Has Kevin McManus perjured himself in court?

December 5, 2016, 9:06 am

≫ Next: AS Parking case thrown out - bad particulars of claim

≪ Previous: Railway Byelaw fiasco warming up

According to the Daily Mail a recent court hearing involved a type 2 diabetic driver who overstayed his car park time by six minutes because he became faint and stopped to check his blood sugar levels.

Despite appealing on this basis Kevin McManus from AS PArking refused to cancel the charge and took the motorist to court.

The driver brought medical evidence of his diabetes to court, but failed to submit it 14 days beforehand.

Kevin McManus refused to cancel the charge stating in court "It is a common condition and we don't want to open the flood gates and offer a get out of jail free card every time someone with a medical condition is issued with a charge."

Mr McManus then contradicted himself later on when asked by the judge whether he would have scrapped the fine had he received the note earlier. Mr McManus stated he would have done except for a £20 administration fee

The judge ruled that the evidence of being a diabetic was inadmissible and so on the balance of probabilities the driver was not diabetic. The £100 parking charge was upheld.

Prankster Note

This case underlines the Prankster's previous blog where he advised filing all your documents on time and not trying to ambush the other side.

According to this report type 2 diabetes is a long term disability covered by the Equality Act 2010.
There was therefore no requirement to make a reasonable adjustment.

However, the principle of Frustration of Contract may have been applicable if the incident was unforeseen.

A further point is that the overstay was 6 minutes but the code of practice normally requires a 10 minute grace period. It might be that the signage makes it clear there is no grace period on this site, but a Google image from 2015 would appear that it does not.

15.2 Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a prepaid
or permitted period of parking has expired.
15.3 The reference to 10 minutes in 15.2 above shall not apply where the period of pre-paid
or permitted parking does not exceed 1 hour providing that the signage on the site
makes it clear to the motorist, in a prominent font, that no grace period applies on that
land.

The Prankster is concerned about Mr McManus's claim that he would have scrapped the charge had he received the note earlier. Mr McManus has not been known to cancel chagres, and his company is described as "being aggressive, greedy cowboys who are only out to make money."

Knowingly providing false information to the court is of course perjury and The Prankster is interested in getting to the bottom of this.

On the face of it, Mr McManus's claim that he would have cancelled the charge is contradictory with his earlier statement that cancelling charges for medical conditions would open the flood gates.

It also does not appear to lie straight with the fact that the driver appealed on the basis of his diabetes and was flatly refused, without Mr McManus asking for any supporting documentation.

If you have ever been offered to have your parking charge waived by AS Parking for a £20 administration fee, please contact The Prankster. This would hold if the full charge is waived either for a medical condition or any other reason. Mr McManus is also welcome to contact The Prankster, seeing as he reads this blog, to provide statistical information regarding the number of charges waived.

On current evidence it would appear to The Prankster that Mr McManus is a lying, aggressive, greedy cowboy, willing to conceal evidence and perjure himself in court. If any evidence to contradict this appears, The Prankster will of course be happy to publish a right of reply.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

AS Parking case thrown out - bad particulars of claim

December 5, 2016, 11:23 pm

≫ Next: £2500 threat for breaching advertising consent

≪ Previous: Has Kevin McManus perjured himself in court?

C3GF84Y2, Daniel Mason, Plymouth County Court.

Independent Observer Court Report

This was the beach car park in Perranporth for a flipped ticket case.

The judge struck out the claim as Gladstone's Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim.

Kevin McManus knew nothing about it as Gladstones clearly hadn't alerted him so that's yet more obscene incompetence on their part. The judge said this is not the first time it's happened and they have previously been warned about this. Kev apparently said well done as he was leaving!

Costs of £115.80 were requested; the judge awarded half.

Prankster Note

Gladstones use a suspected Roboclaim system where operators submit basic details and then this is used to make an automated template claim with little or no human involvement. A largely meaningless claim emerges at the other end

-- DATE -- DESCRIPTION -- AMOUNT --DUE DATE
09/01/2015 FA10BHE/102988712 £150 09/03/2015
Total due - £150
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
The Claimant claims the sum of £152.50 for
Parking services and indemnity costs if
applicable including £2.50 interest pursuant
to S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 Rate
8.00% pa from dates above to 01/12/2016
Same rate to Judgment or (sooner) payment
Daily rate to Judgment £0.03
Total debt and interest £152.50

One of the main benefits to Gladstones of submitting this gobbledygook is that it is impossible to file a meaningful defence based on this information, giving their clients a huge advantage over unrepresented defendants.

The other benefit is that there is essentially zero cost involved in submitting a claim like this, as there is little or no human involvement and no due diligence to assess the merits of any particular claim. Although Gladstones add on £50 in Legal Representative Costs they have admitted in witness statements that this is not billed on to the client and that once a case is finished they decide between themselves how to divvy up the costs and returns. This therefore appears to be an easy way to artificially add £50 to every claim, meaning parking companies get a better return if a motorist is scared into paying up on receiving a court claim.

This of course encourages abuse of the court system.

The £50 charge was set long ago before the advent of roboclaims. The Prankster believes this fee is now due for a review, and that wholescale abuse could be prevented simply by reducing this charge to £5 for roboclaims. This would remove a major incentive to the roboclaim industry and would reduce the burden on the courts.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

£2500 threat for breaching advertising consent

December 6, 2016, 10:30 am

≫ Next: Signage at Liverpool Business Park

≪ Previous: AS Parking case thrown out - bad particulars of claim

A WRAF veteran has been threatened with a £2,500 fine for breaching advertising consent for flying a flag in memory of fallen soldiers and to celebrate Christmas in her own garden.

Unfortunately the flag and flagpole in question does not benefit from advertisement consent under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 and the unauthorised display of advertisements is a criminal offence liable for prosecution. This could incur a fine not exceeding £2,500 for each advertisement displayed.

The letter was sent by Broxtowe Borough Council.

The Prankster is concerned why councils are happy to threaten members of the public for breaching advertising regulations, but turn a blind eye to thousands of breaches by companies in car parks up and down the country.

ParkingEye, for instance, according to their own employees, deliberately do not apply for advertising consent as this costs both time and money. They only retrospectively apply is they get caught out.

Many other parking companies similarly flout the regulations, even though their own code of practice requires them to conform.

2.4 When there is relevant legislation and related guidance, this will define the overall standard of conduct for all AOS members. All AOS members must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses.

This is of course unfair to those companies who do abide by the rules, as they will operate as a cost disadvantage to the abusers. This is also unfair to ordinary taxpayers. Councils are depriving themselves of much needed revenue by not demanding that car park owners pay the correct fees to apply for advertising consent, and by not fining habitual offenders £2,500 per advertisement displayed. This will have a knock on effect as if councils do not raise money to cover costs in one way, they must raise it in another, ultimately reflecting in the level of council tax.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Signage at Liverpool Business Park

December 7, 2016, 8:18 am

≫ Next: Liverpool Business Park - Motorist wins claim for £250 for data protection breach

≪ Previous: £2500 threat for breaching advertising consent

Vehicle Control Systems are in the habit of issuing £100 as a charge for briefly stopping anywhere in Liverpool Business Park, including the laybys.

The signage is similar to that at Liverpool Airport, which has previously been analysed by The Prankster

This youtube video shows the signage at the park.

00:07-00:10 For comparison, here is a proper road sign. You can read all the words.
00:14-00:17 Here is another proper sign. You can read all the words
00:28-00:31 Here is the main VCS sign. You can only read the words 'No Stopping'
00:35-00:36 Here is a subsidiary VCS sign. You cannot read any words as the sign does not face traffic and the driver would have no indication of what this refers to.

