UKPC v Mr McCarthy 15/12/2016 Luton
Mr McCarthy's vehicle was often to be found parked in common residential areas. This behaviour was allowable under his lease agreement. UKPC attempted to unilaterally impose new terms and conditions which Mr McCarthy ignored, resulting in the issue of a number of parking charges.
UKPC filed a claim for £840. Mr McCarthy filed a counter-claim for £1,000 for harassment.
The Hearing
The claim was partially dismissed and the counterclaim partially allowed. The judge awarded amounts which cancelled each other out.
Prankster Note
A score draw.
The Prankster suspects that if McCarthy had used different arguments it would have been a clear home win, and UKPC would have been sent packing. So next time, use 4-3-3, not 3-3-4.
An analysis of the legal issues around residential parking is here.
It is clear that parking companies have no idea of the laws which govern their own industry. This sad state of affairs has been compounded by unscrupulous shysters of the likes of Will Hurley and John Davies who cruelly convince parking companies they have a valid case, while actually the reverse is true. Instead of guiding the companies to be within the law, they actively encourage sharp practices and the issuing of tickets in situations where they cannot, in the Prankster's opinion, possibly be valid.
The case of ParkingEye v Beavis revealed that something like 80% of tickets are not valid. While not all of these will give rise to an enforceable claim against the parking company, it is likely that a good percentage will.
A total of 16 million keeper enquiries were made in 2015 and 9 million in the first half of 2016. Extrapolating these figures would mean that something like 29 million parking charges have been improperly issued over the last 2 years. If each driver managed to get £250 per ticket, this would mean that parking companies are in the hole for around £7 billion.
Claims can go back up to 6 years, which would mean the actual liability is substantially more.
Given that driverless cars may substantially alter the way we park over the coming years, The Prankster thinks that anyone investing in a parking company right now may be throwing their money away.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Mr McCarthy's vehicle was often to be found parked in common residential areas. This behaviour was allowable under his lease agreement. UKPC attempted to unilaterally impose new terms and conditions which Mr McCarthy ignored, resulting in the issue of a number of parking charges.
UKPC filed a claim for £840. Mr McCarthy filed a counter-claim for £1,000 for harassment.
The Hearing
The claim was partially dismissed and the counterclaim partially allowed. The judge awarded amounts which cancelled each other out.
Prankster Note
A score draw.
The Prankster suspects that if McCarthy had used different arguments it would have been a clear home win, and UKPC would have been sent packing. So next time, use 4-3-3, not 3-3-4.
An analysis of the legal issues around residential parking is here.
It is clear that parking companies have no idea of the laws which govern their own industry. This sad state of affairs has been compounded by unscrupulous shysters of the likes of Will Hurley and John Davies who cruelly convince parking companies they have a valid case, while actually the reverse is true. Instead of guiding the companies to be within the law, they actively encourage sharp practices and the issuing of tickets in situations where they cannot, in the Prankster's opinion, possibly be valid.
The case of ParkingEye v Beavis revealed that something like 80% of tickets are not valid. While not all of these will give rise to an enforceable claim against the parking company, it is likely that a good percentage will.
A total of 16 million keeper enquiries were made in 2015 and 9 million in the first half of 2016. Extrapolating these figures would mean that something like 29 million parking charges have been improperly issued over the last 2 years. If each driver managed to get £250 per ticket, this would mean that parking companies are in the hole for around £7 billion.
Claims can go back up to 6 years, which would mean the actual liability is substantially more.
Given that driverless cars may substantially alter the way we park over the coming years, The Prankster thinks that anyone investing in a parking company right now may be throwing their money away.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster