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

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

December 29, 2016, 9:31 am
$
0
0
The Prankster has been contacted by a ParkingEye employee who felt it necessary to speak out because they felt that the company was run by some of the greediest people they had the misfortune to meet, and some of the practices just screamed abuse.

Sadly ParkingEye are typical of the parking industry. and this behavior is duplicated in many (but not all) parking companies.

ParkingEye's early success was due to its gung ho approach. Contracts while making business sense only sought to delay proceedings so the tactic was to bang the kit in and deal with the ramifications later on. This caused problems later on with POPLA and the courts, because there was no paperwork to back up the claim to be able to operate. This was overcome by the successful approach of persuading POPLA to accept witness statements instead of contracts, this allowing POPLA to be deceived. The courts proved just as easy, with judges persuaded to accept a contract must be in place even when it was not. A number of freedom of information requests showed how the courts were deceived to believe a contract was in place when it was not.

Some installations were expected to cause trouble simply because of the client's expectations. These were known as the "rape and pillage" installations. Bang them in, make as much money from the first several weeks to cover costs, and if problems occured, try and win the client around. If that didn't work just pull it out and/or sue the client for breach of contract.

ParkingEye focus on what they call the top 100 sites. These generate the lion's share of ParkingEye's revenue. Some of the top earners include:

Ilford Retail Park
Borehamwood Retail Park
Riverside Retail Park
Corporation Street
Barnet Hospital
Yeovil Hospital
Burton NHS Trust
South Tyneside Hospital
Macclesfield Hospital
Tower Road Newquay (summer)
Watergate Bay Newquay (summer)
Welcome Break Gordano
Welcome Break Fleet
Welcome Break South Mimms
Parc Llandudno
Morrisons King Street
St Peters Retail Park
Marriot Heathrow
Radisson Blu Stanstead.
Leisure World Southampton
Priory Shopping Centre

As you can see, a significant number of these are hospitals. The top 100 has seasonal variations. Some sites like the NHS request full switch off during Christmas and New Year. ParkingEye always try to discourage that kind of behaviour because it makes the beancounters cry. NHS are a major cash cow but ParkingEye are scared to lose them so bend the contractual obligations and call it "goodwill".

Sites would usually sit in two camps
1: Earn well then tail of as people become wise to rules etc. Although the BPA require special signage when a new site goes live ParkingEye never do this because it would hurt the "rape and pillage" revenue
2: Seasonal, typically making money in the summer season, with low PCN rates through the winter

ParkingEye had a clever system which could boost revenue for a particular financial period if required.There were some delays built into the central business system which allowed for sense checking the PCNs. This allowed for problems to be spotted (for example if a site generated an unfeasibly large amount of cases, chances are it was a technical problem) and could be rectified before incurring costs of DVLA enquiries and postage.

However at critical points in the financial year, this time buffer was removed. So let's say the fiscal year end is 31st Dec. Under normal running all data submitted and checked by the 30th would not be sent until the 1st January. Under improve revenue mode, everything submitted and checked by the 30th would be sent on the 31st, with no sense check delay.

What this meant was the time available to sense check and cancel pcns disappeared. So PCNs could be generated on a car park that had a technical issue which normally would have been wiped. The infamous 19 step checking would still take place, so technical issues aside, the PCNs seemed sound enough.

Another way to boost revenue was to alter the grace period. This favourite tactic was called rewashing.cases. Now because the BPA mandate that every car park should have a
reasonable time to enter, review terms and leave as standard ParkingEye allows 10 mins on every site. So whatever the signage allows you would get a further 10 minutes on top.

Some sites would for management purposes have this period set to a longer period, say 30 minutes. This was typical if ParkingEye expected a lot of flack from the motorists/clients.

So you'd visit a site and stay say 2hr 25. You know you're over..and hope that you don't get a PCN. Well guess what you wouldn't. That was until the amount of PCNs wasn't shaping up to what was budgeted. So what would happen is an instruction would go to the ops team to drop the extra 30 minutes down to say 15 but (and here's the kicker) rerun all visits for the previous two weeks against the new times and issue the PCNs.

So you could visit on the 1st of the month, stay 2hr 25 and not get a PCN. Then on the 15th ParkingEye would decide to re-review your visit against a a new maximum time limit of
2hr 15. Guess what's now coming your way.

One thing to note that may be of interest to motorists is that in the majority of sites, there is no planning permission. ParkingEye operate a model of retrospective planning. So get the go ahead from the client, bang the system in and then if there was any noise file a retrospective planning order.
The point was to save on costs. And it worked.

Prankster Note

The Prankster has no reason to doubt any of the information freely given, as it ties up with other information he has.

ParkingEye operate at hospitals in defiance of government guidelines which stipulate pay on exit methods should be used, and contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges. ParkingEye run a 'guess on exit' scheme where motorists have to guess the duration of their stay with no help from ParkingEye. This has proved very successful for them as many motorists guess wrongly. At Northumbria NHS, for instance, ParkingEye were generating PCNs at the rate of £1,000,000 a year.

It is possible to run a fair car park regime at hospitals. Total Parking Solutions manage the Marlborough Street car park for Bristol Eye Hospital and FoI requests show minimal PCNs were issued at this site, and none for overstays. This is because this is a true pay on exit scheme. When the motorist leaves they are informed of the correct amount to pay. Unsurprisingly, every single motorist pays the correct amount when given the right information.

It is clear that ParkingEye's "rape and pillage" approach to car park management is unfair to the motorist and particularly unfair at hospitals where the people targeted will be the sick, the elderly and the vulnerable members of society. These are the people who can least afford the astronomic £100 charges which ParkingEye entrap people into incurring.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster





↧
Search

New signs in place at John Lennon Airport

December 29, 2016, 10:56 am
$
0
0
Pepipoo have reported that new signs are in place at John Lennon Airport.


The new signs do not appear to have planning permission for advertisement consent and it does not appear any planning application has been filed.

It is not clear where the new signs are sited so The Prankster would be interested if anyone can supply any or all of the following information along with supporting photographs.

1) How far the signs are sited from junctions.
2) Where the new signs are
3) The different font sizes used

The new signs are forbidding and so cannot form a contract. Any action the airport take would therefore have to be based in trespass.

For comparison, the previous signs were blogged about here.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧
↧

Heath Parade, Graham Park Way scam site

December 29, 2016, 10:41 pm
$
0
0
Heath Parade, Graham Park Way is a well known scam site. There is a lay-by which appears to be part of the the public highway but is not. There are signs but they are far too small to be read from a vehicle. The PCM UK parking attendant lurks nearby and when a car stops races out to get a photo. A PCN is issued even if the driver gets out, gets close enough to the sign to read it, realises no parking is allowed and immediately leaves.

This scam is actively supported by William Hurley, John Davies of the IPC/Gladstones Solicitors and Bryn Holloway of the IAS, and Gladstones are now assisting PCM-UK in taking motorists to court.

The Prankster suggests a defence on the following lines.


DEFENCE STATEMENT
Site Information

The site appears to be a layby and part of the public highway and there is no information close enough to be read by an approaching driver to suggest it is private land or otherwise restricted.


The parking warden “Mrs Sunglasses” lurks nearby continuously. When a vehicle enters the layby she approaches from the rear, takes a photograph and leaves without attempting to contact the driver. A parking charge is issued even if the driver gets out of the car, gets close enough to the sign to read it, then immediately departs. 


It is clear that the signs are so high and the writing so small it cannot be read from a vehicle or even by a pedestrian until right by the sign. Here is Ms Sunglasses standing underneath one of the signs.



“Mrs Sunglasses” is on site so often she even appears on Google Streetview.


It is clear then that this is nothing more than a scam. If the parking company genuinely wished to prevent parking “Mrs Sunglasses” could remain on site and politely ask drivers to leave immediately. They would also use large signs which can be seen from inside vehicles.

Defence

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1.      I was, at the relevant date, the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. On the material date, I stopped in the layby for a very brief period of time. I did not see any nearby signage prohibiting this.

2.      I subsequently received a Notice to Keeper from the Claimant, alleging that a charge of £100 was due to them. I did not send an appeal to the Claimant. or a further appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the Independent Parking Committee (IPC). My research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors, the individuals in question being John Davies, and William Hurley. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. As such, the Claimant does not come to this matter with clean hands.

3.      The Claimant’s signage with the largest font at this site states “No Customer Parking At Any Time”. A further sign with much smaller writing and higher up states “The loading bay is only for authorised vehicles actively loading & unloading when delivering to the commercial tenants of Heath parade”. It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.




           The above point was recently tested in the County Court at High Wycombe, in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), where District Judge Glen dismissed all three claims, stating in his judgment that:
 “If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”

While this is a County Court decision and therefore not binding, it is on all fours with the present case and may be considered as persuasive. A full transcript of the Approved Judgment for the above case will be provided in the event that this case proceeds to a hearing.

5.      In addition, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules that if signage has multiple interpretation the interpretation most favourable to the consumer applies. It is clear from this the signage with the largest font should apply.

6.      In the alternative, if it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the ‘contravention’ according to the Claimant is already committed.
7.      The above point was recently tested in several cases regarding Hayes and Harlington station. There a similar situation arises as the vehicles were charged for briefly stopping but the signs are far away from vehicles and high up

In all cases it was ruled that no contract was entered by performance as the signage could not be read from a vehicle. No transcripts are available but as PCM UK were the claimant in all cases they will be fully aware of the cases; C3GF46K8, C3GF44K8, C3GFY8K8  , 

8.       The IPC code of conduct states that a grace period must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be from 5-15 minutes from the period of stopping. This grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.

9.      Thus the signage is simply a device to entrap motorists into a situation whereby the Claimant sends them invoices for unwarranted and unjustified charges, for which motorists can have no contractual liability due to the terms and conditions not having been sufficiently brought to their attention. This activity is bordering on, if not actually crossing the boundary of, a criminal offence of Fraud By False Representation.

Additionally, the contract fails informational requirements for contracts established in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014.
Any alleged contract would be a distance contract for services as defined in The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

The regulations define three types of contracts; distance contracts, on premises contract and off-premises contracts.

The definitions concern themselves with how a contract is concluded (and in particular if face to face contact occurs during this process) and not where the contract is eventually performed. Thus, if a consumer books a hair styling appointment over the web, that is a distance contract even though they go to the salon for the actual styling. If they re-book at the salon, that will be an on-premises contract. If they meet their stylist in Tesco, arrange for an appointment and immediately phone the salon to confirm, that will be an off-premises contract. All these contracts are performed on-premises, but concluded in different ways.

The regulations define an on-premises contract as:
“on-premises contract” means a contract between a trader and a consumer which is neither a distance contract nor an off-premises contract;
Thus a contract cannot be on-premises if it is a distance contract.

The regulations define a distance contract as:
“distance contract” means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded;

• This is clearly an organised service-provision scheme (for parking)
• The contract is clearly concluded without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer.
• There is clearly the exclusive use of one means of distance communication (signage) up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded.

This is therefore a distance contract.

None of the exemptions in regulation (6) apply. No vending machine or automated premises was used to conclude the contract. Any contract would be concluded by parking and walking away.

Regulation 13 lists information to be provided before making a distance contract. The contract fails to provide the required information listed in Schedule 2. As per 13(1) the contract is therefore not binding.

Alternatively if the contract is on or off-premises, the information rules still apply and the contract is not binding as per either 9(1) or 10(1).

Additionally, the charge of £100 is a penalty and unfair consumer charge. The leading case on this matter is ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In that case it was ruled that the penalties rule was engaged but the charge was not unfair because the motorist had the bargain of 2 hours of valuable free parking in exchange for the risk of paying £100 for overstaying. The risk was clearly brought to the attention of the consumer in a huge font. Here, there is no valuable consideration on offer and no bargain for the consumer, and the charge is hidden in small print. It is submitted that no motorist would agree to pay £100 instantly on stopping and this is therefore and unfair consumer term in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015..


1     In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent, in this case Peel Land & Property Ltd. No evidence of such authority was supplied by the Claimant at any time, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.

1     In addition to the £100 ‘parking charge’, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £50 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report Gladstones Solicitors to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.


1     The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

Counterclaim

It is not possible that a valid parking charge exists for the following reasons
The signage cannot be safely read while driving. There can therefore be no meeting of minds and no contract by performance
The signage is forbidding and makes no offer to the motorist. There can therefore be no contract.
Even if there was a contract  the signage fails informational requirements for contracts established in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014, and so any contract would be non-bindng on the consumer
Even if there were a binding contract the charge would be a penalty and unfair consumer term as it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is not saved by the case law in ParkingEye v Beavis.

There was therefore no valid reason to apply for my keeper data from the DVLA.

Additionally the operator contract with the DVLA only allows them to obtain data for parking contraventions and not for briefly stopping.

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 are misusing this data by attempting to claim a charge is do when there is no possibility a lawful reason exists. Additionally you may only obtain and use this data from the DVLA for parking, and not for stopping.

This is therefore a breach of data principle 1 (data must be used lawfully) and 2 (data must only be used for the purpose provided).

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 sent a parking charge for briefly stopping at Liverpool Business Park. The signage there has the equivalent forbidding wording to the signage in this case. The judge ruled that no contract could exist and therefore data had been wrongly obtained from the DVLA. 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.

I therefore claim £250.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster




↧

Picture of the week - ParkingEye 19 point checklist

December 31, 2016, 3:41 am
$
0
0
ParkingEye are famous for claiming to have a 19 point checklist to ensure their notice to keeper documents are always compliant.


As you can see, it's not very good.

Prankster Note

It appears from this parking charge notice there was no just cause to access the DVLA for keeper data. The keeper should therefore consider a claim against ParkingEye for a breach of the data protection act. If they wish to do this they should start off with a letter before claim.

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 are misusing this data by attempting to claim a charge is do when no lawful reason exists. I refer you to your parking charge notice where there is no evidence the vehicle arrived at the time stated.

This is therefore a breach of data principle 1 (data must be used lawfully).

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 sent a parking charge which was not valid. The judge awarded £250 for a DPA breach. 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.

Please therefore remit the sum of £250 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
↧

Managment companies should beware of using Parking Ticketing Ltd run by Mario Ireland

January 4, 2017, 12:35 pm
$
0
0
This is a cautionary tale about contracting with a disreputable parking company to manage a residential car park.

Churchill Park is a small development in Hounslow TW4. Because of an ongoing parking problem with non-residents using residents bays on the estate the management company employed the services of  Parking Ticketing Ltd (PTL) of 83 Ducie Street  Manchester M1 2JQ.

This Company is run by Mario Ireland. The management company issued residents with permits supplied by them to display while parked on bays. The scheme worked well to start, but after a few months reports started to come to the management company about residents being ticketed. They directed Parking Ticketing to void these tickets as they could vouch for the resident having a permit; however, Parking Ticketing refused. Residents appealed via the ways as advised on the rear of tickets only to find the appeals rejected. It would also appear that the appeals company that they were informed to appeal to was run by the same person. Under BPA rules the management company were under the impression that even during an appeal the clock stopped ticking on the ticket. However, Parking Ticketing Ltd continued to add no payment time onto the ticket and so some residents were presented with bills for hundreds of pounds.

The management company contacted Parking Ticketing Ltd again, asking them to stop this practice of issuing residents with tickets, even when the management company could prove residents had a permit which they had issued.

Things quietened down for a while and then there were incidents of miss-ticketing involving the same person's car. The permit was clearly displayed on the dashboard and the resident showed the management company a photograph proving this. Because of past form the management company paid the ticket as they felt it was morally unjust to ticket a car that had a valid permit displayed on the dashboard. Also because of previous events with the company they wished the bill not to escalate into the hundreds of pounds.They paid the bill out of their funds as over the years they have had a good working relationship with the gentleman who had been ticketed and did not wish this relationship to be affected by the overzealous actions of Parking Ticketing Ltd. They reported Parking Ticketing Ltd to trading standards who felt that Parking Ticketing Ltd were acting in an immoral way.

Parking Ticketing Ltd has a very unusual clause in their contract. The management company wrote to them giving 30 days notice to cancel a contract as they had had the contract for over a year. However, within the contract, there is small print that states that if they do not give a cancellation notice within 30 days of the anniversary of, the contract it will run for a further 12 months.


The Churchill Park management company are now gathering evidence where Parking Ticketing Ltd have miss-ticketed and therefore are in breach of contract. They now have two cases of this where valid permits were on display, yet the resident was issued with a parking ticket. The management company noted that the resident who had been targeted was one who complained about the practices of Parking Ticketing Ltd.

The management company wrote to The Prankster so that more people could be be made aware of the practices of Mario Ireland's company as it would appear there are many examples of him doing this in the press over numerous years. He also had a previous company that was removed from the BPA.

The management company will be writing to him again saying the contract is terminated because he has breached his terms and conditions.

Prankster Note

The company Mario Ireland was previously running was notorious clamping firm Magnaco Limited which was expelled from the BPA for unpaid CCJs and entered voluntary liquidation.

This cautionary tale shows that management companies should take extreme care when contracting with a car parking company and that all terms and conditions should be carefully scrutinised.

If you don't like the contract, don't agree to sign it. Either get the contract changed, or find a different parking company. For a residential contract it is important to include a term stating that genuine residents and their visitors will not be charged and if a ticket is accidentally issued then it will be cancelled.

Paper permit schemes should be avoided as they are routinely abused by parking companies. In this day and age electronic schemes are common where residents can register their and their vistors vehicles via apps websites and telephone.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧
↧

POFA or not POFA, that is the question

January 4, 2017, 3:39 pm
$
0
0
Two hearings were reported today on MSE and Pepipoo.

Hearing One

In the first hearing Gladstones were acting on behalf of Horizon Parking, pursuing 3 parking charges of £70 each which creative accounting had inflated to £480.

The registered keeper was not the driver on each occasion. Horizon Parking are not known for their ability to issue a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 sch 4, and so the keeper cannot be held liable. Here is a sample (not from the court case)


The hearing was at Chichester in front of DJ Ellis.

The defendants wife was the driver, and ask to speak as lay representative, using the The Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999. It is surprising how many people do not know about this Order. Gladstones hadn't heard of it, despite it being used in hearings they have participated in many times and weren't entirely pleased about but they didn't object.