It is clear that no competent legal professional would ever contemplate a charge could be valid in this type of case. Firstly, it is not possible to fully read the signs while driving past at normal road speed. A key criteria for a contract to be in place is a meeting of minds, and this can never be in place if one party cannot read the contract. The normal time given for this in a car park is five minutes once the vehicle is stationary; not 2 seconds in a moving vehicle.

Secondly, the signage is in any case forbidding and makes no offer. As it says 'No Stopping' there is no offer to stop. There is therefore no contract, but this would make anyone stopping a trespasser.

Thirdly, the charge of £100 is a penalty and unfair consumer term. The case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is the leading authority on this, and it makes it clear that the penalties law is in play for charges of this size. It also makes it clear that a motorist must have a fair chance to read the signs and accept the bargain; otherwise the term is unfair.

It is also worth pointing out that from 00:28-00;30 a competent motorist would be keeping half an eye on the dog, in case it ran out, and not on the signage. The presence of this type of signage is therefore a safety issue.

This facebook video shows is is dangerous to take your eyes off the road for more than 2 seconds.

https://www.facebook.com/DrivingSpain/videos/500413180146039/

This government publication on X-Height for road signs shows that the signs used by VCS are positioned too close to the junction, use fonts which are too small, contain too many words, and are positioned too low.

This Government publication further reinforces the minimum font sizes to use. Section 1.3 and appendix A are useful references for font sizes, height above ground and minimum clear visibility distances. At 30mph the sign should be 0.6m above ground, have 60m clear visibility and a font size of 8cm. The font size of the £100 charge is 4cm, or half the required size.

The Prankster suggests that any motorists taken to court for this site files the youtube and facebook clips, together with the government documents as evidence, and makes the above points in their defence.

If the keeper is not the driver then an additional point apples as VCS do not currently use the keeper liability provision of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, sch 4. Therefore only the driver can be liable for any charge issued.

↧

Liverpool Business Park - Motorist wins claim for £250 for data protection breach

December 7, 2016, 12:37 pm

≫ Next: BW Legal misleading motorists over Peel Centre signage

≪ Previous: Signage at Liverpool Business Park

VCS v Phillip, Claim number C9DP2D6C Liverpool 07/12/2016

VCS, You've been Gladstoned, and Vidalled too.

Mr Phillip was being driven to the Liverpool Rowing Club one day when the driver took a wrong turn, ending up on Liverpool International Business Park. Realising her error, she turned around, and in this 32 second manoeuvre, was caught on camera by VCS who issued a Parking Charge Notice for a non-parking event.

An initial appeal was rejected, as was an appeal to POPLA, as VCS were members of the BPA at the time.

VCS sent this through the gamut of debt collectors and the matter ended up as a BW-Legal Roboclaim. Unusually, the Defendant wanted to not only win the battle, but also take part in the war, and with The Prankster's assistance filed not only a solid defence, but also a counterclaim.

1) There is no contract. The signage forbids parking, even for an instant, and therefore there is no consideration. There have been a number of similar cases recently including UKPC v Masterson and PCMUK v Hall et al. This therefore is a case of trespass, and in such cases only the land owner can sue, and then only for actual damages incurred. Where there is no damage a nominal £1 is usually awarded
2) Even if the signage did offer a contract, the font size is too small and the words too many to be safely read while driving. They can therefore only be read while stopped and the normal time allowed in these situations is 5-10 minutes in car parks to allow for a genuine meeting of minds and for the driver to understand and comprehend any potential contract. There can therefore be no contract entered into by consideration.
3) Even if a contract was entered into by consideration, the signage does not contain the information required by the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014. As per clause 13(1), without this information any contract is not binding on the consumer
4) Even if the contract was binding, the charge is a penalty and an unfair consumer charge. ParkingEye v Beavis is the leading authority on this. Although ParkingEye won the case, the judgment makes it clear that if the charge is not to be a penalty/unfair consumer charge, the driver must have ample time to be able to read and digest the contractual terms so that they can fairly agree to the terms. As this has not happened the charge is not saved from being a penalty/unfair consumer charge, and unless VCS have incurred costs of £100, the charge is excessive.

The counterclaim was based on the paperwork not being compliant with POFA and there being no possibility of a legal parking charge and therefore there was no "reasonable grounds" to pursue the keeper or driver, such pursuit being a breach of section 13(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998.

BW Legal offered a generic "no it isn't" reply to defence and counterclaim which did not answer any of the points raised in the counterclaim.

Mr Phillip filed a witness statement which included a video showing the signage from the driver's eye view, essentially proving there was no possibility that the driver could enter a contract as the signs were neither readable nor even particularly visible. He also filed as evidence relevant extracts from the Department Of Transports guides for signs on the highway. He made arrangements with the court to show the videos during the hearing.

Faced with this overwhelming defence, BW Legal discontinued the claim 12 days before the trial. Unluckily for their client VCS, they appeared to forgot there was a Counterclaim.

As the Prankster was busy with "real life (tm)" at the time, he invited a professional "Parking Terrorist", John Wilkie of Private Parking Appeals, to assist the Defendant (now the claimant in the Counterclaim) on the day. The day was today, so Mr Wilkie left Glasgow quite early to be at Liverpool County Court by 10am.

There were a number of VCS cases at Liverpool today. Messrs Pickup and Worthington and Ms VanDays were all present, but none of them were instructed in this matter. The parties were called in on time at 11.30! Mr Wilkie did have to pick up his jaw from the floor on the way into court as a result.

With no attendance from VCS or their solicitors, the Judge invited Mr Wilkie to lose the case on his own. He argued:

1) The Claim was not valid in the first instance, as the signage did not offer a parking contract, the 32 second stop was well within the 10 minute grace period, and while the ATA Code of Practice may not form a part of the Law, it DOES form part of the KADOE contract allowing reasonable cause. As such, as the CoP was breached, there were no reasonable grounds under regulation 27 for the Parking Company to seek keeper information, and this was a breach of the Data Protections Act, section 13(2)

2) Additionally, Section 13(2) does not require proof of damage, only proof of breach. Damages follow, as the court confirmed in Google v Vidal-Hall. The judge was already fully aware of this case, and cast only a brief glance over Mr Wilkie's copy.

3) Damages must be sufficient that the process of law, and the intent of the Legislation is not brought into disrepute (Purves v Joydisk Ltd[Scotland]). Nowadays, £250 is an appropriate sum to award as "nominal" damages, but sufficient to show the court's displeasure at the breach such that justice is seen to be done.

4) As such, the conduct of the claimant, in pursuing then discontinuing, and not answering the counterclaim was entirely unreasonable, and smacked of Rookes v Barnard 1964, such that Exemplary or Punitive damages ought to be awarded at ten times the initial counterclaim. This is also
supported by CPR 16.4. In deference to his duty to the court, Mr Wilkie immediately conceded that this had not been pleaded earlier, and the Claimant had no opportunity to answer this point if the judge was persuaded of its validity.

5) Finally, Under rule 27.14(2)(g) the defendant ought to be entitled to punitive costs, again for the unreasonable conduct of the Claimant in failing to attend or even have the courtesy of excusing its attendance.

In giving judgment, the Judge mentioned Mr Wilkie's "helpful submissions" and was happy that he had ably assisted the Defendant.

1) The claim by VCS, having been discontinued, is dismissed.

2) The Claimant did not have reasonable grounds to pursue the keeper - this was not a parking event, it was a stop to turn which is necessary, and implicit in a right to pass and repass. The evidence of the Defendant has not been challenged and is on its face entirely honest and reasonable. As such, the DPA breach is proven.

3) The Defendant did not need to show, or quantify damages, Google v Vidal-Hall makes it clear that damages follow the breach.

4) The quantum sought by the Defendant was entirely reasonable, pleaded from the start, and there was nothing before the court, either from the Claimant or in binding case law to go behind this figure and examine it. Accordingly, the defendant has judgment in his counterclaim in the sum of £250.

4) The conduct of the claimant did not, in this case (and in the evidence before the court), cross either the threshold of Unreasonable conduct for rule 16.4, or rule 27.14(2)(g) and so the Defendant was only entitled to nominal costs of £104.40.

The total judgment is £354.40, payable within 14 days.

Mr Phillip was delighted, and celebrated with an Americano with Milk, courtesy of Mr Wilkie. It is rumoured that Mr Wilkie's head has not yet arrived back in Glasgow, having been too big to get through the courtroom door.

John Wilkie' comments

"This was a critical case for the 'parking terrorists' as we have argued that the Parking Companies are breaching the DPA on a number of occasions, and this has now been confirmed by the courts. They MUST comply with the KADOE contract, and the ATA CoP to be entitled to Keeper details, and
failure to do so, such as in Excel v Mr C at Stockport, will open them up to legal action.

"While this decision is not in itself a Precedent, the Google v Vidal-Hall ruling IS binding on the lower courts, as is ParkingEye v Beavis which deals with the ATA CoP being part of the conditions that the PPC must meet (Para 94-95)

"Parking Companies will have to now understand that, even after issuing proceedings, they can be attacked on their conduct, and in the event of a loss, it would be possible for the winning defendant to issue a claim for this breach regardless of any previous hearings.

"Where there are parking companies selling their 'debts' to unregulated, unregistered companies like ZZPS or MIL, then it is possible to bring a clam against both the PPC and the Debt Collectors, before they even issue their claim against you.

Prankster's Notes

This is an important case, and although not binding it does establish that where a parking company has no legitimate grounds to pursue a parking claim, they are committing a breach of the DPA.

It also establishes that £250 is a reasonable minimum amount to claim, although of course higher amounts can be claimed if justified.

Any motorist who has won a parking claim in court, or has had a parking charge cancelled by POPLA** or who has been issued a charge for stopping at Liverpool Business Park can consider issuing a claim against the parking company. The Limitations Act will apply, so this can only go back 6 years.

A number of parking companies issue claims and then back out at the last minute. Although costs are sometimes awarded against them, this is not always the case leaving defendants out of pocket and having spent time and energy for nothing. Issuing a counterclaim forces a hearing which means the defendant can claim costs.

A number of parking companies also play the numbers by failing to cancel an initial appeal, but folding at POPLA. Motorists can file claims against these companies too if a DPA breach has occurred.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

**both motorists who have had a parking charge cancelled by the IAS can also counterclaim

↧

BW Legal misleading motorists over Peel Centre signage

December 8, 2016, 11:15 am

≫ Next: NCP charge 91 year old motorist for paying too early

≪ Previous: Liverpool Business Park - Motorist wins claim for £250 for data protection breach

BW Legal have been filing large numbers of claims for parking events at the Peel Centre, Stockport.

The Prankster can reveal BW Legal have been misleading motorists as to the signage in place at the particular time of their parking event.

As the wording on the signage is obviously key to any case this will of course have a material bearing on any claim. In Excel v Cutts the judge found that the signage at the Peel Centre was deficient and misleading as they were in March 2010. The judgment can be found here. It will be persuasive for any cases around that time. Excel owner Simon Renshaw-Smyth was so upset he said the ruling was ".....an embarrassment to the judicial system" and the judge was "not fit to serve the civil courts"

In the Cutts case evidence was presented to show that in the three years from 2008 to 2011 Excel issued a total of 11,498 parking tickets to drivers who had parked at the Peel Centre car park without paying and displaying. But, by comparison, this council car park in the centre of town, similar in size to the Peel centre, but with pay and display nine times larger, issued only 3000 tickets for not paying and displaying in the same time. It is clear therefore that Excel's signage was deficient in 2010.

In some cases BW Legal have been claiming later signage was in place when it was not. A useful tool in this regard is Google Streetview. This has an archive function which goes back to 2010. The signage is somewhat blurry, but good enough to tell that this signage photo submitted by BW Legal...

...was different to the signage actually in place at the time.

When you receive photos of signage from BW Legal you should therefore check them using Google Streetview and raise a complaint if they are not accurate.

It is also worth remembering that the Peel Centre is divided into 3, so the signage BW Legal submit must be from the area the car was parked, not from the other 2 areas.

The signage is the element which potentially forms a contract with the motorist, so if BW Legal submit wrong information in court claims they are essentially misleading the judge.

Signage coverage

The Peel Centre is the single most complained about carpark in the Prankster's postbag. Excel parking regularly issue tickets due to failures of their own machines to properly record ticket purchases, and when their ANPR fails to record double visits. Additionally, the car park is extremely poorly signed, so many people do not realise it is pay and display. This map shows how most spaces in zone one are too far from the signage. Worryingly, some of the worst-signed areas are for disabled drivers.

Did BW Legal file a witness statement in your claim with inaccurate photographs? If so, contact The Prankster at prankster@parking-prankster.com

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

NCP charge 91 year old motorist for paying too early

December 8, 2016, 1:15 pm

≫ Next: Court Report - Oxford - Another Gladstone's Epic Fail

≪ Previous: BW Legal misleading motorists over Peel Centre signage

Mr Philip Lindsey, a 91 year old motorist, has been ticketed by NCP apparently for paying on entrance rather than on exit. When Mr Lindsey arrived at the car park, he paid the £1.50 tariff for a daily stay. The system requires you to enter your registration plate and only accepts plates which are in the car park. it is therefore unlikely Mr Lindsey made a mistake unless the machines are themselves faulty.

He stayed a few hours and then left within the time paid for.

A few days later he received a charge for not paying on exit.

The signage does not require you to pay on exit - only to "pay for the required length of stay".

Mr Lindsey appealed to NCP who refused to cancel the charge.

Prankster Note

In the Pranksters opinion NCP had no cause to obtain Mr Lindsey's personal data from the DVLA as no contravention has occurred. It is NCP's responsibility to make sure their systems work; not the motorists. NCP further compounded their mistake, causing distress and harassment by not cancelling on appeal.

Mr Lindsey may therefore well have a claim against NCP for a breach of data protection. A sum of £250 would appear to be appropriate.

Smart Parking settled out of court for £250 for a similar event when they issued a charge for no valid reason.

In court, £250 was awarded against VCS for issuing a charge which had no prospect of being valid.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Court Report - Oxford - Another Gladstone's Epic Fail

December 9, 2016, 2:20 pm

≫ Next: Gladstones Epic Fail - Hayes and Harlington Station

≪ Previous: NCP charge 91 year old motorist for paying too early

Case No. C1GF00T3 PCM (UK) v Alan Johnson, Oxford County Court, 09/12/2016, before District Judge Matthews.

Guest Report

Claimant represented by Mr Grosvenor instructed by Elms Legal, Defendant represented by Bargepole.

This arose from a PCN issued at the infamous Hayes & Harlington station, where the private access road’s turning circle is blocked off due to construction work for the Crossrail project. Mr J had pulled in to drop off a prospective employee he had been interviewing, and stopped for a few seconds to let the passenger out of the car, during which time the PCM goon had stepped out of the shadows and taken a photograph. The original £100 charge had been inflated to £219, thanks to the creative addition of spurious amounts by the Gladstone’s robo-claim team.

The signage states “No Stopping or Waiting at any time unless parked fully within the confines of a marked bay for a maximum of 20 minutes”, although by the time a motorist has read the sign high up on a pole, it would be too late as the photo has already been taken. Mr J had appealed to the Operator and to the IAS previously, but the IAS decision was the expected rejection based on a unique interpretation of contract law known only to marsupials.

The principal defence arguments were:

- There could be no contract construed from the forbidding signage
- Absent any contract, a claim could only be brought in trespass, and only by the landowner
- Even if a contract could be construed, it would not be reasonable to expect a motorist to read the sign and decide whether to agree to the terms before a photo was taken and charge subsequently issued
- The IPC, IAS and Gladstones are all operated by the same two controlling minds, and the IAS appeal rejection must be viewed in that context.
- Whatever the outcome, the additional amounts added by Gladstones are not recoverable.

However, the case never got as far as any of that, as the Defence first raised a preliminary procedural matter. The Court’s directions had specified that all documents should be filed and served not later than 14 days before the hearing, meaning by 24 November. Mr J had received a witness statement of Georgina Philpot, dated 25 November, but in an envelope postmarked 28 November, which arrived on 1 December. The Judge confirmed that the Court copy had been received on 30 November.

The Judge asked Mr Grosvenor (who had been parachuted in at short notice for this case) for an explanation, and as he didn’t have one, suggested he take instructions. After a short adjournment, in which Mr Grosvenor appeared to be shouting into his phone, the best that could be offered was that Gladstone’s were “very busy, and it got overlooked”.

DJ Matthews was unimpressed, and proceeded to give his judgment:

- The case had been allocated, and listed for hearing, on 5 September, so the Claimant had more than adequate notice.
- The Directions, and dates of receipt of the Claimant’s bundle, were as stated by the Defence. He noted that Mr J’s email address was on the Directions Questionnaire, so they could have served the documents by that method, but didn’t.
- It is open to a Judge to apply sanctions for non-compliance, including rejection of statements or evidence, and that would apply here.
- Both the Defence witness statement and the Claimant’s disallowed statement included legal arguments, but there was no problem with that.
- This was not a minor breach. Gladstones are a professional firm, whereas the Defendant is a litigant in person, and the fact that they overlooked the Court timetable was inexcusable, and “a matter of concern”.
- It therefore follows that the Claim is struck out in its entirety.

We then got on to costs, and tried to argue further costs on the basis of unreasonable behaviour. But the Judge didn’t go with that, saying that it had been struck out for procedural reasons, and they may wish to resubmit a fresh claim. However, if they did, the Defendant could object on the grounds of abuse of process.

So Mr J was awarded his ordinary costs for loss of earnings, travel to court, and parking, totaling £114.20, and everyone except Mr Grosvenor went away happy.

Prankster Notes

The Prankster apologises for the lateness of this report. He was unable to stop laughing long enough to file it.

A most special irony is that the judge mistook Gladstones for "a professional firm".

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankter

↧

Gladstones Epic Fail - Hayes and Harlington Station

December 12, 2016, 1:16 pm

≫ Next: Link Parking and Overstone Court - getting your money back

≪ Previous: Court Report - Oxford - Another Gladstone's Epic Fail

PCMUK v M. M C3GF45K9 12/12/2016 Clerkenwell
PCMUK v M. M C3GF46K8 12/12/2016 Clerkenwell

Guest court report

There were two PCMUK cases heard in Clerkenwell County Court today, both filed by Gladstones and both resulting from briefly stopping at Hayes and Harlington Station.

First case

Gladstones failed to file their evidence bundle on time. They were given leave to refile their claim. Costs were awarded against the claimant.

Second Case

The second case was lost by Gladstones as the signage they relied upon for forming a contract was too high to be read from a car.

Prankster Note

This is the second time in as many weeks that Gladstones have filed their evidence late regarding this Station. Although the IAS Baristas follow the directions of their leader Bryn Holloway, and refuse to uphold appeals regarding this station, it is clear his instructions are flawed as real judges continue to throw claims out.

It is of course obvious that you cannot form a contract by performance unless you have time to discover, read, understand and accept the contract. This is something Bryn Holloway apparently finds hard to understand, which is why in The Prankster's opinion he is not fit to be the lead assessor of the IAS.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Link Parking and Overstone Court - getting your money back

December 13, 2016, 9:01 am

≫ Next: MIL Collections lose - Deed of Assignment not valid

≪ Previous: Gladstones Epic Fail - Hayes and Harlington Station

Link Parking entered into an agreement with Isis Cardiff Management Company Limited to control unauthorised parking at Overstone Court, Cardiff. Unfortunately they decided it was in their remit to control authorised parking as well, and according to details given to the Prankster went into a feeding frenzy from day one, issuing tickets to residents like confetti.

This type of ticketing has never been legally supported and there is plenty of case law around to support the view that the lease has primacy of contract, and that this cannot be unilaterally overridden. So if your lease allows you to park without conditions, then a parking company cannot require you to display a permit to park.

There is now a persuasive judgment regarding Overstone Park in Cardiff. DDJ Metcalf has a number of pertinent comments in his judgment of the case of Link Parking v Parkinson, including this one

This parking space does not fall within the common parts of the property; it is the property of Mrs Parkinson, and on that basis I cannot see how the management company can interfere with her enjoyment of it, or charge her for its usage via a parking penalty or otherwise. It seems to me that to do so would have required a variation of the original lease and I have not seen such a variation.

His full judgment, courtesy of Ms Parkinson, is available on the Prankster's web site.

This is a persuasive judgment supporting the view that all tickets issued by Link to residents parking in their own spaces are not valid.

Getting your money back

If you have been issued a parking charge, and Link got your data from the DVLA, then it is likely they committed a data protection breach by obtaining keeper data for land where they had no rights to issue tickets. The case of VCS v Phillip establishes that £250 is an amount which court will award. This is a minimum. Courts have awarded up to £750.

If you have paid a parking charge then you can attempt to get your money back from Link.

If you have been taken to court and lost because you did not use the right legal arguments, then it might be too late to appeal the judgment - you usually only have 21 days, and you might not be able to introduce new arguments anyway - the appeal will normally only be allowed on points raised in the initial hearing. However, the data protection breach still applies, so you may be able to 'balance the books' by claiming for the data protection breach. If you are still in time, and raised the point that you were a resident then you may be able to appeal.

With all of these issues you should follow the correct legal procedures. First issue a letter before claim, and then if there is no reply, or you cannot come to an agreement, follow up with an actual claim.

If the amount is large, or if you do not fully understand this, you should get legal advice on the course of action to take.

It is important to note that this only applies to parking in your own space. Different arguments apply to similar situations and you may not be able to claim for all of these .This includes;

Parking with permission in someone else's space
Parking without permission in someone else's space
Parking in communal areas
Parking in visitor spaces

These charges may or may not be valid, and would need an examination of the all facts.

Sample letter before claim for parking in your own space

Dear Link Parking

Letter Before Claim

In 2016 you issued me with a number of parking charges for parking in my own space without displaying a ticket.

[details here]

My existing lease gave me full permission to park, and you had no rights to unilaterally override that. There is a large body of case law which establishes this. In Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 it was found the managing agent could not reduce the amount of parking spaces available to residents. There are a number of persuasive judgments in the lower courts. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading. In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park. In Pace v Mr N [2016] C7GF51J1, PACE came back again, this time claiming that clause 6.3 of the lease allowed the terms of the lease to be varied. The judge rules that this clause required a month's notice to be given, and as this had not occurred, the point was moot. The claim, and 7 others relying on this, were dismissed.

Of particular interest is Link Parking v Ms Parkinson C7GF50J7 [2016], which concerns this building, Overstone Court. The judge examined the lease and found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

You obtained my personal details from the DVLA for the purpose of pursuing a parking charge, However, there was never any possibility this charge could be valid. Only I have the right to enforce parking regulations on my own space.

