Part of the judgement is reproduced below. The full judgement is available here.
The Committee is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 32(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as amended) that there is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of a employee of a recognised body in connection with that body's business, namely Mr Daniel Clarke, an employee of the firm, in connection with the firm’s business.
The Prankster has no idea whether Daniel Clarke's dishonesty was to do with parking, or whether it was to do with unrelated matters. However GBP Solicitors are known to do work on behalf of Parking Firms. This email thread shows that GBP Solicitors were involved in dishonestly claiming that keeper liability applied even though the notice to keeper was send well past the required date. This is an offence that is considered serious enough by the DVLA and the British Parking Association Ltd to ban operators from access to the DVLA database.
The thread also shows that Graham White Solicitors were involved, as were Roxburghe. Graham White has many complaints on file at the Solicitors Regulation Authority for making empty threats of court action with no intention to carry them out. Roxburghe were banned from access to the DVLA database in 2012. The Office of Fair Trading is minded not to renew their licence, as can be seen here.
Dishonesty is rife amongst the legal profession in the Parking Industry. This email thread shows ParkingEye continuing to pursue a case in court even though they now know the car had been sold prior to the parking event. ParkingEye's legal department claim that they will be awarded the parking charge if the case continues to court, even though they know there is no reasonable prospect that a judge will find against a defendant who did not own the car, was not the driver or registered keeper, had complied with all DVLA notification requirements when selling the car and has confirmation from the DVLA confirming this.
ParkingEye are also known to claim a £50 solicitor fee for filing each court case which they do not actually incur. This post by The Prankster shows that their solicitor, Rachel Ledson, would need a salary of around £1,600,000 to justify the £50 she charges for filing each case.
The Parking Prankster