Wednesday, 26 October 2016

ES Parking Enforcement at Spinningfield - you've been Gladstoned

Court report from MSE

I was in Court this week against ES Parking Enforcement for one of their 'no stopping' nonsense charges in the Spinningfields area in Manchester.

The judge had a good laugh at them in the end and their claim was dismissed after a lengthy 2 hour hearing.

Prankster Note

Please email me more details if you were involved in this; I have some ongoing cases at this site.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

District Enforcement - you've been Gladstoned

C8GF33C8 District Enforcement v Mr X. Portsmouth

Incompetent rogues Gladstones Solicitors have had yet another claim chucked out, this time without even making it to a hearing.

In order to save money Gladstones do not bother to do any meaningful due diligence and just file an incomprehensible load of rubbish as the particulars of claim. Judges are wising up to this, and striking out claims.

In this particular case the judge was slightly more lenient and gave Gladstones until 3rd August to file a comprehensible claim. Gladstones could not be bothered with this deadline, and instead filed on the 5th August.

Mr X asked the court to strike out the claim as Gladstones had not complied with directions, and in any case the particulars of claim contained false information, by containing a sign which was not present at the car park.

The court struck out the claim on the 17th September, and Mr X got the good news on the 21st.

Prankster Note

The Prankster has seen the signs on site and confirms that Gladstones were trying to file false information with the court. The Prankster considers this unacceptable behaviour and that if they cannot be bothered to be truthful, they should not be in this business.

With the number of cases being struck out by judges, the Prankster consider that this confirms that Will Hurley and John Davies are confirmed as rogues and charlatans of the highest order by claiming to offer a reputable service to parking operators while clearly doing nothing of the sort.

To recap, here are the mandatory Solicitor Regulatory Association principles which apply to all solicitors.

You must:
1. uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice;
2. act with integrity;
3. not allow your independence to be compromised;
4. act in the best interests of each client;
5. provide a proper standard of service to your clients;
6. behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services;
7. comply with your legal and regulatory obligations and deal with your regulators and ombudsmen in an open, timely and co-operative manner;
8. run your business or carry out your role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles;
9. run your business or carry out your role in the business in a way that encourages equality of opportunity and respect for diversity; and
10. protect client money and assets.

As Gladstones clearly fail in the first five principles, The Prankster wonders why parking operators have not yet filed any complaints. Perhaps it is because they are worried that if they do, Will Hurley and John Davies will kick them out of the IPC.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Sunday, 23 October 2016

Picture of the week - fishy letter from UKPC

The parking 'professionals' appear to be confusing themselves with Council wardens, as they think they are allowed to issue 'Penalty Notices' on 'Carp Parks'

[Update - it appears this is a fake and some enterprising person is sending these out without UKPC's permission. So this is a Red Herring]

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

PCM-UK - you've been Gladstoned...twice for the same car park

Pepipoo reported another two court cases have been lost by incompetent charlatans, Gladstones Solicitors.

The cases concerned a Sainsburys car park in Morden which has some adjacent spaces not part of the car park. The signage is poor and does not clearly explain which spaces are part of the car park and which are not. As a result shoppers think they are parking at Sainsburys, but are not.

Your Local Guardian has run a report on the car park, noting the confusion.

The first case was held on October 10th. The judge dismissed the claim, noting the inadequate signage, and awarded £108 in costs.

The second case was held on October 18th. In this hearing, the court had not received a copy of the PCM-UK witness statement. PCM-UK sent a local solicitor to defend them and the judge allowed the copy of the solicitors witness statement from Gladstones. He ruled that even he would have parked there with the signage confusion, and dismissed the claim, awarding costs to the defendant.

He also went on to say that there was so much information in the PCM signs and it wasn't clear enough. He instructed the solicitor to go back to his clients to actually say this site was completely mis-leading.

Prankster Note

The Prankster considers that there is a clear conflict of interest here. The IPC validates all signage, so Will Hurley and John Davies, (or their employees) will have signed off this signage as sufficient, despite the clear confusion caused. Will Hurley and John Davies, wearing their other hats as Gladstone Solicitors, will have advised PCM-UK they had a case, and will have gleefully taken their money and filed claims.