My name and address information (together with other information) is classified as personal data within the meaning of s1(1) of the Data Protections Act (DPA). As there is no possibility that any monies were owed to you by myself, then attempting to charge a parking charge is caused harassment and personal distress to myself, is using it in ways which violate principles 1 and 2 of the DPA, and s13 of the DPA provides for financial compensation for this.

The case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. 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.

The case of VCS v Phillip, claim number C9DP2D6C Liverpool 07/12/2016, while not binding, is persuasive that a DPA breach occurs when a parking charge is not legitimately pursued, and that a sum of at least £250 is compensation for pursuing a purported parking charge when there is no reasonable prospect of success.

I am therefore claiming £250 from yourself for misuse of my personal data under s13 of the DPA.

In addition, I paid the parking charge of [£100] and I therefore require immediate repayment of that amount.

The total payable is [£350].

You have 14 days to remit this amount to myself. After that time I may file a claim without further correspondence.

The rules on pre-action conduct are here

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

I believe I have provided you with all necessary information.

I am willing to consider alternative dispute resolution and suggest the Consumer Ombudsman.

Other sites

Link Parking have a large number of residential sites. While you may be able to claim back any monies paid and for data protection breaches at these sites, each case will turn on the facts, which will need an examination of the lease.

You can claim back for up to six years. However you should bear in mind that if there are too many valid claims, Link Parking may not have enough money to pay back all claimants.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

MIL Collections lose - Deed of Assignment not valid

December 17, 2016, 1:29 pm

≫ Next: MIL lose in court. Northwest Parking Enforcement car park boundaries unclear

≪ Previous: Link Parking and Overstone Court - getting your money back

MIL Collections v Mr N M. Claim: C9QZ4F57
16/12/2016 Peterborough County Court, Deputy District Judge Gill presiding.

In August 2014 Mr N M's vehicle overstayed by a few minutes in Central Car Park, Peter Street, Carlisle, a pay & display car park owned/run by Northwest Parking Enforcement Ltd. The vehicle was given a PCN detailing a 'charge' of £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 28 days.

NPE sent a notice to keeper and few threatening letters from themselves and a debt collection agency.

Fast forward to April 2016 when MIL Collections become involved having allegedly purchased the 'debt' from Northwest Parking Enforcement Ltd.

Guest report by Mr N M

On 7th July 2016 MIL Collections issued a claim form from the bulk claims centre Northampton in the amount of £150 comprising 'Debt' amount £100 with £50 'Admin' costs. The claim form was 'signed' by Alan Davis, Managing Directory. I acknowledged the claim and stated my intention to defend.

On 21st July I sent MIL a CPR Part 18 request for further information, specifically asking for confirmation that they held the original deed of assignment and when/where it could be inspected.
No response to this request was received despite 2 written reminders and several emails.

An initial defence was lodged, the main points being no valid assignment of debt (no response to CPR request received) and any such assignment being Champertous.

MIL requested transfer of the case to Truro however it was assigned to Peterborough County Courts, my nearest, and also allocated to the Small Claims track for a hearing date of Friday 16th December.

MIL went through their standard MO, namely a Part 36 offer of £100 followed by an open offer of settlement of £50. Both were ignored. I responded to the Part 36 offer pointing out that Part 36 does not apply of course to the Small Claims track.

On 27th November, I received MILs Court Bundle, containing as follows (amongst other things)
Witness statement by Christopher Barrett, head of Legal for MIL Collections
Deed of Assignment between Northwest Parking Enforcement Ltd & MIL Collections
Notice of Assignment sent to me
Photocopies of my car on day of parking, signage, terms and conditions, close up of expired ticket in my car
Contemporaneous History notes of timeline of events
My original CPR Part 18 request letter

Bear in mind at this time, I had already filed my witness statement and defence. My defence was only slightly amended from the original holding defence – I just added the extra times I had written and emailed MIL collections regarding the CPR Part 18 request.

There were several glaring issues with MILs Court Bundle as follows:
The Deed Of Assignment was not dated or witnessed. It did not make any reference to me in person or any reference to the original PCN, nor the 'debt' amount assigned.
The photocopies were of very poor quality and were ineligible - in particular the expired ticket.
The Terms and Conditions photocopy did not show the site location.

On the court date I was approached by a representative MIL collections had sent and asked if I wanted to discuss the case i.e. make a settlement offer. I offered £25 which she declined. Neither Alan Davis nor Christopher Barrett showed up, not surprisingly.

The Judge began proceedings – she stated she had some questions for both MIL and myself but asked MIL to state their claim. In essence, the representative tried to claim there was a case to answer based on a contract having been formed and broken and there being a valid assignment of debt. When I was asked to speak I emphasised MILs lack of compliance with my CPR request and my defence being based on no valid assignment of debt and therefore the claim being champertous. I also pointed out the issues with the Court bundle.

The Judge had also picked up on the deed of assignment namely that it was not witnessed, nor dated. She pointed out that my CPR Part 18 request was not applicable to small claims however she stated that nevertheless, MIL had a duty to abide by CPR and respond to my perfectly reasonable requests for the documentation stated in their claim in order that I may defend. She said it was particularly galling that the Court Bundle contained a timeline where my requests and reminders for information had been recorded as well as the original request itself.

She also picked up on the poor quality of the photocopies. The representative said she agreed and offered to show her better quality ones that Christopher Barrett had texted her that morning but the Judge was having none of it. She also asked for a breakdown of MILs £50 admin charges which the representative was unable to answer.

She also questioned the representative on the location and size of the (T&Cs) signage which was not clear from the Bundle. The representative was unable to answer.

In summary she threw out the case based on the deed of assignment not being valid. She said there was no need to consider the Champertous argument given this. She also slated MIL for their behaviour regarding CPR and their holes in the Court Bundle.

I asked for my costs to be considered namely loss of earnings, travel and admin expenses. She denied the admin but allowed £95 loss of earnings and £10 petrol i.e. £105 in total.

Prankster Notes

MIL Collections get the parking company to sign an undated 'Deed of Assignment' which does not have any references to parking charges, amounts and keeper names. They then at a series of later dates actually purchase the right to take legal action for disputed charges. During court claims they trot out the undated 'Deed of Assignment' and pretend it was signed at the same time as they purchased the right to sue.

DDJ Gill rumbled the scam and threw out the claim.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

MIL lose in court. Northwest Parking Enforcement car park boundaries unclear

December 17, 2016, 11:24 pm

≫ Next: Excel / BW Legal Incompetence Hits New Low

≪ Previous: MIL Collections lose - Deed of Assignment not valid

MIL Collections v Mr Brass C6QZ2F47 9/12/2016 Carlisle Court

Mr Brass parked in the car park by Iceland in Carlisle and paid the wrong meter, As it was not clear that there were two car parks covered by different schemes, he did not consider a charge should be paid. Mr Brass purchased a ticket from Horizon Parking rather than Northwest Parking Enforcement Ltd

He phoned to dispute the charge, but NPE were rude and dismissive on the phone.

He wrote to appeal the charge but his appeal was refused.

Northwest Parking Enforcement Ltd then sold the right to sue for the disputed charge to MIL Collections.

In the hearing Mr Brass argued there is no clear separation between the two car parks, which there isn't. The judge agreed and dismissed the claim, awarding Mr Brass his costs.

Mr Brass posted on facebook to warn other drivers about the situation.

Prankster Note

It is clear that no parking charge should have been issued in this case, and this was a valid reason to contest the hearing.

A more fundamental reason is that the alleged debt was never assigned to MIL Collections in the first place. When MIL are confronted with this line of defence they now do not even usually bother to turn up for hearings (although they do try the odd one here or there).

MIL claim they purchased the alleged debt from NPE on 20/05/2016 and produced an undated deed of assignment to 'prove' this. The deed was not witnessed properly and did not contain any details of Mr Brass's charge (or indeed any charge).

A big problem is that exactly the same undated deed of assignment was used to 'prove' they purchased an alleged debt from Mr N. M. on 07/04/2016.

Here is the wording used on all known MIL Collection deeds of assignment. (This is not from an NPE deed, this is from a JAS Parking Solutions Ltd deed)

It is clear from this wording that the same deed cannot be used to support purchases of alleged debts on different occasions. It would therefore appear on the face of it that MIL are committing perjury when they claim in court that debts have been validly assigned because the debt are being purchased at various intervals after the deed has actually been signed, and not at the time of signing the deed itself.

Claiming against MIL and NPE

This FOI request reveals that NPE are committing a data protection breach selling keeper data to MIL
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/permission_to_disclose_data_to_m#comment-73800

It is therefore worth considering filing a claim against NPE if they have sold your data to MIL. A claim of £250 would cost £25 to file.

It is also worth considering a similar claim against MIL. As the deed of assignment is not valid, they are also using personal data improperly, and a claim of £250 would appear to be justified.

Start with a letter before claim

Dear Northwest Parking Enforcement Ltd,

My name and address information (together with other information) is classified as personal data within the meaning of s1(1) of the Data Protections Act (DPA). You obtained this data from the DVLA and your contract with them only allows you to sell this data to third parties if you have the DVLAs written permission. You did not have this permission.

This is therefore misuse of my my personal data.

The case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. 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.

In this particular case I estimate £250 would be a reasonable amount to claim. Please therefore remit the sum of £250 sum to myself 14 days. I will accept this sum in full and final compensation for the matter. I reserve the right to take legal action without further notice if this amount is not paid.

I am willing to use alternative dispute resolution to attempt to settle this dispute and suggest the Consumer Ombudsman is a suitable body.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Excel / BW Legal Incompetence Hits New Low

December 19, 2016, 12:36 pm

≫ Next: UKPC v McCarthy. Score draw. No penalties after extra time

≪ Previous: MIL lose in court. Northwest Parking Enforcement car park boundaries unclear

Case no. C8DP56P8, Excel v Mr C & Mrs C, Skipton County Court, 19/12/2016, before District Judge Wright.

Guest Blog

Exactly a year ago, Mrs C had visited the Sports Direct gym in Keighley, where she is a member. The system there is that members key their registration numbers into a terminal which is linked to Excel’s systems, and that entitles them to 2 hours free parking. The vehicle was in the car park for a total of 92 minutes.

A few days later, Mr C, who is the registered keeper, received a £100 parking charge notice from Excel. Mrs C immediately contacted Excel, confirming that she had been the driver, and attaching a print-out from the gym to verify the fact and length of her visit. But Mr C received further correspondence from Excel, which showed that they had completely ignored the fact that the driver had been named, and they were continuing to pursue him as keeper. He declined to engage with the IAS, having an aversion to marsupials.

Eventually, BW Legal issued a claim on behalf of Excel, and the case was listed for 4 October. BW Legal sent the usual complete and utter nonsense of a witness statement, signed by some part-qualified non-entity who clearly knew diddly squat about the case, or anything else for that matter. Bargepole prepared all the court documents on behalf of the defendant. These included statements from other gym customers who had experienced similar unfounded claims, and a statement from the gym manager that the system installed by Excel was not fit for purpose, since it did not provide any receipt, or any form of confirmation that the entry of the registration number had been accepted.

At the first hearing, the Judge agreed that there could be no case against Mr C, but that Excel could apply to have Mrs C to be conjoined as second defendant if they wished. They made the application, and Mrs C filed her own witness statement confirming the events as previously described.

The adjourned hearing was over in a matter of minutes, as nobody from Excel or BW Legal showed up. DJ Wright agreed that this crossed the threshold of unreasonable behaviour, and awarded the defendants’ ordinary costs, plus further costs as per CPR 27.14(2)(g), meaning that Excel were hit for £412 in total.

The behaviour of Excel, and their joke solicitors, has been utterly disgraceful throughout this entire saga, and there may be further repercussions still to come.

Prankster Notes

BW Legal has been awarded “Legal Team of the Year” at the CICM British Credit Awards 2016. The Chartered Institute of Credit Management (CICM) is the recognised standard in the credit and collections industry and is Europe’s largest professional association for the credit community

It is incredible that such an incompetent no-hoper legal firm like BW Legal are apparently the best of the legal teams in the credit industry. This means there are worse legal teams out there**

BW Legal CEO Sean Barton claims to be a solicitor but his team seem to fail to understand the basics of litigation, including how to obey practice directions when filing particulars of claim or signing a claim. Sean Barton's team file template witness statements with incorrect facts and with matters clearly not in the knowledge of the witness. His understanding of the legal situation around parking is deeply flawed and the advocates Sean Barton uses are poorly briefed. His team send out letters deliberately misrepresenting the situation and provide false information to try and bully motorists into paying charges they do not owe. On the phone, Sean Barton's operatives lie and provide false information.

Sean Barton advises his clients to file claims they have no hope of winning if properly defended apparently in the hope that the victim does not realise the true legal position and so pay up rather than defending the claim.

His operatives are so incompetent they expose their clients to large counterclaims and to extra costs under the unreasonableness rule.

Sean Barton therefore appears to the Prankster to be a particularly incompetent solicitor, who is bringing the legal profession into disrepute and it is poor reflection on the legal regulators that they allow such people to continue in practice.

It is an even worse reflection on the legal regulators that there are apparently many more incompetent people than Sean Barton people in the credit industry, as the 2016 award clearly show.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

**This does not include the other incompetent no-hopers Gladstones as they were not in the running for the award.

↧

UKPC v McCarthy. Score draw. No penalties after extra time

December 22, 2016, 4:22 am

≫ Next: Excel lose at Sheffield. Elliot v Loake not applicable

≪ Previous: Excel / BW Legal Incompetence Hits New Low

UKPC vs McCarthy 15/12/2016 Luton C2HW10Q1

UKPC were claiming £900 for 6 unpaid parking tickets on a residential site. Mr McCarthy was counter-claiming harassment for 40 or so wrongly issued tickets. UKPC were using SCS law to process their claim.

Guest report

I met Mr Taylor, the representative of SCS, at the door of the courts and after a brief chat I found him to be a nice enough man and who told me he represents SCS and UKPC on numerous occasions as a freelance solicitor in various regions of the country. We entered the court and the judge explained to me how the proceedings would go (as I wasn't legally trained) and that I would hear UKPC's arguments first and then would be allowed to give my account.

Mr Taylor of SCS pitched his claim first. The witness statement given by UKPC had stated that they had a copy of my lease, but they had in fact attached a copy of another apartment block (not connected) altogether. However they had spotted this and at the court brought a copy of my lease (handed to them by the managing agent) and stated it was an error in submittal.

The judge allowed them to submit this. The lease stated that "I would not park in an obstructive location in the communal areas". I did object to my lease being handed in on the day as I had no time to cross-reference or check if it was my lease at all but the judge stated that we could do one of two things; first being proceed on the assumption it is my lease or stop proceedings and obtain my lease from the land registry. I chose to let them proceed.

Mr Taylor stated that they had been employed by my managing agent to manage the site and that there was a legitimate interest for doing so referencing the Beavis case.

There were 6 tickets in total being claimed referenced a-f with two issued before the DVLA investigation of UKPC and 4 after. Mr Taylor went on to state that each ticket was issued and then when not paid passed on to debt recovery companies etc to bring the claim up to circa £900.

My opportunity came to speak. I referenced my witness statement and the points raised in the statement.

My first point was that the contract UKPC were operating under was dated 2012 for a period of 3 months. However the judge ruled that the contract carried on by conduct and as UKPC were still on site the contract was deemed to be in place.

My next point was that the contract stated that it was on the basis that UKPC operated within the rules of the BPA and that they had not been. I touched on the signage being unilluminated and there not being a P sign at the front of the premises which has now been put in place. I had attached a copy of the British Parking Association t&c's and code of practice to my statement but did not bring a copy to the court and did not make my point clearly enough on this. The judge did have a copy but failed to review and in haste I did not prompt her to.

My next point was that the signage was strictly prohibitive and that it did not allow parking and as there was no offer to park beavis did not apply. With the managing agent sending my lease over I don't think this argument stood.

I also stated that I was not the driver that my brother and wife both used my car. I stated that UKPC had not followed the rules of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act as the tickets and notice to keeper did not have the time periods stipulated on them nor did they show any grace periods. Again unfortunately I did not have schedule 4 with me as I naively assumed that the judge would have had this information. Perhaps I should have asked to stay proceedings until I had the information printed as she had offered to do with my lease. In judgement the judge stated that it was most unfortunate I did not have this with me to rely upon.

My main point was the reference to the mail online article I had included in my witness statement regarding the practice of UKPC doctoring tickets. I argued that during the period they had been suspended by the DVLA their equipment was obviously not adequate and open to fraudulent activity. In her judgement she agreed.

UKPC's witness statement said that this was an isolated incident in one region of the country however the judge stated that they had failed to say what region of the country (perhaps cunningly) and that it could have been Watford. For this reason the judge dismissed the first two tickets in UKPC's claim as they were issued in 2014 and early 2015. I argued that UKPC were still doing this as my car was never parked in the location during the time periods they were saying it was and said in court I am fully stating that UKPC are still doctoring tickets. I made no exception and stated that was exactly what I was saying. Mr Taylor of SCS stated that it was highly unlikely that a company already found guilty of doctoring tickets would continue to do so and the judge in her statement agreed on this point as she had no evidence to show that they were still carrying this out.

I raised the point that I was counterclaiming for harassment and that although we were discussing 6 tickets issued that I had in fact received between 30 to 40 tickets and I had attached numerous emails I had complaining to my management company that the tickets were issued out of the time scales and days that the scheme was not in operation. On a few occasions the managing agent had replied apologising and stating that they had brought up the issue with UKPC. Mr Taylor in his statement said he did not want to even touch on my harassment claim as he believed it fell "so foul of outlining harassment under the act".

The judge however in her statement stated that she believed I was a credible and truthful witness and that I had been clearly upfront about everything from the start and during cross examination. She stated that with the 30/40 tickets I would have received chasing letters and debt recovery letters. That UKPC would have obtained my details from the DVLA incorrectly and for that I would have felt distressed and alarmed by this. I was claiming £1000 but did not reference a precedent to this which she felt was unfortunate. However she said in the absence of this that she found in my favour for the exact amount of the four tickets she had found in favour of UKPC tickets (£580) with us both having to pay each others costs.

Having seen a copy of my lease the judge found in favour of UKPC on four of the parking tickets. She stated that it was most unfortunate that I did not have the POFA sch4 and BPA guidance with me.

Both parties asked for leave to appeal, which was refused.

Prankster Note

This was an extremely creditable performance by Mr McCarthy up against an experienced advocate. If this hearing could be held again, it is likely Mr McCarty would succeed in getting all the charges cancelled. Sadly, time travel is not yet possible.

The case underlines the need to bring copies of everything to court with you. This is why lawyers always trundle around with huge suitcases - they are full of paper relating to their cases. Bring a copy for yourself and a copy for the judge. You should have already sent the other party a copy. Although it shouldn’t be necessary to print out statutory legislation - judges all have terminals on the desk linked to the MoJ portal where they can easily look up statutes - this case shows you cannot rely on the judge putting in the legwork.

The judge correctly pointed out that the DVLA was accessed incorrectly. This would be a breach of data protection regulations, and for each breach an amount would be payable.

The case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. 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.

The case of VCS v Phillip, claim number C9DP2D6C Liverpool 07/12/2016, while not binding, concerns a motorist awarded £250 when the DVLA details were accessed with no cause.

A sum of £250 per breach would therefore seem to be in order.

Mr McCarthy can now consider claiming £250 for any tickets where UKPC accessed the DVLA incorrectly. This would be for a data protection breach, separate to the harassment claim. As there are 30-40 of these tickets, a claim of £7500 - £10,000 would be in order, and Mr McCarthy may want to get legal advice before embarking on this.

Of course, any new tickets invalidly issued by the parking company can also be added to the claim.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Excel lose at Sheffield. Elliot v Loake not applicable

December 22, 2016, 10:42 pm

≫ Next: Government announce CCJ review due to parking companies exploiting legal system

≪ Previous: UKPC v McCarthy. Score draw. No penalties after extra time

Excel v Mr B C7DP8F83 at Sheffield 14/12/2016.

Mr B was not the driver. Excel do not use the keeper liability provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and so attempt to rely on the assumption the keeper was the driver.

The Hearing

Mr Wilkie was the lay representative for Mr B.

Excel, through BW Legal, used an outside representative.

As the Keeper was not the driver, he elected to offer no evidence, and put the claimant to strict proof. This of course was an impossibility for Excel. As Mr B was not the driver, there would be no way they could offer any proof.

The Judge made it clear that without proof of driver, and without invoking Keeper Liability, there was no claim against the Keeper.

No costs were awarded.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Government announce CCJ review due to parking companies exploiting legal system

December 23, 2016, 1:15 pm

≫ Next: Excel Parking Services ticket machine failure explained

≪ Previous: Excel lose at Sheffield. Elliot v Loake not applicable

Parking companies have for some time been exploiting the legal system by issuing claims to wrong addresses. This results in innocent motorists getting CCJs they know nothing about, which can mean they lose their house and job through no fault of their own.

Predatory companies like Gladstones Solicitors, BW Legal, Wright Hassall, MIL Collections and SCS issue claims without doing any due diligence which means that the vast majority of cases have no validity - in ParkingEye v Beavis it was revealed ParkingEye cancel 65% of charges on appeal, and POPLA cancel a further 45%. This means that something over 80% of all parking charges are issued invalidly. This number is increasing - in 2012 ParkingEye cancelled only 55% of charges on appeal.

The roboclaim industry specialises in churning out these claims and adding on spurious extra charges in the full knowledge that although most of the claims have no basis, a large number of people will either be frightened into paying up, or will fail to get the claim papers and so end up with a CCJ without knowing about it. If claims are defended they deliberately ignore practice directions and conduct themselves in a shameful manner knowing that judges in the small claims court rarely issue sanctions. This cynical exploitation of the legal system should not continue.

Today the Government announced it was taking steps to end this predatory situation.

The press release,entitled 'New measures to protect consumers from debt claims' is available here.

Parking companies have been especially singled out:

assess the role of parking companies and examine how drivers are informed of fines

And the Department for Communities and Local Government will be taking further steps in due course to tackle poor practice by private parking companies.

Consultation will start in the new year:

Round table events with consumer groups and advice organisations to gauge early views will take place in the new year before the consultation goes live.

No doubt the many people with ParkingEye CCJs who have already reported these to casehub will be keeping a keen eye on the situation.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Excel Parking Services ticket machine failure explained

December 24, 2016, 4:52 am

≫ Next: Christmas Spirit from ALDI. Scrooge from ParkingEye

≪ Previous: Government announce CCJ review due to parking companies exploiting legal system

The Prankster has received significant numbers of complaints from motorists who received parking charges from Excel Parking even though they purchased tickets. When they appeal, Excel claim to have no record of their purchase and therefore dismiss the appeal.

Today, at least one of the reasons why their machines fail has become apparent.

A motorist visited the Peel Centre for a KFC. Although the Peel Centre is one of the worst signed car parks in the country, his years as a Fast Jet pilot allowed him to take in large amounts of poorly presented yet critical data (their signage). HI therefore bought a ticket. Although he checked that his registration was correctly entered, he did not check the rest.

This is what he received. Pay attention to the date of issue.

Excel Parking were only awarded the contract to manage the car park on 1st October 2012, so issuing a ticket in 1998 is obviously impossible.

The Prankster therefore thinks the following is happening.

On occasion, a pay machine will encounter an error and reset itself. When this happens, the date resets to 1 Jan 1998 00:00. The machines should synchronise themselves using NTP or some other method, but this obviously does not always happen. From the time on the ticket it appear the machine has failed to synchronise for a considerable period - 49 minutes.

The ANPR cameras are not synchronised correctly with the time on the pay machines. So when Excel download the data from both ANPR and pay machines they find a vehicle which parked in 2016, but no matching payment; the payment of course, according to them, happened in 1998, which is before their contract even started.

What Happened Next

Excel issued the motorist with a parking charge. Luckily the motorist had kept the ticket, and was surprised to find the error. The motorist appealed to Excel, sending a copy of the ticket. Any reasonable person would now expect Excel to cancel; however this does not take into account the greed and lack of morality of their owner, Simon Renshaw-Smith.

Excel refused the appeal on the grounds that the motorist ‘did not comply with the Terms and Conditions of parking by failing to purchase a valid P&D ticket’.

Excel's view is that if their machines issue faulty tickets then it is the motorist's fault and not theirs. The motorist should minutely scrutinise their ticket and if there is any mistake they should accept the loss of their money and leave the car park.

The Prankster's view is that this would lead to the absurd situation where Excel make more money when their machines have faults than when they are operating properly. Given the frequency which the machines are out of operation at the Peel centre it appears that Simon Renshaw-Smith has come to the same conclusion and he prefers to rake money in by running poorly maintained and/or out of date systems than by running a proper parking operation.

According to a security guard at the Peel Centre, the machines are 'always breaking down'

The Options

As the IAS is to all intents a kangaroo court and is staffed in The Pranksters opinion, by assessors who are either corrupt or incompetent, led by the inept and bungling Bryn Holloway there seems little point in appealing to them.

Instead, The Prankster suggests contacting the manager of the Peel Centre, Adam Jolley, and ask him to get the charge cancelled. His email address is a.jolley@peel.co.uk.

Alternatively his colleague Nicola Dearden may also cancel the ticket.

Data Protection Breach

Excel think that motorists should pay when Excel's payment systems fail.

The case of Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9, which also concerns a ticket failure at the Peel Centre, suggests the judiciary think otherwise.

Given this state of affairs, there was no just cause for Excel to have applied for keeper data from the DVLA. Their machine failure is their own responsibility and does not excuse them. There has therefore been a possible breach of the Data Protection Act, and the motorist can potentially sue Excel for this. An amount of £250 would normally seem to be appropriate. However Excel have compounded this by continuing even when their own mistake is pointed out, which means a larger amount would not seem amiss.

The Prankster suggests considering banging out a letter before claim at the appropriate time.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Christmas Spirit from ALDI. Scrooge from ParkingEye

December 25, 2016, 5:52 am

≫ Next: Picture of the week - ParkingEye signs gone at ASDA Fleetwood

≪ Previous: Excel Parking Services ticket machine failure explained

A motorist received a parking charge incurred while shopping at their local ALDI. Here is their report.

I just had my appeal turned down by parking eye even though I sent them proof of purchase because they said I did not enter my registration number but I got angry and and thanks to your blog I plucked up the courage and contacted Aldi customer services they replied within 24 hours and this was their last email to me. So I recommend getting in touch with Aldi

Thank you for your recent email containing the proof of purchase from your visit to our Blaby store. On this basis, I am happy to contact ParkingEye and get this charge cancelled.
As you are now aware, ParkingEye manages this car park using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras that monitor cars entering and leaving the car park. It also operates a terminal in store allowing customers to enter their vehicle registration. This system is in place to ensure free parking for our customers.

I hope that this satisfactorily resolves this matter for you. We value your custom and hope that you will continue to shop with us.

Yours sincerely

Emma Wathes

Aldi Parking Management

Aldi Customer Services
UK 0800 042 0800
customer.service@aldi.co.uk

Prankster Notes

An unhappy customer is a potential ex-customer. It makes no sense for ALDI to penalise their customers for parking, so it is s sensible decision to cancel the charge. The Prankster recommends that genuine ALDI customers contact ALDI customer service if their charge is not cancelled by ParkingEye.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Picture of the week - ParkingEye signs gone at ASDA Fleetwood

December 28, 2016, 1:55 am

≫ Next: Indigo cash in on medical staff at Heath Hospital, Cardiff

≪ Previous: Christmas Spirit from ALDI. Scrooge from ParkingEye

The Prankster previously reported that the ParkingEye signs were covered up at ASDA Fleetwood.

As today's photograph shows, the signs have now all gone. ParkingEye and ASDA did not have advertising consent to display the signs.

The ANPR cameras remain.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Indigo cash in on medical staff at Heath Hospital, Cardiff

December 28, 2016, 4:22 am

≫ Next: ParkingEye employee reveals their "rape and pillage" approach to hospital parking

≪ Previous: Picture of the week - ParkingEye signs gone at ASDA Fleetwood

Although most hospital parking is free in Wales, it is not at Heath hospital Cardiff, where the management unwisely sold off the car parks to Indigo Park Services Ltd.

Indigo have now started cashing in on this, making staff life a misery by failing to issue permits in a timely manner, and then penalising vehicles for not displaying a permit.

Wardens use a predatory patrol schedule to maximise the charges they can issue. Ticketing continues up until 3 am, and it also appears Indigo staff go out to ticket after a nursing staff handover has occurred each and every day. Some tickets have even been issued when the registered keeper was not on shift, and some vehicles have been issued 2 tickets per day.

Indigo are also abusing the DVLA link by getting keeper data for free via the NHS and Local Authority link, rather than paying the normal parking company charge of £2.50.

The charge for not displaying a permit is £10, rising to £20 after 14 days. However, Indigo then shuttle the charge around debt collection companies to artificially inflate the cost to £128.

Since April 2016 over 1,000 tickets have been issued to staff, with over 100 of these having already gone to court.

Prankster Note

Although it is possible a charge of £20 may be valid, the artificial inflation is £128 is not.

In ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores HHJ Hegarty QC ruled that a debt collection addition of £75 was probably not valid and in ParkingEye v Beavis it was ruled that charges must be plainly in sight to escape being an unfair consumer charge.

POFA 2012 sc 4 also rules that the keeper can only be pursued for the charge on the notice to keeper, and not for additional charges.

An attempt to use keeper data for charges which are not valid is therefore possibly a breach of data principles 1 and 2, which would leave the parking company liable for a data protection claim. This may be compounded if Indigo did not use the correct method to get data from the DVLA.

The case of VCS v Phillip, claim number C9DP2D6C Liverpool 07/12/2016, while not binding, concerns a motorist awarded 3250 wen the parking company pursued a charge which was not valid. This is therefore a persuasive case that a DPA breach occurs when a parking charge is not legitimately pursued, and that a sum of at least £250 is compensation for pursuing a purported parking charge when there is no reasonable prospect of success.

It appears that Cardiff court is going to be clogged up with parking cases for the foreseeable future.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