Saturday, 9 September 2017

ParkingEye witness "tantamount to perjury"

ParkingEye v Mr X. Crewe. 8/9/2017. DJ Rogers

Mr Price appeared as a Lay Representative for a case at Crewe County Court. The claim involved a stay of 1 hour 8mins at Ibis Styles hotel car park where no ticket was purchased.

Court Report

LPC Law representative Ms Sharma attended for ParkingEye. She had a chat before the case; she was very pleasant and explained the court process, then went on the quote Beavis and how it was binding on lower courts. She didn't like it when I simply said "only in certain circumstances..." and went on to query if she was the same Sharma as in case law that I had brought with me.

The clam was heard by DJ Rogers who outlined the case and asked if we were OK with the ParkingEye witness, a case handler, not being there. I Informed the court that we had sent an email 8 days ago to ParkingEye and the court saying that we were not happy with the witness statement as it contained 'facts' that we disputed and we had requested her attendance.

There was a short adjournment while advice was sought. ParkingEye's position was that it taked them 10 days to reply to emails so it would have been unreasonable to expect a reply before today. The DJ said the failure of PE to deal with their emails for 10 days was not his concern; it was a failing in their systems but he would allow the case to go ahead and put what weight he felt was deserved on the statement in the absence of the witness.

The case was then presented for PE. It was scrutinised at each step by the DJ who was not letting anything pass unless it was evidenced.

"Are you happy that a contract exists for PE to enforce parking on this site" - "No Sir."
"Are you happy that a contract existed on the day of this parking allegation for this site?" - "No Sir."

The evidence submitted by the claims handler included a site plan showing 18 signs, with one of them prominently to the left of the site entrance.

"So you are relying on this plan as submitted?" - "Yes Sir."

Evidence then was then examined of the "clearly displayed entrance sign".

"So you are relying on this photo of evidence of the defendant having clear notice that he was entering a paid for parking site?" - "Yes Sir."

DJ Rogers (having, unlike PE and the LPC Law representative read our submissions) "So can you explain why the plan shows the entrance sign to the left of the entrance, whereas your own photo shows the sign to the right of the entrance where it would have been obscured?"

LPC "It is a minor oversight."

DJ "No it isn't, you see the witness goes on to state that the signs as indicated on the plan were present on the day of the parking event. That is tantamount to perjury, she has ample access to all of ParkingEye's records and in the course of her employment she has tendered a document to the court which contains evidence that cannot be true. I therefore cannot rely on her evidence and I am dismissing her statement and therefore every document that she produces in that statement. That leaves you with the outline of facts on your court claim which is so brief and without supporting evidence that you cannot sustain a case, so it is dismissed."

We had no wages to claim as the defendant was not at work this day, but did point out that he had incurred parking costs of £2.10p. "Do you wish to recover that cost?" Well what do you think? The chance could not be missed could it?

The LPC Representative said outside that we were lucky as it was a technicality and she had no problems with how ParkingEye had dealt with the case. I pointed out that she might not have a problem, but the Judge obviously had, and it was a shame that we had not even got to the defence case where we had several points to put forward, any of which could have won in their own right.

If anyone else is fighting a case on this car park I will happily share the results of my research to assist them.

Prankster Notes 

The Prankster has seen many appalling witness statements from the likes of ParkingEye, Gladstones, Excel and BW Legal - basically all of the regular court attendees. He has seen signage that could not have been present, fake Notices to Keeper that were not in force on the date of the incident, and dubious statements from parking attendants. In the Prankster's opinion, there have been misleading statements, misleading calculations and regular attempts to mislead the court with incomplete information. ParkingEye are one of the worst culprits.

The only time these "witnesses" ever turn up are in major cases such as the Beavis case. It is worth noting that in that case the statements were eventually substantially altered from the rubbish that was trotted out before it was apparent the case was going to be important.

Parking companies and their lawyers simply do not care about the truth and are content with regularly supplying false information to the courts, happy that they will not produce a witness to defend their porkie pies, and that nothing bad will therefore happen to them.

The Prankster thinks this should stop,, and that a witness should be produced for every claim if the defendant so desires, so they can be challenged on their statement. If the parking company does not want their witness to be examined, they can withdraw the case.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Wednesday, 30 August 2017

CP Plus lose data protection claim

Dr Bird v CP Plus. C6QZ6Y27. 30/08/2017. Guildford County Court in front of DJ Bell

Dr Bird received an unsolicited invoice from CP Plus for a parking event at Clacket Lane Services which did not occur. The make, model and colour of the car in the Notice to Keeper were not the same as Dr Bird's car.