However, right-minded clear thinkers will of course realise, as the judges did, that the signage is defective.

Having lost the first case Gladstones would have had a duty of care to explain to their client the fast-receding chance of winning the second case.

Sadly this is a repeating pattern and Will Hurley and John Davies repeatedly condone signage which is not fit for purpose and which is designed not to provide a fair parking system, but to maximise parking revenue by allowing as many parking charges to be issued as possible.

This attitude does not fit well with an Associated Trade Association allowed access to keeper data. The Prankster calls on the government to either removed ATA access from the IPC, or to take away the ability from the IPC to regulate signage, since they are clearly either not competent or institutionally biased.

Motorists who were confused by the signage but were bullied into paying PCM-UK have up to 6 years to file a claim against PCM-UK for their monies back.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Wednesday, 19 October 2016

Link Parking - you've been Gladstoned. Frustration of contract

Port Talbot: 19-10-2016: C8GF30W7: Link Parking v Mr H

There was no time to hear this claim, which was adjourned. Link Parking will have paid their representative Mr Singh an estimated £200 to turn up and twiddle his thumbs.

Port Talbot: 19-10-2016: C1GF37H7: Link Parking v Mr N

Mr N represented himself. Link Parking sent a second representative for this case. In a hearing which lasted around 30 minutes, Mr N explained that he attempted to pay but the machines were not working. Gladstones argued he should therefore have left the car park.

The judge was also critical that Gladstones only supplied the court with Link Parking's witness statement and not Mr N.  In any case, the witness statement was self contradictory and not helpful to the claim, even stating that the parking event happened in a different month to that of the photographic evidence.

The judge ruled that frustration of contract applied and that Mr N had attempted to fulfil his contractual obligations but could not because of the broken machine. The claim was dismissed.

Prankster Note

Another day, another farcical witness statement prepared by joke solicitors Gladstones.

The Prankster considers the judge is correct. Allowing a charge in this situation encourages parking companies to operate with broken machinery as often as they can. This would be detrimental to the landowner, who would receive no income from parking fees, while the immoral parking company cashes in by issuing charges galore.

If you are in the Cardiff or Port Talbot area and are being taken to court by Link there is a Facebook support group which can assist you. Search for Link Parking @Court. You will require proof of a court claim to join this group.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

AS Parking - you've been Gladstoned

AS Parking v Ms S Claim number: C3GF84YO. Truro, 18/10/2016

Court report

Hi. went to court this morning,  AS Parking sent an email to court yesterday to say they will not be perusing my case.  The judge said as I had not had any communication and had cost because of my attendance she awarded me £104. So they have to pay me within 14 days.! Or I can pursue them through the courts.  What a turn up thank you so much for your help,

Prankster Note

The Prankster agrees with the general sentiment. Parking Management is needed but not the immoral tactics used by AS Parking. The Prankster has received large numbers of complaints regarding car parks run by AS Parking and many concern the practice of supplying tickets without sticky labels and then charging motorists if the ticket blows over. This is happening too often to be acceptable. A proper operator would invest in a system which worked, such as tickets which stick properly, or a barrier system or a pay as you leave system. An immoral person would continue to issue large number of parking charges while making no attempt to fix the problem.

This time, Kevin McManus of AS Parking was the victim of a bigger bunch of scammers, Will Hurley and John Davies of Gladstones Solicitors, who con unsuspecting operators into thinking they provide a proper and diligent legal service. Will and John will be laughing all the way to the bank while Kevin has to stump up £104 for not properly discontinuing the claim.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Monday, 17 October 2016

POPLA dispute resolved

Parking Review has revealed that the dispute between London Councils and the British Parking Association has been settled for £25,000, rather than the £69,275 claimed.

This will be a disappointing result for London taxpayers, who now have to foot the bill for the extra £40k, subsidising motorists around the country.

They may well question Nick Lester's role in this, and whether there was a conflict of interest. Nick Lester worked for London Councils when the contract was arranged, and received an award for parking services, which The Prankster considers should be renamed the Nick Lester award for being Nick Lester.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster