations of an ADR entity

11(2) An ADR entity must, within a month of the first anniversary of the approval date and within
a month of each subsequent anniversary, publish on its website a report (“an annual activity
report”) relating to the preceding year which contains the information in Schedule 5.

SCHEDULE 5 Regulation 11(2)
Information to be included in an ADR entity’s annual activity report

a) the number of domestic disputes and cross-border disputes the ADR entity has received;
b) the types of complaints to which the domestic disputes and cross-border disputes relate;
c) a description of any systematic or significant problems that occur frequently and lead to
disputes between consumers and traders of which the ADR entity has become aware due
to its operations as an ADR entity;
d) any recommendations the ADR entity may have as to how the problems referred to in
paragraph (c) could be avoided or resolved in future, in order to raise traders’ standards
and to facilitate the exchange of information and best practices;
e) the number of disputes which the ADR entity has refused to deal with, and percentage
share of the grounds set out in paragraph 13 of Schedule 3 on which the ADR entity has
declined to consider such disputes;
f) the percentage of alternative dispute resolution procedures which were discontinued for
operational reasons and, if known, the reasons for the discontinuation;
g) the average time taken to resolve domestic disputes and cross-border disputes;
h) the rate of compliance, if known, with the outcomes of the alternative dispute resolution
procedures;
i) the co-operation, if any, of the ADR entity within any network of ADR entities which
facilitates the resolution of cross-border disputes.

The annual report was due on the IAS website on 1st November 2016. The Prankster has confirmed this with a request to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, the body who oversee ADR accreditation.

As of the 2nd November 2016, the report was not available on the IAS website.

The IAS is therefore in breach of its statutory requirements.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Link Parking lose in Wrexham. Flat owner has every right to park in her own parking space

November 2, 2016, 1:26 pm
$
0
0
C7GF50J7 Link Parking v Ms P 2/11/2016 Wrexham

This case concerns a residential car park. The motorist in question has her own assigned parking space which she has successfully managed for several years by installing a post which can be raised and lowered. She has never had any problems with this system.


One day on arriving at the property she discovered a letter from the management company explaining that the car park was now managed by Link Parking. On returning to the car she discovered that a ticket had been issued.

She naturally appealed, expecting that any reasonable parking company would cancel the charge. Link Parking declined. As the motorist refused to pay, a claim was issued by Gladstones Solicitors.

The Hearing

The hearing took place in Wrexham Court No.3 in front of Justice Louise Metcalf.  Ms P was introduced to Mr. Pickup, a barrister from LPC, instructed by Gladstones and acting for Gladstones. Mr Pickup was a pleasant young man who does a lot of parking case work and is based about 60 miles away in Bury. The hearing began at 10.00am in front of the Judge, who informed Ms P she had received no papers from her.  Mr Pickup confirmed he had received his copies. Both sets had been sent by Ms P on 17th October via Royal Mail Special Delivery (to arrive next day, deadline was 19th Oct)  Presumably the papers were lost somewhere in the Law Court building.  Ms P. then handed her copies to the Judge, who then sent the parties out, and heard another case.

The case resumed just after 11.00am; by this time the Judge had read the defendant's copy. After reading both submissions, she stated  Link's case was “fairly simple”.  She then asked both Ms P and Link’s rep questions. Finally she asked if Ms P. had any further questions, Ms P asked if she would be disadvantaged in any way because her documents had not found their way to the judge.  The judge assured Ms P it would not as she totally believed that she had sent them. She then sent both parties out and they were called back in just before noon, where they listened to the summing up. At first Ms P thought it was going in Link’s favour but then the judge read Ms P's submission regarding contracts. The judge also read the submissions regarding signage compared to the Beavis case.

The judge ruled that that for Link or CPML (the management company) to have any right to manage the parking on the Landowner's property, the deeds would have to be altered to state this for the whole site. She ruled that the Landowner could not be penalised for parking in her own space.

She dismissed the claim and asked if the defendant was claiming expenses, which was declined. It appeared the judge was influenced by the transcript of the similar case from Croydon court of PACE v Mr N, which is available on The Prankster's web site.

Prankster Note

If there is car park management at a residential site, this will be primarily to stop non-residents from parking. No reputable car parking company would target the residents and refuse to cancel a parking charge, issued to a resident, especially if they have only just been informed of parking restrictions. Sadly, Martin Gardner is far from reputable and the large number of failed court cases show he runs a rogue company with no regard to the law, proper parking management, or common decency.

Also sadly, Gladstones Solicitors seem to be encouraging him that this behaviour is acceptable and above board.

For this particular car park The Prankster is aware of one ticket being issued to the management company representative, a large number of tickets to residents, and none whatsoever to non-residents. This does not seem to be a useful service at all.

Martin Gardner of Link Parking, you've been Gladstoned!

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Link Parking lose in Wrexham. Flat owner has every right to park in her own parking space

November 2, 2016, 1:26 pm
$
0
0
C7GF50J7 Link Parking v Ms P 2/11/2016 Wrexham

This case concerns a residential car park. The motorist in question has her own assigned parking space which she has successfully managed for several years by installing a post which can be raised and lowered. She has never had any problems with this system.


One day on arriving at the property she discovered a letter from the management company explaining that the car park was now managed by Link Parking. On returning to the car she discovered that a ticket had been issued.

She naturally appealed, expecting that any reasonable parking company would cancel the charge. Link Parking declined. As the motorist refused to pay, a claim was issued by Gladstones Solicitors.

The Hearing

The hearing took place in Wrexham Court No.3 in front of Judge Louise Metcalf.  Ms P was introduced to Mr. Pickup, an advocate from LPC, instructed by Gladstones and acting for Link parking. Mr Pickup was a pleasant young man who does a lot of parking case work and is based about 60 miles away in Bury. The hearing began at 10.00am in front of the Judge, who informed Ms P she had received no papers from her.  Mr Pickup confirmed he had received his copies. Both sets had been sent by Ms P on 17th October via Royal Mail Special Delivery (to arrive next day, deadline was 19th Oct)  Presumably the papers were lost somewhere in the Law Court building.  Ms P. then handed her copies to the Judge, who then sent the parties out, and heard another case.

The case resumed just after 11.00am; by this time the Judge had read the defendant's copy. After reading both submissions, she stated  Link's case was “fairly simple”.  She then asked both Ms P and Link’s rep questions. Finally she asked if Ms P. had any further questions, Ms P asked if she would be disadvantaged in any way because her documents had not found their way to the judge.  The judge assured Ms P it would not as she totally believed that she had sent them. She then sent both parties out and they were called back in just before noon, where they listened to the summing up. At first Ms P thought it was going in Link’s favour but then the judge read Ms P's submission regarding contracts. The judge also read the submissions regarding signage compared to the Beavis case.

The judge ruled that that for Link or CPML (the management company) to have any right to manage the parking on the Landowner's property, the deeds would have to be altered to state this for the whole site. She ruled that the Landowner could not be penalised for parking in her own space.

She dismissed the claim and asked if the defendant was claiming expenses, which was declined. It appeared the judge was influenced by the transcript of the similar case from Croydon court of PACE v Mr N, which is available on The Prankster's web site.

Prankster Note

If there is car park management at a residential site, this will be primarily to stop non-residents from parking. No reputable car parking company would target the residents and refuse to cancel a parking charge, issued to a resident, especially if they have only just been informed of parking restrictions. Sadly, Martin Gardner is far from reputable and the large number of failed court cases show he runs a rogue company with no regard to the law, proper parking management, or common decency.

Also sadly, Gladstones Solicitors seem to be encouraging him that this behaviour is acceptable and above board.

For this particular car park The Prankster is aware of one ticket being issued to the management company representative, a large number of tickets to residents, and none whatsoever to non-residents. This does not seem to be a useful service at all.

Martin Gardner of Link Parking, you've been Gladstoned!

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧
Search

Excel ANPR flawed. Car was having MOT at the time. Costs awarded to defendant for unreasonableness under 27.14.2.g

November 3, 2016, 11:08 am
$
0
0
C8DP13F2 Excel Parking v Ms S Manchester Court 3/11/2016

In this case Ms S drive through a car park on her way to an MOT, in order to avoid a blocked junction, then drove back again afterwards. Excel's ANPR being flawed, she was issued a parking charge for one long stay. This was disputed, but Excel refused to see sense and dismissed the appeal, then eventually filed a claim through BW Legal.

The Hearing

In the red corner, Mr Pickup of LPC Law; in the Blue corner, Mr Wilkie of PPA.

The claimant claimed, and was supported by both the witness statement and photograph evidence, that the car, driven by the Defendant, entered the Square, Chorlton-Cum-Hardy at 9.51 on 23 Feb 2015, and stayed for 351 minutes. The statement covers the usual issues of Contract, Signage and
Pay and Display terms, all of which were fully conceded by the defendant. There was no issue over who was driving, no denial that the car entered at the time stated, or left at the time stated.

The only problem is, the car park, which has two entrances and exits was being "cut through" to avoid a blocked junction, and the driver was taking her car to a garage for an MOT.

Despite this, Excel's ANPR didn't detect her first exit and second entrance, and so an NTK was raised for the full 351 minutes. The Defendant appealed, supplying a copy of the MOT, proving the car could not have been there at the time. This was, as is par for the course, rejected, and the Defendant elected not to ask Skippy the Bush Kangaroo and his joke "Independent" Appeals Service to give an opinion.

BW Legal sued on behalf of Excel. The Defence was the same as the appeal, and again supplied a copy of the MOT. In fact, the Defence and the MOT were the only documents supplied.

It was suggested by Mr Pickup that maybe the car was parked in the car park while it was being MOT'd half a mile away. The judge discounted this, stating that there was no evidence to rebut the timing on the certificate as being a time the car was present at the test centre.

The judge, in summing up, made the point that the Defendant's defence has been consistent throughout, and,given the status of an MOT certificate, this is compelling evidence that the Defendant's car was not present for the entire time.

The judge did point out that signage states the car park is not a right of way, but nothing in the terms deals with trespass and trespass was not pleaded. As such, since the claimant could not rebut the compelling evidence that the car was 1/2  mile away when they claim it was parked, the claim
failed.

Additionally, since the evidence of this had been provided long before proceedings were commenced, this meant the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The judge therefore found that the claimant had acted unreasonably, and so made an award of punitive costs against the claimant in the sum of £160.95 using CPR 27.14(2)g.

Prankster Note

Parking Companies have a duty to properly consider appeals. ParkingEye, a BPA member, claim that they allow about 60% of appeals, and have a further 45% cancelled at POPLA. Excel are IPC members, and as such do not have a fair and open appeals process. Simon Renshaw-Smith, Excel's main shareholder, stated that the main reason he moved to the IPC was so that he would not lose so many appeals.

It is clear this decision has come to bite him in the foot. There is really no justification for a parking company or an Associated Trade Association to run a sham appeals service.

Mr Pickup was reported to have stormed out following the hearing. The Prankster can sympathise as he had just lost 2 cases on consecutive days; however, he was handed hospital passes by both clients. Mr Pickup can take heart by remembering that his duty as an advocate is to help the courts reach the correct decision, which is not the same as ensuring his clients win. As the correct decision was reached both times, Mr Pickup can sleep soundly in his bed tonight.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster



↧
↧

AS Parking Gladstoned again

November 3, 2016, 11:26 am
$
0
0
C6GF0D56 AS Parking v Mr R, Truro 3/11/2016

Mr R parked outside of a marked bay and on a yellow hatched area by about 8 inches as a courtesy to the car next him, as otherwise the driver wouldn't have been able to get in his car.

The Judge questioned Gladstones competece; "Do they even know what they're doing.....?" and dismissed the claim, agreeing that Mr R had acted reasonably and courteously.

Prankster Note

An observer reported that Kevin McManus was spitting feathers!

Kevin McManus left the BPA to join the IPC. It is one thing to use the so called "Independent" Appeals Service to push through bogus parking charges. However Parking Companies are then encouraged by Gladstones, with their pitiful grasp of legal issues regarding parking, to file a claim. At that point they realise that Gladstones legal expertise is so much hot air.

Kevin McManus, you've been Gladstoned!

"Do they even know what they're doing?"

Apparently not. It is therefore incomprehensible that the government allows the two charlatans Will Hurley and John Davis to run a parking ATA without properly supervising them and making sure that someone who does understand the law regarding parking runs the "Independent" Appeals Service.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧

Picture of the week - ANPR error

November 6, 2016, 1:34 am
$
0
0
This picture shows how some types of ANPR errors occur. This occurred at the CitiPark Gade car park in Watford.


The second letter 'L' has been misinterpreted as an 'E', possibly because of the faint smear of dirt on the plate. This is a barrier controlled car park, so this could cause a minor problem on exit if the misread does not happen a second time, and different lighting conditions cause the ANPR software to correctly recognise the 'L'.

In an ANPR only car ark where there are no barriers, this could cause the software to record a car which entered but never exited. Normally this would be to the benefit of the motorist, as if they overstayed the ANPR would not know, and no ticket would be issued.

Problems occur if the motorist visits twice, and only the first entrance and second exit are detect. In that case the keeper would be issued a ticket for an overstay, when actually they only made two hort visit.

Although car park operators like to give out the aura that ANPR is infallible, it does actually have a high percentage of errors. This article from Parking Trend International reveals that although manufacturers claim 98% reliability, operators find they only get 90%-94% accuracy in real conditions, so as many as 1 in 10 plates are misread. In non-ideal conditions accuracy can fall as low as 60%.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

ParkingEye charged costs for discontinuing

November 6, 2016, 2:10 am
$
0
0

ParkingEye decided to take Mr Davey to court...then at the last minute decided not to. The Prankster has no idea whether this was due to the sterling qualities of Mr Davey's defence, or whether ParkingEye could not find any lawyers willing to hike it over to Taunton.



In any case, ParkingEye did not bother to tell Mr Davey, so he turned up in court anyway, only to find the hearing had been discontinued. This is a common trick of ParkingeEye, and The Prankster has also been on the receiving end of this. Mr Davey therefore prepared a schedule of costs which he sent to the court, along with a covering letter.


This seems to have done the trick as DJ Prigg ordered ParkingEye to pay the £87.11, as the reasonable costs which were incurred by the defendant.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

PCMUK - You've been Gladstoned. No evidence of contravention

November 9, 2016, 12:01 pm
$
0
0
Brentford 09-11-2016 C6GF83V1 Parking Control Management (UK) v Mr C
Mr C represented himself. Georgina Philpot, a PCMUK employee, represented PCMUK.



Mr C binned everything PCMUK had sent up to the claim form, as he mistakenly believed it was to do with another matter.

The PCMUK evidence pack included some kind of notice of keeper liability sent a long while after the incident. Georgina Philpot tried to squeeze a copy of the supposed original NTK into the hearing but the judge was not even remotely impressed and dismissed the claim as there was not so much as a shred of evidence to show that they had even sent it within 14 days (there was no window ticket).

The judge gave Georgina Philpot a pretty good talking to about it, which was amusing for those not the subject of the tongue lashing. PCMUK's preparation was distinctly half-baked and before the hearing even got going Georgina Philpot had to ask the judge to replace one of the pictures of a sign from the judges evidence pack with one from the defendant.

Sadly from the defendant's point of the view the case never got as far as the 'no contract' argument he wanted to raise regarding their absurd signage, but as the defendant said, "A win's a win".

Prankster Note

Georgina Philpot runs this side of the PCMUK operation, and is their Legal & Debt Recovery Manager. So, while she may have had a nice day out in London, she will have to carry the can for the brunt of the incompetence. Nevertheless, as the claim was filed by Gladstones (who appear to have done no due diligence whatsoever), PCMUK, you've been Gladstoned!

The Prankster would like to remind reader's of PCMUK's attitude to the evidence and the truth, as revealed in a BBC Watchdog undercover operation.



Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧
↧

UKCPS ban awaiting DVLA audit

November 9, 2016, 10:49 pm
$
0
0
UKCPS 28 day suspension from the IAS is now over.



However, they still need a positive audit from the DVLA.

So far there is still no information on what they did to get banned.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧

IPC accepts worst ever car parking director - Ghulam Abbas

November 9, 2016, 11:10 pm
$
0
0
Confirming the suspicion that the IPC will stoop as low as is needed to get new members, they have now accepted The Car Park Enforcement Company Limited. CPEC(a) is owned and run by Ghulam Abbas and Shazad Murtaza and appears to be an obvious phoenix of The Car Parking Enforcement Company Limited. CPEC(b) was owned and run by Ghulam Abbas and Shazad Murtaza.


The Car Parking Enforcement Company Limited were chucked out of the BPA for incurring a record 58 sanction points in one year, including enforcement action on sites with no signage, significant signage/notice contravention,  failing to inform motorists they could appeal to POPLA, failure to respond to BPA investigations and operating where no landowner authorisation was in place.



If a person with the worst ever record of running a parking company can gain DVLA access just by creating a new company, this is of extreme concern. The DVLA need to ensure there is some standard of competence in the organisations they award ATA status to, otherwise crafty operators like Ghulam and Shazad will make a mockery of the system.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankstert
↧
Search

Picture of the week. Gladstones issue letter before claim for £17 million

November 11, 2016, 12:41 am
$
0
0
Hapless solicitors Gladstones Solicitors have told Mr Knowles he owes G24 Ltd £17,092,015.


The Prankster understands Mr Knowles will contest the claim.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


↧

Sleepwalking into disaster - never ignore a claim form

November 12, 2016, 12:01 am
$
0
0

The Prankster has received the following email (edited slightly for clarity)

I have received a Claim Form from the count court. I was therefore wondering what to do?? Given the number of these that BW Legal must send out monthly, how can they possibly pursue all of them - the courts must be totally overloaded with them!?

I am happy to go to court and argue the case, mainly because I trust that a judge will uphold the law and apply some common sense to the matter. However, I am simply trying to ascertain the likelihood of that actually happening, and whether I am wise to continue to ignore their letters on these grounds, or whether I should formally acknowledge their contact and refuse to pay?

Sadly this is typical of many such emails. Many people also say they do not believe the claim form is valid because the paper quality is poor, or that it has not been affixed with a proper seal from the courts.

Parking companies love people like that. The sad truth of the matter is that if you ignore the claim form, the parking company will apply for and get a default judgment. This is then enforceable and if you do not pay, fees rack up and you have a CCJ against your name for 6 years.

What to do?

You should therefore either pay up, or defend the claim. Typically costs only go up by £25 hearing fee if you defend, so if you believe you have a case defending is often the sensible way forward, and you are not risking much. Even though you are up against legal 'professionals', parking companies use firms such as Gladstones Solicitors and BW Leal who have been proven to be incompetent, slapdash, and to have a poor understanding of the law.

The more disreputable parking companies and solicitors will also pad the claim with amounts they know will not be allowed in court. This is because if they a default judgment, the motorist will have to pay these.

This means that if say, one of the more disreputable firms like Gladstones Solicitors file a claim for a charge of £150, if it goes to a hearing and the motorist lose most judges will only allow £100. Thus, it is financially better to defend the claim rather than pay up as although you will have incurred a £25 hearing fee, you will get £50 knocked off the amount.

Alternatively, if you believe the £100 parking charge is valid, you can admit that part of the claim, but dispute the artificial charge which Gladstones add. In that case any hearing would be only about the validity of the extra charge.

Lastly it is worth pointing out that you cannot add defence points later. Your initial defence should therefore raise all points of dispute. You can expand on these at a later time, but not add new points. For instance, if you claim the signage is poor and therefore no contract was in place, you can at a later time add evidence such as maps, videos and photographs to back this up, plus references to codes of practice and signage requirements, and also transcripts of court cases relating to signage forming a contract.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


↧
↧

Gladstones pick Link Parking's pocket twice. Claim dismissed for upside down ticket

November 15, 2016, 9:00 am
$
0
0
C8GF30W7 Link Parking v Mr H.  14/11/2016 Port Talbot 

Mr H parked and purchased a valid ticket which he displayed on the dashboard. When he returned to his car he found a parking charge because at some time the ticket had turned upside down. This was the second hearing. The first was adjourned.

The judge dismissed the claim. He ruled that it was the responsibility of the parking company to provide sticky backed tickets and that he had already thrown out 6-10 of these type of cases which Link Parking had brought.

Prankster Note

With so many of these cases going to court it is obvious that Link Parking are not providing responsible parking management, but are out to rip off the consumer by trying to engineer as many charges  as possible. This is a prime example of a predatory operation which is banned by the IPC Code of Practice.

There are many practical solutions to this problem, ranging from the simple - providing sticky tickets or printing information on both sides - to the complicated - pay on exit ANPR.

In this case Link Parking will have paid for their greediness by having to fork out twice for a solicitor to turn up and represent them, as well as Gladstone's other charges. The worry is how many innocent motorists will have been trapped into paying charges because of Link Parkings predatory practices.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧

UKPC - you've been Gladstoned!

November 15, 2016, 9:46 am
$
0
0
C3HW73F4 UKPC v Mr M Southend 15/11/2016

Mr M was in and out of court in minutes. 

The judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the claim stated the vehicle was parked in Windermere road. However, it was actually parked in a different road - Stanier Close. UKPC's solicitor tried to argue this did not matter as he knew the car was in Stanier Close; however she put him right by informing him that the particulars of claim need to be correct.

As the hearing was over so quickly, Mr M did not have time to bring to the attention of the judge that the notice to driver and notice to keeper were incorrect; and the so-called parking contract was with a company who did not appear to have the right to form a contract, as they were not the land owner or managing agent of the residence.

He was also unable to bring to the attention of the judge that the evidence submitted by UKPC appeared to have been photoshopped as the notice to driver had the road name changed and was therefore different to the actual notice to driver.

Additionally UKPC had the contract boundary map wrong, including areas which are controlled by another parking company.

Lastly, even had UKPC got their documents correct, there was no liability. Mr M is a tenant and his tenancy agreement does not require him to show a permit to park. UKPC cannot therefore unilaterally override this tenancy agreement, as shown by several recent cases.

Prankster Note

The claim was brought by SCS Law (aka LPC Law) on behalf of UKPC. As this was a hopeless case with no chance of success, with evidence bordering on perjury, UKPC were well and truly suckered into taking out this claim

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Gladstones chase £15 million parking charge

November 15, 2016, 12:36 pm
$
0
0

G24 Ltd have asked Gladstones to enforce a parking charge of £15092015.

Perhaps someone should teach G24 the different between money and dates.

The letter does not give any way to contact either Debt recovery Plus or Gladstones, so the Prankster suggests that the email addresses of info@drpl.co.uk and  enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk are used.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧
Viewing all 1127 articles
Browse latest View live
Search