CP Plus had therefore failed to check the details after receiving keeper and vehicle information from the DVLA. This was therefore a breach of their KADOE contract with the DVLA. The DVLA agreed with Dr Bird that no parking charge should therefore have been issued. Dr Bird also investigated Clacket lane and found an entrance apparently not covered by ANPR cameras, which means that no parking charge for that site can be considered valid, as it would be possible to leave and return without being logged.

Dr Bird therefore made a claim against CP Plus for breaking the Data Protection Act 1988. He asked for £750 for distress.

CP Plus failed to respond to his letter before action, but did file a defence.

The claim reached the mediation stage in December 2016 with CP Plus denying that they are liable for their errors.  It is interesting to note they make their money from drivers making "a human error" but deny all liability when the error is on their part.

On Tuesday 22 August 2017 Russell Corin rang Dr Bird claiming to be from CP Plus and asking for his email address as they wished to use a solicitor to reach a settlement agreement.  Dr Bird received the email at 11:00pm on Thursday 24 August from Derek Millard-Smith of JMW Solicitors. JMW are the solicitors recommended by the British Parking Association to their members.

Dr Bird decided to reject the offer, and instead proposed a counter-offer. Derek Millard-Smith rejected that and proposed another offer, which was again rejected.

Derek is the self-acclaimed leading lawyer in the UK Parking Sector and also claims to be able to save client's reputation and to maximise damage limitation. However, it seems he was unable to work his magic this time around.

The main bone of contention was that Derek Millard-Smith wanted a gagging clause so that Dr Bird could not make the result public. Although he offered more money that was actually claimed, Dr Bird felt he would rather make the result public than be gagged.

On the 29 August Dr Bird received an email from Russell (who actually works for Ranger Services) stating that they had paid £810 into his account and apologising for not being able to attend court the next day.

The Hearing

Dr Bird attended court anyway due to the lateness of the payment. He asked for costs for unreasonableness on this basis.

DJ Bell's approach was that the case had been settled as they had paid the amount claimed and the defendant did not attend the hearing.

He refused costs on the grounds that their behaviour was not unreasonable even though their late settlement did cause considerable inconvenience to both the court and Dr Bird.

Prankster Notes

Dr Bird was unlucky not to get costs for unreasonableness. Only last week Nicholas Bowen QC was awarded £1550 costs when ParkingEye failed to turn up to pursue their claim against him.

Practice direction 27.9 stated that parties must give 7 days written notice if they are not going to attend. However, parties are also encouraged to settle claims right up to the courtroom door and so the judge had to balance the two conflicting requirements.

CP Plus have previously claimed that no DPA claim has ever been successful against them. This is obviously no longer the case, and they have now lost a claim for £750 plus costs.

Gagging clauses are common in DPA related parking cases as the parking companies do not want the public to know they have paid up to settle a claim.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Monday, 28 August 2017

Judge disposes of Civil Enforcement Limited set-aside and hearing

D6GM0372 Civil Enforcement Ltd v Mr B. Reading. 23-08-2017

Mr B found he had a judgment against his name for a parking charge from Civil Enforcement Ltd. The court papers were sent to the wrong address, which is why Mr B did not know about the claim.
He therefore applied to have the judgment set aside.

Defendant's court report

I just wanted to let you know, yesterday I attended court and the following happened:

Judgement against me was set aside.
The claim against me was dismissed
I was awarded my costs (£255) which must be re-paid in 14 days

The judge commended me on my witness statement, saying it was clear and concise and allowed him to make a quick judgement.

Firstly, he quickly agreed to set aside the judgement, because it was clearly served to an incorrect address. This took him less than 10 seconds.

Secondly, he agreed that the claimant (CEL) had not established or submitted evidence that proved it could bring this claim against me. I was smiling at this point, as I realised he was about to also dismiss the claim against me. He then asked if there was anything else I'd like to add. I asked for my costs to be reimbursed (£255 set aside fee), which he agreed with and said CEL must pay me in 14 days.

The case lasted perhaps five minutes, maybe less. The judge spent more time complimenting me on my witness statement and telling me I should change career and become a solicitor than the case itself. I told him I was very happy with my career choice and after telling him what I do, he laughed and agreed.

Thanks for all of your excellent advice. I appreciate the help.