The judge threw out the first claim for 'obstructive parking' as the pictures didn't show how the parking was obstructive. She then dismissed the second claim for parking in a motorcycle bay as the sign didn't expressly say not to park in motorcycle bays (only disabled, out of marked bays, etc).

She allowed the 3rd claim for parking on cross hatching, but only awarded the £70 stated on the Notice to Keeper instead of the inflated £120 they wanted.

She refused to allow Gladstones costs so the defendant only had to pay £70.

The judge put the defendants at ease and did not appear very impressed with Gladstones representative who didn't seem very familiar with the case. She didn't allow the defendant's preliminary procedural matter to dismiss the witness statement as it was not filed in the timescale ordered by the court. She used her discretional case management ability to allow the witness statement even though it was filed 2 days late.

The one mystery is why the judge ruled keeper liability applied. She didn't accept Harry Greenslade's Popla comments regarding keeper liability applied in the case  and although the signs were not as clear as in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 she still deemed them to be sufficient.

She ruled the claimant did follow POFA (except for the inflated cost added since the NTK) and commented that The Parking Prankster often misinterprets POFA (this was was one of the articles the defendant used).The judge said she was familiar with the website and said it gets referred to a lot.

The Prankster is not sure which part of POFA he is believed to have misinterpreted, and of course it is possible Horizon have changed their NTKs and are now compliant. The Prankster's understanding of POFA is that if a parking charge is legitimate, and if the relevant parts of the Act are complied with, it allows liability to be transferred to keeper or hirer.

Of course, if the Act is not complied with, liability remains with the driver.

Hearing Two

The second hearing was regarding 5 parking charges inflated to £600 by Excel.

This took a full 2 hours of court time.

As soon as the parties sat the judge stated she intended to throw their case out because they were bringing it under contract law, and as she said, the defendant says he was not driving and the claimant admits they can't prove it.

Their representative disagreed and stated they were bringing the case under POFA. The judge pointed out the witness statement says explicitly 3 times that you are not relying on POFA.

The defendant argued they were changing their claim and he was not prepared for a POFA defense. The judge agreed, saying she did not want to allocate any more of the court's time to a small claim so we will carry on and see where it goes.

One by one the parties went through every sign. The judge stated even though there is only one photo of a sign she was happy to agree with the claimant that it could be used for each of the 5 PCN's. The defendant argued that the signage was not the same over the period and that Excel were in 2 different trade bodies during the span of PCN's so would have different codes of practice, and different signs, However the judge said she wasn't bothered about what trade association they were in. In fact the sign on offer was dated 3/3/15 and had the BPA logo on it, when they weren't in that club. (Excel switched to the IPC 1/1/2015)

The parties looked at all the photos of contraventions, NTK's, PCN's etc, The defendant picked holes in everything, but the judge appeared to think he was being pedantic.

She gave both parties a hard time, also picking up on Excel when they say that because they mention POFA in the first PCN it should then be assumed that all the subsequent PCN's are relying on it as well!

Eventually she asked the parties to step outside so she can read up on POFA. 20 minutes later the parties are invited back in. The defendant felt from the off that she had found against him; she had found nowhere in POFA that says they have to mention POFA in the NTK, so she is willing to allow that the claimant had the right to chase the keeper for payment. The defendant had done himself no favours by ignoring the NTKs. She went through every ticket and says she would have allowed 4 of the 5. The defendant was sinking in his chair at this point.

Then she turned to Excels solicitor, and said "but your client shot themselves in the foot. Had they brought this claim using POFA I would have been mindful to allow it, but they didn't. They brought it under contract law, quite clearly stating that 3 times. So I am going to dismiss the case on those grounds"

Excel asked for leave to appeal but was refused. The defendant asked for his costs, showed her his cost schedule and was allowed £97.50

The Prankster feels this was slightly bizarre. Excel know full well their NTKs do not comply with POFA because they miss out the requirements detailed in 9.2.e and 9.2.f. They make no secret of this and bring all their claims on the basis that they hope the keeper was also the driver.

For some grubby lawyer to suddenly claim otherwise on the day of the hearing goes against all legal and moral principles. Obviously the lawyer thought he could get away with it because the judge was inexperienced with the requirements of the Act, and he hoped the defendant was not able to ge his points across fully. That he almost succeeded is very disconcerting. Luckily the judge eventually went with her first decision - which could have saved two hours of court time - and did not allow the claimant to alter their statement of case.

Prankster Notes

Always take a copy of everything you will be relying on - eg the Lay Representative Order 1999.

Be wary that firms like Excel, BW Legal and Gladstones have no morals and are willing to try and usurp the proper processes of the court to win at any cost. Even if Excel say they are not using POFA it is now clear they will grasp at any straw and try and change their mind in the courtroom if they think they can fool the judge and defendant.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

POPLA to hear byelaw cases

January 6, 2017, 11:32 pm
$
0
0
POPLA have now made the following announcement

POPLA has taken the decision to consider the cases previously adjourned due to Byelaws. We initially placed these appeals on hold after receiving complaints that we did not have the remit to consider if a Byelaw had been breached. After considering our position, we feel it is important to offer an appeal service to motorists so that they can have an independent assessment made. As such, we will look at the appeals we have placed on hold since September 2016. As of 5 January 2017, we had approximately 1,300 appeals on hold. If you have an appeal on hold for this issue, we would ask for your patience while we work through these. We would remind you that while an appeal is with POPLA, the parking operator is unable to pursue payment.

In a byelaw case the authorities have 6 months from the parking date to bring a claim in the magistrate court. If the claim succeeds then the monies go to the state and not to the parking company.

Any cases put on hold since September 2016 will therefore almost certainly have timed out. The Prankster wonders whether POPLA or the BPA will be compensating parking companies if they rule the appeal is not valid but the parking company is already too late to ask the authorities to file a claim in the magistrates court.

However, in a byelaws case the Protection Of Freedoms Act schedule 4 states there is no keeper liability. The parking company will therefore have to prove who the driver is to have any chance of success.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

UKPC advertise job with bonus payments

January 8, 2017, 6:41 am
$
0
0
UKPC are advertising for a parking warden job with a monthly bonus scheme.


The British Parking Association code of practice forbids certain kinds of bonus schemes

9.4 Effective from 1st October 2015, the practice of offering financial incentives to AOS parking attendants/wardens which relate to the quantity of PCNs issued by them, should be prohibited within all new employee contracts.

In The Prankster's opinion, there are no other viable bonus schemes for parking wardens and if UKPC pretend there are, they are dressing up the scheme in weasel words but the basics remain the same.

The scheme has been referred to the BPA, but they have refused to investigate.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧
Search

UKPC lose residential case. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

January 9, 2017, 9:03 am
$
0
0
UKPC v Mr Aziz Birmingham 9/1/2017 C2HW01A6. DJ Gibson

Mr Aziz visited a residential block and parked with full permission of the tenant. He received 2 parking charges of £100 each, which UKPC magically inflated into a £400 claim.

Mr Aziz contested the claim on the basis that the charge was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and that UKPC did not have authority to issue charges as he was parked with the permission of the tenant.


First Hearing

The first hearing was before DJ Rich on 29/09/16. DJ Rich disagreed with the pre-estimate of loss point, but found that there was no chain of authority to prove UKPC could override the  lease. He adjourned the case on UKPC's request so that they could come up with some paperwork.

Second Hearing

Mr Aziz represented himself. UKPC engaged SCS law who contracted Simon Villae to appear as advocate. Before the hearing Mr Villae confided to Mr Aziz that he expected to get a tongue lashing from the judge due to the awfulness of the UKPC's bundle. DJ Gibson did not disappoint him, and laid into him as UKPC had failed to provide any evidence that they could override the lease, despite asking for an adjournment. They did provide a letter from the Management requesting them to put up a sign banning parking in the bin storage area, but as this was not where Mr Aziz parked, DJ Gibson ruled this was totally irrelevant. The photographs UKPC supplied were heavily pixelated and almost useless - Mr Aziz's vehicle appeared to have oval wheels.

DJ Gibson dismissed the claim on the basis UKPC did not have authority to override the lease and issue charges. She also followed the lead of HHJ Charles Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, and ruled that ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 did not apply to residential cases. There was no way that residents or their visitors would agree to pay a charge of £100 to park in spaces they owned. The charge of £100 therefore had no commercial justification and as it was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss was therefore a penalty and not justified.

DJ Gibson asked Mr Aziz if he had got his defence from the internet. Mr Aziz said he had. DJ Gibson said there was nothing wrong with this but cautioned Mr Aziz to be wary as case law was forever changing and so he should always make sure any research was up to date.

Prankster Note

When a parking company request an adjournment this should always be resisted on the grounds that they have employed a professional solicitor to assist and should therefore be fully aware of the paperwork required, and it would be out of proportion to the value of the claim to have a second hearing. The advocate costs, which are not reclaimable in the small claims track, far outweigh the value of the claim.

If there must be an adjournment ask for a wasted costs order which would be the full value of a lost days pay under the unreasonableness rule 27.14(2)g

Take a copy of the rule
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27

It should be noted that HHJ Charles Harris QC uses this rule to award £2,000 in costs against a parking company in a residential case.

Members of the British Motorists' Protection Association provided assistance to Mr Aziz, and he passes on his thanks.

Data Protection Act 1988 (DPA)

It would appear Mr Aziz has the possibility of two data protection claims against UKPC for obtaining his personal data from the DVLA and continuing to use it when no lawful reason existed. The going rate for these breaches is £250 each.


UKPC are already around £500 down on this hearing

If Mr Aziz decides to take action and successfully pursues a DPA breach this would leave them £1,000 out of pocket for issuing two bogus charges.

Happy Parking 

The Parking Prankster






↧
↧

DVLA audit report on UKCPS

January 9, 2017, 2:35 pm
$
0
0
The latest audit on UKCPS contains the following

I am writing to confirm my decision as Senior Information Responsible Owner (SIRO) at DVLA on your suspension from access to DVLA data.

I have reviewed all of the information from the audit site visit and can confirm we will reinstate access for UKCPS to request data from the DVLA. This is dependent on the points below:

Conditions of reinstating access to personal data held by DVLA:

Your ATA membership-must be fully reinstated immediately in order for us to commence any reconnection work.

A further audit will be carried out in 3 months time. Any breach of the conditions of the contract or further issues reported to the DVLA during the time you are reinstated and the next audit will lead to a further suspension of 6 months.

Any issues arising from the audit will lead to a further suspension or even termination of your contract with the DVLA.

Enquiries for alleged offences which took place during the period of suspension from 13 October to 19 December cannot be made.

Anyone who knows of any breaches by UKCPS should report these to the DVLA.
Complaints Team
DVLA
Swansea
SA6 7JL


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

BW Legal lax approach to court deadlines sees claim fail

January 9, 2017, 2:50 pm
$
0
0
BW Legal are one of the 'roboclaim' firms.

The typical method of operation of these firms is to file thousands of claims without doing any due diligence in the hope that the majority of the British public are so scared of court that they will pay up regardless of the merit of the claim.

To save costs they will do absolutely no work until the deadline for filing approaches, in the belief that the motorist may chicken out due to the stress of an impending hearing and pay up.

Sometimes they leave it too late, as this case on pepipoo shows.

BW Legal failed to file paperwork on time back in August so the case was stayed. They then paid £100 to get the stay lifted.

The court directed both parties file witness statements and evidence before a hearing was set, apparently due to the fact they had a massive back-log of paperwork to get through (probably thanks to all the predatory parking cases clogging up the system) so they didn't want to allocate a date until they were sure of the validity of the case.

The motorist submitted their evidence pack to the court and the claimant on time (end of September). However BW Legal did not send their evidence pack until October (several days after the deadline). Not only that, the photocopies of the supporting evidence they sent was of was of such poor quality that is was indecipherable.

Therefore the motorist wrote a letter to the court pointing out to the judge that that the claimant had not followed the court directions and requested that the case was struck out. They included a photo of the envelope and the cover letter that BW legal sent their pack in that had a date stamp, as proof that they hadn't even posted it until well after the deadline

After many phone calls to the court for an update, they finally got a confirmation letter from the court early/mid December (almost 2 months later thanks to the massive back-log they were dealing with) saying the Judge had read their letter along with supporting evidence and agreed the claimant had failed to comply with the court directions and had decided to strike out the claim as requested. The claimant however still had 7 days to apply to have the order set-aside, varied or stayed.

BW Legal have apparently decided not to spend another £100 to contest this order. However given the huge backlog in the court, they may have sent an appeal which is still awaiting to be processed.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

MIL Collections claim to have won 7 cases

January 9, 2017, 9:37 pm
$
0
0
In a new tactic MIL Collections claim to have won 7 cases against people being assisted by online users claiming to be experts.


No further details are available, and The Prankster has been unable to trace any of these cases online.

Here are a sample of cases where information is available, and the outcome of the hearing threw up a surprise to MIL.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/mil-collections-fail-in-court.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/mil-collections-fail-in-court_22.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/mil-collections-fail-in-court-again.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/mil-collections-lose-in-court-fail-to.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/mil-collections-fail-in-court-champerty.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/mil-collections-lose-in-court.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/mil-collections-fail-on-home-turf.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/mil-collections-lose-in-bristol.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/mil-collections-lose-in-court-evidence.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/mil-collections-who-is-matt-murdoch.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/another-mil-case-another-no-show.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/mil-panic-and-ask-to-adjourn-but-judge.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/mil-collections-cut-and-run.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/mil-buried-in-bury.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/alan-davies-from-mil-collections-flunks.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/mil-collections-discontinue-casesby.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/mil-collections-lose-in-court-are-ipc.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/mil-unexpectedly-do-not-lose-court.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/are-mil-collections-worst-debt.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/failed-debt-collectors-mil-collections.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/mil-collections-lose-in-court.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/mil-collections-bail-out.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/is-alan-davies-of-mil-collections.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/mil-turn-up-in-court-for-no-apparent.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/mil-lose-in-court-falsifying-data.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/mil-collections-lose-two-cases-without.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/mil-chicken-out-of-court-curious-case.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/parking-companies-breaking-data.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/mil-collections-lose-deed-of-assignment.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/mil-lose-in-court-northwest-parking.html

MIL Collections website does not have any information about these cases, but does offer this advice.

Q
Why has MIL not responded to the numerous negative comments made on the Internet?
A
Most comments we have reviewed, are either dishonest or trolling. For reasons of privacy and fairness, we do not routinely comment publicly about live cases or judgments granted by Court. The MIL website has links to free advice services allowing people with a genuine grievance or dispute to obtain free independent advice and support. Fee charging legal service providers can be checked on the SRA website to ensure they are regulated and indemnified to offer legal services to the public.

The Prankster has not been  able to identify comments which are dishonest or trolling, so wonders if MIL are using a different internet to everyone else.

However, here is an up to date comment from the internet most people use.


This comment appeared on 10/01/2016.

It appears in the real world, as opposed to the parallel universe Mr G Watson seems to inhabit, MIL are very much aware that they have little chance of succeeding in court.

Although MIL claim to have been told by the BPA and IPC that thousands of claims are won in court hearings, this appears to be made up data. The BMPA data suggests that only around 2,000 parking hearing occurred in 2016. Of course, MIL will have their own statistics apart from the data they claim the BPA and IPC provide. The Prankster suggests that they are not publishing that due to their embarrassing lack of success.

According to the BMPA, 232 MIL cases made it to a hearing in 2016.

As a side note, MIL Collections appear to have obtained data from the parking company in breach of data protection laws and The Prankster advises considering investigating this and filing a claim against them and the parking company if this is true.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/permission_to_disclose_data_to_m#comment-73800


Parking Cowboys have an article on claiming for a data protection breach.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

↧

Excel serial abusers of court process

January 11, 2017, 1:11 am
$
0
0
Excel Parking Services Ltd are serial abusers of the court process. They file deficient particulars of claim and continue to do so despite sanctions imposed by judges.

Simon Renshaw Smith does not like losing. In the Excel v Cutts case where the judge ruled the signage at the Peel Centre was deficient, he described the court ruling as ".....an embarrassment to the judicial system" and he made some pretty rude remarks about the judge too, describing her as "not fit to serve the civil courts".

Simon has a similar unhealthy attitude to not paying his debts, and the Prankster is aware of a number of court judgments which Excel and/or VCS have not paid.

If you have a court judgment which Excel has not paid, please contact The Prankster so a list can be compiled.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧
↧

Skipton judge rubbishes Elliot v Loake

January 11, 2017, 9:09 am
$
0
0
BW Legal, Gladstones and other dodgy solicitors are fond of quoting Elliott v Loake as authority that the keeper of a car must be the driver.

Here is a pithy exchange that occurred in Skipton yesterday.

Parking company Rep asserts that Claimant relies on E v L as establishing that keeper was driver on Balance Of Probabilities.

Judge: “So, if I let someone drive my car, and they went to a petrol station and filled up, then drove off, or if they ran someone over, would I be liable?"

Rep: “No, because that would be different. That's criminal”.

Judge: “Well so is Elliot v Loake"

Prankster Note

Of course in 'real life' it is common for the driver of a car not to be the keeper. The Prankster has let many people drive his cars and in turn has driven plenty of other people's cars. Only in the warped minds of people like failed solicitor William Hurley would it be considered that the keeper was bound to be the driver.

Parliament considered this when it banned clamping, and for the protection of landowners brought in the Protection of freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4. Parliament enacted this specifically because there can be no assumption the keeper is the driver. If parking companies are not capable of a simple cut and paste job from the legislation then that is their failure and they cannot now go crying to the courts looking for backdoor keeper liability.

If someones lend you their pen and you sign a contract with it, are they liable for that contract? Of course not.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster










↧

Brian Hargreaves to claim back costs from Gladstones for incompetence. Another Spinningfields case

January 11, 2017, 12:06 pm
$
0
0
ES Parking Enforcement v Mr T 10/1/2017 C5GF6G9N 

This case concerns a motorist who stopped briefly in the Spinningfields Estate in Manchester to set his sat nav after leaving a car park. The motorist had his hazards on and was stopped for a few seconds on the road with no nearby signage stating this was not allowed.

ES Parking issued a ticket which Mr T considered not to be valid and so did not pay. Eventually ES Parking got Gladstones to take the matter further.

As usual Gladstones failed to file a claim which complied with practice directions and refused to answer any questions about the claim. Had they done a proper job, the following debacle may have been avoided. However, Helen Cook, a solicitor from Gladstones explained that they don't have enough time or charge enough money to be able to comply with practice directions.
We issue on a vast majority of claims, majority of which are not defended and therefore it is time consuming and not financially viable to send further particulars of claim. 
Also as usual Gladstones tried to ambush the defendant by attempting to file new particulars in their witness statement. The defendant got in touch with The Prankster who helped file a comprehensive skeleton argument which was served on Gladstones on Tuesday 3rd January.

On Friday 6th, Helen Cook got in touch with the defendant to say their client had take a commercial decision to attempt to settle. The Prankster informed Mr T that Gladstones only did this as a last resort when they are going to bail out of the case.

On Monday 9th, Mr T decided to offer to settle if Gladstones would pay his costs to date. However, Gladstones explained they meant they wanted him to pay money, not the other way round.

Mr T declined to pay anything. Gladstones then offered to drop the case if he did not claim costs.

Mr T explained he had already spent substantial time on the case and would therefore require his costs.

At 17:06 Gladstones notified Mr T the claim was discontinued.

The Hearing

The Prankster advised Mr T to turn up anyway as the claim was still listed according to the court.
He went to court, booked in and asked the usher if the case was still listed to which the usher confirmed it was. Mr T told him of the discontinuance notification and he looked very confused as the court had not received a copy.

He was told to take a seat. Whilst waiting he kept on hearing people booking in for hearings relating to ES Parking much to his amusement. He also heard the name Mr Hargreaves being called which he recognised from the claim as the owner of ES Parking. As it turns out he was sat directly opposite. He was constantly asking the booking in desk about numerous hearings he had that day.

Eventually after waiting for an hour the clerk approached asking if Mr Hargreaves could speak with him to which Mr T obliged. Mr Hargreaves explained that he had now properly filed the discontinuance and that Mr T was unlikely to get any costs awarded so could we shake hands and call it a day. Mr T told him what he thought of his operation and reminded him of the disruption this whole thing had caused and declined his offer. He also pointed out that because Gladstones had not filed with the court the discontinuance and also that because it was only filed with me at 17:06 the previous day there was no way of him being able to contact either the court or Gladstones for further directions and that he had no choice but to attend court resulting in losing a days wage.

Mr Hargreaves was then called in to his first hearing of the day.

Mr T was called in to see the judge alone 15 mins later and she questioned why he still wanted to see a judge. Mr T said it was to request costs. She said because he was not self employed he could not recover costs. Mr T informed her of the time when the discontinuance was sent to which she said she would have to see both him and Mr Hargreaves together. She also said he would need to provide something from his employer to state his days pay and confirm that they had incurred costs to fill his position.

After another 15 mins they were both called back in. The judge informed Mr Hargreaves of what had been discussed and that fortunately for him according to CPR 38.6(3) it states that on the small claims track the discontinuing party does not have to pay the other side's costs when discontinuing the claim.

However she then went on to inform him that due to the discontinuance being filed with the defendant at such a late time of day meant it was impossible for the defendant to contact the relevant parties to confirm he would not need to attend the court. She then asked Mr T if he had been able to obtain something from his employer to which he asked her permission to turn on his phone to retrieve an email from his employer.

The email confirmed his pay and the judge ordered that Mr Hargreaves paid Mr T's employer is day's pay.

After the hearing Mr Hargraves explained that he had ordered Gladstones to discontinue the claim a week ago and that he would be making them pay all the costs for their incompetence.

Prankster Note

The Prankster considers the  judge was wrong in stating she could not award costs to Mr T for having to take a day's holiday. PD 27.14(2) (e) states:
 a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;

Most likely the costs to his employer were awarded under the unreasonableness rule:

27.14(2)(g) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably

The Prankster notes that it seems like Mr Hargraves will go to court if the defendant has not done their homework and files a useless defence. However, if a strong defence is filed Mr Hargreaves will take the prudent option and discontinue.

To assist defendants, The Prankster will publish a defence based on Mr T's skeleton argument in the near future.

New Signage

Mr T also reported that new signage is now in place in Spinningfields.


Sadly for the person who forked out for these, it is still forbidding and so cannot form a contract.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
↧
Search

Gladstones discontinue Heath Parade case

January 11, 2017, 10:36 pm
$
0
0
Heath Parade is the notorious site where Ms Sunglasses lies in wait for any vehicle briefly stopping. Gladstones Solicitors then issue a vastly inflated claim to the vehicle keeper.


Gladstones have now issued a notice of discontinuance for one of these claims. In this case the driver pulled into the lay-by for 16 seconds for a person with a mobility problem to alight. That person briefly saw signage 9-10ft up the wall and told the driver to leave, which they did.


This seems to be a pragmatic view taken to reduce their costs when the British Motorists Protection Association gets involved. They are still actively issuing more claims for this site.

A sample defence for this site is on a previous blog entry.

Data Protection

The keeper appears to have a valid claim for a data protection breach, as there was no legitimate reason to request keeper details from the DVLA. A typical amount claimed would be £250.

Parking Cowboys has written about this here.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


↧

Planning permission 17A/0037 - Signage at John Lennon Airport

January 12, 2017, 11:01 am
$
0
0
Advertising permission has been applied for 4 'No Stopping' signs at John Lennon Airport.

In what seems to be an attempt to prolong the farce for as long as possible, the plans applied for do not match the signs just erected in December 2016.



To ensure as many motorists as possible miss seeing the signs, the Airport are planning on cutting the current 7 signs down to 4. To further increase motorists chances of missing the signage, they plan to hide the first sign behind giant Welcome signs.




Any parties who wish to comment on the signs have until 2/3/2017 and can do so on the Liverpool Planning Portal.

http://northgate.liverpool.gov.uk/PlanningExplorer17/ApplicationSearch.aspx

Application: 17A/0037


↧
↧

AS Parking and Gladstones scam exposed

January 13, 2017, 12:54 pm
$
0
0
AS Parking  v Ms W Claim xxxxx xx/12/2016 Worcester

A motorist has just won an 18 month case against what The Prankster would like to describe as unconscionable parasitic weasels, except that might be defamatory to weasels.

Just when you think AS Parking and Gladstones solicitors can sink no lower, this happens.

The motorist parked at Perranporth car park in August 2015. AS Parking has just taken over the car park, and the signs looked distinctly shoddy, being made up of sticky numbers and letters. The motorist checked the signage, such as it was, purchased a ticket and displayed it on their windscreen. They then took their kids to the bathroom and returned to the car to get items for the beach.

An attendant was there writing a charge notice

The motorist pointed out their ticket which although slightly under the dash was still fully visible. The motorist pointed out the ticket and asked the warden to stop, He refused and said they must go through the appeals process.

The motorist decided to fight this all the way, which turned out to be court in Worcester.

The judge to 10 minutes to decide there was no evidence that any contravention occurred, and dismissed the claim with costs against AS Parking.

Although this was due to be paid by the 30th Dec Gladstones forgot to post it and the cheque finally arrived on the 6th Jan.

Prankster Note

Bottom feeding parking companies like to pretend a ticket has not been displayed when it has, and so take specially angled photographs to try and fool the courts. If your car has been ticketed in this type of circumstance you should take photographs of your own to prove the ticket was visible.

You should then complaint to the regulatory body that the parking company is using predatory practices. The BPA is usually very good at investigating. However the IPC is likely to fob you off as The Prankster has never known Will Hurley or John Davies to investigate properly any complaint. You should therefore escalate this to the DVLA and query whether the IPC should retain ATA status as there is a clear conflict of interest with the same directors running Gladstones Solicitors, a known disreputable firm who file claims with no due diligence whatsoever.


↧

Gladstones fail. Unreadable evidence is not evidence

January 14, 2017, 9:09 am
$
0
0
Horizon Parking v Mr R. Portsmouth C5GF20X9 12/1/2017

Mr R parked at his residence as allowed according to his lease and was issued a parking charge by Horizon. Mr R disputed he should pay as he was a resident. Gladstones failed to do any due diligence and advised Horizon they should sue Mr R. They felt the case was a simple matter and wrote to the court stating that they would not be sending a representative and their side could be dealt with on the papers.


The Hearing

Horizon changed their mind and sent a solicitor from London. Mr R represented himself.

The judge politely explained how the hearing would work, and that the onus was on Gladstones to prove the case. He then turned straight to the Gladstones’ rep.

Judge: It says that the signs on display quite clearly read that the permit must be valid. But in this evidence, with the photos of these signs included, I can’t see that.

[cue faffing with Horizon’s evidence pack from rep]

Rep: Yes but sir it actually says it on this photo here, it says if ’no valid permit displayed’ then-

Judge: Well no it doesn’t, I’m looking at it here and I can’t see that. Where does it say that? 

Rep: [flipping round iPad] Sir I have a zoomed in image here that shows the writing clearly -

Judge: That’s not the evidence in front of me, is it? In this document, which has been submitted to the court and the defendant, it says no such thing. And so I’m dismissing this case.

Rep: [panicking] Sir before you dismiss, can I point out that in his defence here, Mr Reay himself admits that he knew he had to place a valid permit in the window but had failed to do so-

Judge: But nowhere in there does Mr Reay state ‘I knew I was liable for a £70 fine if I didn’t place the latest permit on display’, does he? And within Horizon’s evidence, I see nothing that sufficiently warned him that that should be the case . This case is dismissed. 

Prankster Notes

The only evidence the court should consider is the evidence properly submitted to the court and the other party.

If Gladstones try and ambush you on the day, then hopefully the judge will not allow it anyway. If not you should object on the grounds that Gladstones are a professional organisation (no sniggering in the back; try and keep a straight face when saying this to the judge) and should know and respect the proper court process. To give you time to examine the evidence the hearing should either be be adjourned with a wasted costs order against Gladstones, or the evidence should not be allowed. 

Happy Parking 

The Parking Prankster


No doubt Horizon will be regretting funding a solicitor to travel down to Portsmouth from London. Still, he had a nice day out, with plenty of time to enjoy the sights of the town.

Horizon Parking...you've been Gladstoned.


↧

Gladstones shambolic legal department file claims against both driver and keeper

January 14, 2017, 2:04 pm
$
0
0
Drivers are liable for parking charges they incur.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, sch 4 also makes the keeper liable if all applicable conditions are fulfilled. Once of these conditions is that the parking company do not know the name and address of the driver. If they do, then the keeper is not liable.

Some of the more incompetent parking companies try and pretend that the keeper has only 28 days to divulge the driver name. This is not correct. The Act states that if the parking company know of the keeper name and address (by whatever means) any time before proceedings begin then the keeper is no longer liable.

5 (1) The first condition is that the creditor—
(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b) is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.
Therefore, if the keeper gets a letter before claim stating that proceedings will begin in 14 days if no action is taken, this is probably the keeper's last chance to discharge their responsibility by naming the driver.

This happened in the case of Pace Security v Mr K. Gladstones sent a letter before claim to Mr K on 14 September 2016. Mr K responded to that letter on 15 September, naming GV as driver and giving their address. Mr K was from the point the letter was received no longer liable.

GV received a letter before claim on 28 September, proving that Gladstones had received and fully understood the response.

Surprisingly (or perhaps not, for those readers familiar with Gladstones) Mr K also received a claim form. He filed a defence stating he had provided the driver name and address and was therefore not liable.

The case then dragged on until January 2017, at which point Gladstones finally gave up.




Prankster Notes

Gladstones continue to find new and creative ways to demonstrate their legal incompetence. Amazingly, the same people who run Gladstones are allowed to run the IAS and the "Independent" Appeals Service.

It really does make a mockery of the whole "Alternative Dispute Resolution" process that such a bunch of inept bunglers are allowed to be in charge of an appeals system.

Mr K should consider whether he has a valid data protection claim against Pace Security, who have apparently used his name and address in an unlawful way. The going rate seems to be between £250 and £750.

The case against GV drags on.

It is interesting to note that a number of parking companies who used to use Gladstones in the past, no longer appear to be issuing claims.

Given Mr Charman's history of losing court claims The Prankster wonders how long he will stick with Gladstones.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster




↧
Viewing all 1127 articles
Browse latest View live
Search