Prankster Notes

It is rare that a judge will both order a set-aside, then hold the hearing immediately; however, as this case shows, it is not impossible. if the claim has no hope of succeeding, it is good management of court time to dispose of it immediately.

Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) specialise in filing bogus inflated claims using template paperwork. A typical parking charge of £100 will have inflated to over £300 on the claim. Even if the parking charge is valid, the extras will typically not be.

We will never know if this particular charge was valid. To save money, CEL typically send out a template claim which has no details of the actual parking event. Their business model relies on the victim being scared of court and immediately paying up. When the claim is robustly defended, CEL usually don't bother to turn up.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Wednesday, 23 August 2017

Excel Parking Services v Drain Trace Ltd

Excel Parking Services v Drain Trace Ltd

Keeper report

After numerous threatening letters from BW legal wanting payment for a private parking charge dating back 2.5 years I finally had my day in court!

I run a drainage company and one of my engineers got a parking charge whilst working for Direct Sports and Fitness at Cavendish retail park in Keighley; he didn’t buy a ticket while working on site. We received the notice a week later and I appealed sending the job cards and invoices stating we were working on site. Excel Parking chose to ignore this even though my vans have a distinctive logo.

After numerous emails and telephone calls to both Excel and BW Legal they finally took my company to court. I gathered all the information, emails, photographs, etc and arrived at court. A young solicitor working on behalf of BW Legal introduced herself and asked for a consultation, I agreed. She then went on to mention that it was an open and shut case that my engineer hadn’t purchased a ticket and as such had broken the agreement. She then went on to say I should settle. She produced a letter for a £10 settlement that was sent to me. That was her first mistake as that was for a previous charge on a different date but on the same site. I mentioned that I would settle for £10 as a goodwill gesture. She phoned B W Legal who declined my offer; they wanted the full court costs of £269.00 plus a further £400 for the solicitor. I refused and said I will let the judge decide.

We Went in to court, sat down and the judge introduced himself; then the solicitor went to work stating I had broken the agreement by not obtaining a ticket. I mentioned that we were working on site and the signage doesn’t instruct contractors to sign in at site or give a number to contact the parking company.

The judge was gobsmacked that they expected a company working on site to purchase a ticket. He asked the solicitor“If I was to have a heart attack whilst at the gym are you telling me that the ambulance would need to purchase a ticket before they attended to me?” The solicitor had no answer; she had to say yes. She did say there was an exemption list but she couldn’t produce one.

The judge dismissed the case and said that common sense should prevail and that he was sick and tired of presiding over parking cases.

My advice is fight to the end. The judge has common sense; get all relevant information to back your story up and don’t worry about CCJs. If you don’t win just pay the cost within 28 days and its wiped off. During the process B W Legal tried to bully me with CCJs  trying to frighten me saying my credit score would go down; well that’s just bully attacks.

I would like to get the full transcript on my case. I'm making notes so that when I go to court again for the numerous parking tickets my engineers have acquired I will just say I revert back to Excel parking vs Drain Trace Ltd and give the judge the transcript.

Prankster Notes


The judgment which arrives in the post will normally just say that the claim has been dismissed.

Parties at a small claim hearing are not allowed to record it themselves, but can get a transcript by paying a fee.

5.1  A hearing that takes place at the court will be tape recorded by the court. A party may obtain a transcript of such a recording on payment of the proper transcriber's charges.

To get a transcript of your hearing, fill in form EX107, choose a transcribing firm, and send them the form. On payment of the fee, you will get your transcript. A short judgment will normally cost £20 - £50. The whole hearing will cost more.

The judgment needs to be signed off by the judge, so may take a few weeks to arrive.


Disreputable firms like BW Legal often use underhand bullying tactics. Their letters are written to deceive the victim into thinking a CCJ is inevitable once the court process commences, and that this will inevitably damage the recipients credit.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You can only get a CCJ if you go to court, lose, and then fail to pay withing the stipulated timeframe (usually 14 days).

The real truth is that BW Legal would do anything rather than get to an actual hearing. As the above account shows, they are willing to go to a hearing on shaky grounds, and if it gets that far they are going to effectively lose whatever the result, since they will be paying £400 to a solicitor to recover a £100 parking fee. Solicitors fees are not normally reclaimable in the small claims track, so they will be at least £300 down, regardless of the result.

The negotiation attempt is laughable, and nobody in their right minds would settle for £400 more that the claim on the morning of the hearing. BW Legal were clearly trying it on in the hope that the defendant did not know that in the small claims court solicitors costs are not normally allowable.

It is likely that even had BW Legal won then the full claim of £269 would not have been awarded. A more likely scenario would have been an award of £100 parking charge, £50 solicitor filing fee, £25 court filing fee and £25 court hearing fee, totalling £200.


Prevention is better than cure. If you own a business with similar problems then before agreeing a job it might be better as part of the negotiations to:

1) Get a letter authorising you to park on site for free for the duration of the contract
2) Put in your standard terms and conditions that you expect on-site parking to be free and that if not any costs will be chargeable to the client.

While oral contracts are valid, it does make life easier if everything is down on paper. If you have pre-authorised permission to park then you have strong evidence of primacy of contract. Any signage you encounter later cannot unilaterally override the already agreed terms.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Monday, 24 July 2017

Parking Awareness Services to pay £400 for DPA breach against motorist. DVLA confirm data cannot be passed to MIL Collections

Mr S v PAS. D2QZ229J. Barnsley. 24/07/2017


On 26th August Mr S had to attend court in Barnsley to defend against a claim from MIL collections.

MIL had claimed to have purchased an unpaid parking charge from Parking Awareness Services, issued for not parking fully within a marked bay.

Mr Alan Davis's witness statement was deemed inadmissible by the judge for non attendance, and the claim was dismissed.

Following the hearing, it emerged that PAS had no right to sell any parking charges to MIL Collections, because this was against the terms of their KADOE contract with the DVLA. The DVLA confirmed this in a letter to Mr S.

Dear Mr S.
I am writing in regards to your letter regarding PAS and MIL Collections .
i apologise for the delay in responding but DVLA have been considering the matter and the relevant course of action to take.
 Firstly, I can confirm that PAS did receive the keeper's details from DVLA and did not seek permission to provide this to a third party who were not acting as a sub contractor.
Having investigated the matter, DVLA has concluded that vehicle keeper data HAS been transferred to a third party that DOES NOT CONFORM to DVLA'S interpretation of a sub contractor as referred to in the KADOE contract. It has been identified that the company concerned has not breached this intentionally but instead believed their processes were in  compliance with the KADOE contract. As such , DVLA will not be taking any formal action at this time.
 DVLA has made the company aware of this issue and requested that they notify MIL Collections not to continue to process any information obtained from DVLA. MIL Collections have also been made aware of this.
I should mention that DVLA has no control over any data shared that has not been obtained from the Agency i.e if the motorist has provided their own details/driver details. .
I hope this explains the Agency's position. 
Yours Sincerely,
David Dunford.
Data compliance manager.

Mr S. therefore wrote a letter before claim to PAS, explaining they had breached the Data Protections Act (DPA). When they did not respond, he issued a claim for £250.

PAS engaged JMW solicitors, who are the British Parking Association recommended solicitors, to help defend the claim.

Preliminary hearing

A preliminary hearing was held on 1 June. Mr Wild of PAS represented the company. Mr S represented himself.  When he was shown the letter from the DVLA investigation clearly stating the data breach, the Judge stated "this is a very relevant piece of evidence ".

The hearing 

Mr S turned up at court but Mr Wild from PAS did not. At 2.30 pm prompt he went in the court where the judge explained he was willing to be persuaded by PAS that they hadn't breached if they could show two separate systems for data processing.

As they didn't turn up it was reasonable to assume they did not have these two systems and in all probability had breached the DPA and so the judge upheld the claim awarding £250 plus costs of £50 for court and filing fees and £100 in other costs.

The judge also pointed out that he could have claimed interest on the damages but as this was not claimed it could not be awarded.

Prankster Notes

It is not clear why PAS needed 'two separate systems' for data processing, as the claim was that PAS broke the DPA by passing keeper data to MIL Collections.

It may be that this issue would have been explored more fully has PAS turned up. However, as Mr S was awarded the claim, there was no need for him to press the matter.

There have now been three cases on record where motorists have won DPA hearings against parking companies for various reasons. In none of the cases has the parking company as yet turned up to defend themselves. There have been a number of other cases which have been settled out of court.

A large number of parking companies have sold data to MIL Collections, and they therefore could be open to similar data protections claims.

The DVLA are data controllers. It is not know what steps the DVLA have take now or in the past to prevent personal data being misused in this manner.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Sunday, 23 July 2017

Judge fed up with Gladstones behaviour

PPM v Keeper. C7GF75EN. Wakefield. 20/07/2017

The claim was for 2 PCNs at Travelodge, Hounslow.

The hearing (keeper report)

The judge dismissed the claim. She said that she was sick of telling Gladstones the same things.

Their witness statement was not good enough.
The proof of signage was no good.
They they had not made it clear whether it was the driver or the keeper they were claiming from.
They had no right to claim for additional monies other than the £100 per ticket that they had originally specified.

She insinuated that their business model seemed to to scare people into paying up before the case went to court and claiming additional money that they knew they would not have any right to in a court.

My witness statement was never even mentioned and I never had to open my mouth in court other than to say "Thank you ma'am".

Prankster Note

This judge seems to have hit the nail on the head.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Tuesday, 18 July 2017

John Wilkie smeared during costs hearing in Indigo case

The Indigo matters continue - Who is Kristina Kealy, allegedly the General Manager of ZZPS

One of the witnesses produced, almost magically, at the UHW Cardiff case last week was a Kristina Kealy, apparently of ZZPS and working at may Court Links Business Centre, Old Woking road, Woking, Surrey, GU22 8BF.

On both the Claimant's and the Defendants' schedule, Ms (Oops, I should say Mrs) Kealy was listed as being called on Thursday, and as a result, at the start of the proceedings on Wednesday she wasn't present.

The defendants only found out that Kristina Kealy was a witness on 13 June 2017, and immediately scurried away to check her, and the other five witnesses Bona Fides. After all, readers of this blog will be fully aware of "Matt Murdoch/k" the blind superhero lawyer apparently working for MIL
Collections. However, as always, investigations were started on that basis that the witness is being honest.

What was discovered throws up more questions than answers. There are :-

* No publicly available Electoral Roll records for Mrs Kealy within 200 miles of Woking, or indeed within the United Kingdom.

* No publicly available Birth certificate for a person named Kristina Kealy within the last 65 years

* No publicly available Marriage Certificate in the UK between a Mr and Mrs Kealy, with the Bride's name being Kristina.

* No Linked-In information about Mrs Kealy at ZZPS, or indeed at any company in the UK

* No Facebook account in the name of Kristina Kealy in the UK

* No Credit Records for a Kristina Kealy in the UK

And for the record, both the spelling Kealy and Kealey were checked. The nearest Kristina Kealy found was a teacher in Kew York City.

Having got to the stage of ascertaining that, on the balance of probabilities, Mrs Kealy did not exist, work continued to investigate the company for whom she claims to work. Again, this investigation started on the basis that ZZPS Ltd are who they say they are, and background checks on the company were undertaken.

On 11 July, John Wilkie called ZZPS’s published phone number, and asked to speak to Kristina Kealy. He identified himself, and was told that there is no one working for ZZPS named Kealy. He asked as well, where at May Court he should deliver a legal document, such that it would be
served. He was told that he cannot serve a document at May Court and would have to deliver it to ZZPS’s registered office. This is in direct contradiction to a letter sent by ZZPS to Private Parking Appeals earlier this year, where they stated that correspondence needs to be sent to
their address in May Court.

However, prior to this call a visit had been paid to May Court. ZZPS is not listed as being based there; May Court apparently has two suites, and two businesses, Frobisher Capital and i-Corporate Risk Consultants. ZZPS is not located there, and indeed, with 16 staff as claimed by Mrs Kealy
in her cross-examination, there would not be enough space for the three companies in the two suites available at that site.

Contact was made with both Frobisher and I-Corporate. Neither firm has any association with ZZPS – no shared directors, they don’t handle mail. ZZPS appears, on the balance of probabilities, not to be based at May Court.

Another point as well – May Court is in Woking, which has an 01483 dialling area. Yet ZZPS has an 01932 telephone number – that’s for Weybridge, some 8 miles away. Long lines are not impossible, but have not been sold by BT since February 2008. With ZZPS only being formed in 2011
as Gary Osner’s Parachute for Roxburghe, and only starting trading in 2015, it is not feasible that this is what has occurred here.

Roxburghe, of course, was closed down when it lost its FCA consumer Credit Licence – one has to ask why ZZPS only pursues unregulated consumer debt, on the very edge of legality, though that is a question for another day and another place.

So, it appears that both Kristina Kealy and ZZPS have lied to the court about some material particulars  - the identity of a witness goes to their basic credibility.

There is worse. It has been widely reported that counsel in the hearing stated, and here I will quote Barry Beavis that "on the lunch break on day one JW and ZZPS witness, Kristina Kealy, were alone in the court room. JW is alleged to have said something about driving to their offices and
slashing all their tyres."

Now this is an interesting allegation. Its interesting for several reasons, the first being that John Wilkie is a well known and almost universally respected advocate. His company, Private Parking Appeals, is itself a BPA member, and Mr Wilkie also has good relationships with people like Mark Anfield and David Greenbank of Parking Eye, Mike Perkins of Combined Parking Solutions, James De Savery of Napier Parking, Derek Millard-Smith of JMW Solicitors, Paul Bohill of DCBL and of course Steve Clark and Andrew Pester of the BPA itself.

Additionally Mr Wilkie has now done a few parking cases - over 36 in total, and no-one has ever suggested that his conduct has been anything other than exemplary, indeed he has been allowed leave on more than one occasion to represent at appeal level and is regularly complimented about
the standard of his submissions and behaviour as a lay person. One District Judge remarked that he conducted himself “no less than I would have expected from Senior counsel”. Additionally, Counsel for Indigo made no objection to John Wilkie continuing to represent after judgment, nor, at the appeal did he object to Mr Wilkie making submissions; he indicated that even if the matter went to multi-track, he would not object to the Defendants being assisted by Mr Wilkie.

Now we come to the most interesting part of this reported allegation. The court heard from its first witness, John Hawkey of Indigo, up to about 12:20 on the Wednesday, and he was the only witness present. The next witness, Christopher Singleton, also of Indigo, was expected at around
1pm, but was not available to call at that stage. The District Judge asked the Claimant to see if any other witnesses could be made available after lunch. Kristina Kealy, at this point, was not present. The judge then adjourned for lunch, and asked the parties to return for 1:30.

When the court resumed at 1:30, Christopher Singleton had arrived and Peter Cockburn from the Hospital has also been produced. However, surprisingly, Kristina Kealy had arrived as well.,+Links+Business+Centre,+Old

Woking is 2 hours 30 minutes by car from Cardiff. It’s over 3 hours by train. Even a Private Flight from the nearest airport to Cardiff would take longer than an hour, when you take into account leaving for Chobham or Farnborough Airport, the flight itself, and arriving at Cardiff
Airport, yet Kealy was here, fresh, composed, unstressed…

So one has to ask two questions - if she had come from Woking, as claimed, how had she managed to travel "faster than a speeding bullet" and make the 136 mile journey in less than 60 minutes. That's an average speed of double the motorway speed limit. And yes, it is known that she drove, as
she told Sue Prior of the TEPAG group that she managed to get a bus lane ticket (karma is a bitch).

And, if she was apparently verbally assaulted by John Wilkie at that point, as claimed, why was Mr Wilkie not removed from the proceedings there and then, why was he allowed to cross examine this apparently by now scared and vulnerable witness?

The answer, of course is simple. Kristina Kealy was never threatened by John Wilkie as claimed, and did not come from Woking, but was produced conveniently in Cardiff.  Indeed, David Jones of United Wales Media was also unable to contact Mrs Kealy via ZZPS either - how curious.

Indigo were betting the far on this claim, and it was worth their while to risk producing a witness who they know is untraceable, as the Defendants had no way of contesting this. When they tried the Judge shut them down, and then a scurrilous and entirely false allegation was made as a personal attack against John Wilkie.

Who behaved unreasonably here, I wonder?

Prankster Note

The attempted smearing of John Wilkie appears to be a calculated and premeditated attempt to 'justify' the Wright Hassall legal fees of around £50k. Wright Hassall started the maneuvering by trying to move the claim from the small claims court, where there are no legal fees, to the multi-track, where there are. This appears to be the next strategy  -attacking the lay representative of the defence to attempt to get fees granted under 27.14(2)g 'unreasonableness' rule.

The Prankster does not have a transcript of the judgment so does not know how much of the costs awarded are due to the alleged behaviour of John Wilkie, and how much are due to other matters.

So far no independent evidence has emerged to support the claims of this apparent non-person, who does not appear to work at the contact address given on her witness statement.

It is interesting that while counsel for Indigo was allowed to introduce unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Wilkie, Mr Wilkie himself was allowed no right of reply, and was given the choice of either shutting up, or leaving the courtroom. Mr Wilkie chose to leave.

This is not the only controversial event in a large parking case. Who can forget the hearing of ParkingEye v Beavis, when their counsel was not available. A mysterious hoax phone call caused the first hearing to be cancelled, and in the next hearing their counsel was free to attend.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster