Vehicle Control Services bet company against disabled motorist...and lose. Wheels fall off...

[The Prankster previously reported the name of the Operator was Vehicle Control Systems. it is of course, Vehicle Control Services Limited]

Way back when (September 2013) The Parking Prankster was contacted by a concerned daughter because her elderly, severely disabled mother had received a charge for parking in a disabled bay. The lady had a valid blue badge, and was a passenger at the time (in her own car) but when she got back to the car she found it was on the floor and the inevitable ticket on the windscreen.

The daughter had appealed to VCS but was getting fobbed off, so the Prankster advised her to send another letter.

Dear VCS,

Further to my ongoing appeal with you, I wish to add the following points.

I am being aided in my appeal by The Parking Prankster. If you turn down my appeal, I will appeal to POPLA, where I will win. This will cost you £27 and the British Parking Association Ltd around £100. In order to reduce your costs, please therefore cancel this charge.

I do not believe you have the correct written authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charges and pursue to court. This is a breach of the BPA Ltd code of practice.

I do not believe your charges are a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This is a breach of the BPA Ltd code of practice.

You are pursuing charges when you know a blue badge holder is involved. This is a breach of the BPA Ltd code of practice.

You have increased your charges while an appeal is ongoing. This is a breach of the BPA Ltd code of practice.

Please provide me with all documentation necessary to support your claim, which should include any contract with the landowner, a full break down of your pre-estimate of loss and an explanation why you are pursuing a known blue badge holder. I require a proper reply to all points raised. A template reply will indicate you have not considered my case which is a breach of the BPA Ltd code of conduct. If I am not satisfied with your reply, I will ask the BPA Ltd to investigate any breaches of their code of conduct I consider have occurred.

Please also provide me with contact details for the landowner so that I can take these matters up separately with them.

Of course, VCS completely overruled all appeal points, although they were at least different to ParkingEye in that instead of sending a template reply they did have the courtesy to send a letter relevant to the appeal.

• They tried to weasel out of the increase in charge, claiming this was due to an administration error, and that the charge was still £60.
• They tried to say that blue badge concessions did not apply because they were pursuing the driver for the charge, not the passenger
• They refused to provide a contract or details of pre-estimate of loss

They did provide a POPLA code, obviously blissfully unaware that The Prankster had been bitten by a radioactive spider, so The Prankster helped with an appeal. Now that he had pictures of signage, he also included the point that the signage did not specify that a blue badge needed to be displayed, only that the space was for blue badge holders.

All then went quiet for a while until one Saturday 3 days before the hearing when the VCS evidence pack arrived. The pack contained a detailed breakdown of VCS's pre-estimate of loss. So detailed, in fact, that it was hardly believable - The Prankster will return to this later. 

The pack also contained irrelevant pictures of signs which the motorist would have had to leave the car park, drive through two sets of traffic lights and re-enter a different part of the car park, to see.

The Prankster considered that it was an abuse of process to send in the evidence pack so late - the operators have to get their pack to the motorist within 28 days, leaving 7 days for the motorist to reply.

The Prankster therefore asked the motorist to write and phone POPLA asking for a two week adjournment so they had time to reply to the detailed pre-estimate of loss document.

POPLA ignored the motorist's request, adjudicating anyway; this was possibly because they felt they could rule anyway without needing further input from the motorist and so an adjournment was unnecessary.

Here is the relevant part of the appeal decision.

The appellant made representations stating her case. She raised a number of points and one of them was that the amount charged was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The parking charge appears to be a sum for liquidated damages, in other words, compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss any breach may cause. The Appellant has requested that the Operator submit a full breakdown of their charges to show their pre-estimate of loss calculation. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. 

The Operator submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate as they incur significant costs in managing this car park to ensure motorists comply with their terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these. The Operator gave examples of such costs including a write off allowance.

The Operator has produced a list of costs. However a substantial proportion of these appears to be general operating costs and not loss consequential to the Appellant's breach. The aim of damages for breach of contract is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. Accordingly, the operator cannot include in its pre-estimate of loss costs which are not in fact contractual losses but the costs of running its business and which would have been incurred irrespective of the Appellants conduct.

I need not decide any other issues

Happy days all round.

Pre-estimate of Loss Calculations

VCS provided detailed calculations of their pre-estimate of loss. So detailed, in fact, that they were down to the individual penny in 13 different categories.

POPLA robustly dismissed these calculations.

Having thus committed themselves, The Prankster considers that VCS are truly shafted. If they submit new, different calculations, then these will not be believable - after all nothing will have changed. As the charges were globally calculated and not just relevant to the one car park, all VCS charges are now unenforceable.

VCS have stated that a significant proportion of each ticket is a write-off allowance. Another significant proportion is also due to general running costs. They will not be able to replace these calculations with new costs without serious questions being raised as to the validity of the calculations.

Furthermore, an unreasonably large amount of these charges are for internal debt collection charges that will of course only occur if the motorist fails to pay up. The Prankster questions whether these charges are actually incurred, given that it appears to be commercial suicide to spend such a large amount on a motorist who does not appear to be going to pay.

Lastly, a large amount of charges are for events that might happen. From analysing the calculations, the true loss to the parking company at the time of issuing the initial NtD appears to be a few pence for the paper ticket and cellophane wrapper. The loss to the landowner appears to be...nothing.

VCS bet the company against an elderly, severely disabled motorist, and lost. The Prankster thinks they should now carefully consider whether their tickets are enforceable. If they are not then they should consider if they are trading under false pretences and if so, whether to gracefully shut the company down. Knowingly trading while insolvent is an offence. If their tickets are not enforceable, then they have no legitimate income.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye try to pull out of POPLA. POPLA appeal points

ParkingEye are now trying a new trick during the POPLA process - sending letters offering to cancel the charge if the motorist pays the £27 POPLA fee.

Of course, as ParkingEye lose all properly crafted POPLA appeals the motorist should reject this offer and wait for the POPLA verdict. If the motorist has not got the killer POPLA appeal points, they can email them in to enquiries@popla.org.uk, putting their POPLA code in the email header.

The two main points to include are included here for ease of reference

I wish to appeal on the following grounds
1) The parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and ParkingEye have not provided a breakdown of costs.
2) ParkingEye are not the landowner and have provided no evidence that they have the right to issue parking charges and pursue charges to court in their own name

1) The parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
ParkingEye's charge is for breach of contract, and the British Parking Association stipulates that in such circumstances the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. No other reasons, such as commercial justification , are allowed. This is clearly laid down in the BPA code of conduct. ParkingEye claim that the entire cost of running their business works out at £53 per ticket issued. However, my ticket is for £100. This clearly leaves almost 50% profit and their charge cannot therefore be a pre-estimate of loss. Moreover, the £53 contains many elements which are not directly related to my charge and therefore not a true pre-estimate of loss. Moreover, ParkingEye' costs contain elements which are not related to enforcement. Their cameras, are used to provide data to their customers on car park usage, such as average time per stay. This is marketing data and therefore not related to enforcement. Thus elements such as cameras, data links, computers, databases, programming staff, building costs, etc are not solely involved with enforcement. ParkingEye also supply and maintain pay and display machines. This is also clearly revenue generating for the customer and not directly related to enforcement.


2) ParkingEye are not the landowner
ParkingEye are known to operate without correctly dated contracts and with contracts where clause 22 states they cannot act as an agent of the landowner. This has been found out through several court cases. They have attempted to disguise these deficiencies through the use of witness statements.

ParkingEye’s use of witness statements has now been widely discredited and I wish to robustly challenge the use of any such statement without the actual documentary evidence such as the full unredacted contract, together with the schedule and the ‘User Manual’. The user manual includes amongst other information, reasons why the landowner will cancel charges, and I therefore believe this is an integral part of the contract information.

In POPLA case 1771073004 the motorist submitted a witness statement which was rejected by the assessor, proving that witness statements are not automatically accepted by POPLA. The motorist challenged this decision, and the POPLA lead adjudicator replied:

“In this appeal, both parties produced evidence. The role of any tribunal of fact is to weigh often conflicting evidence. The Operator produced evidence to show that the vehicle was at a particular location. The Appellant produced a witness statement to show that it was not. The Operator produced images of the vehicle. The Appellant’s witness refers to having seen photographs of his vehicle in a location other than the site in question and but failed to produce the photographs or state where the vehicle was.”

Having provided sufficient evidence that ParkingEye’s witness statements are discredited by the courts, that their practices and procedures are not robust, I respectfully submit that I have produced enough evidence to show that ParkingEye’s witness statements cannot be relied on to be true.

List of evidence regarding dubious witness statements

The following court cases illustrate irregularities in ParkingEye’s evidence regarding their authority to charge money for parking and to pursue charges to court. They have happened recently and so no transcripts are available. However, as ParkingEye were present they will be able to confirm they are correct

1. 3QT52338 ParkingEye v Walkden 29/10/2013 Barrow in Furness. The hearing was originally held on 16/07/2013. ParkingEye produced a witness statement. District Judge Dodd found the witness statement extremely unsatisfactory, ordered the case to be adjourned at ParkingEye’s expense, and to reconvene at a later date. ParkingEye were ordered to produce a redacted contract from the landowner to the defendant, and a full unredacted copy to the Judge. The case reconvened on 29/10/2013. The contract sent to the defendant was dated Feb 2013 whilst the parking event was October 2012. The witness statement from Paul Shrewbrook of the Range and the attached letter of authority was not dated. The judge ruled that ParkingEye did not have authority to manage the car park because they contravened section 7.1 of the BPA code of practice which clearly states that the parking company must have written authority before any management of a car park can commence.


2. 3QT61897 ParkingEye v Barrett. 16/10/2013, Cardiff. The contract was dated 7/11/2012, which was after the Parking event on 24/10/2012. The contract was in a different name (Peachkey) to the landowner name (McDonalds Bridgend) given on the witness statement, although both contract and witness statement were signed by the same person. ParkingEye stated that the witness statement from McDonalds referred to a different document, which they did not have in court. The witness statement also stated that the parking charge was valid. However, McDonalds had not been informed the defendant had broken down and were therefore not informed of the full facts by ParkingEye. District Judge C W Dawson adjourned the case and ordered ParkingEye to bring the originals of all documents next time. McDonalds, when informed of the irregularities, ordered ParkingEye to drop the parking charge and the case.


3. 3QT29139 ParkingEye v Shelley. 23/07/2013 The contact produced in court was signed in February 2013. However, the parking event was around October 2012. Once again the witness was Paul Shrewbrook of the Range.


4. In 3QT62646 ParkingEye v Sharma 23/10/2013 Brentford County Court, District Judge Jenkins explained he was throwing the claim out because it was brought in the name of ParkingEye and not the landowner. He said the landowner could bring the case in their own name or jointly with ParkingEye if they wished. The witness statement therefore contained incorrect information. It was not apparent from the witness statement that the witness had the required expertise to interpret the contract correctly.


5. In 3QT60598 ParkingEye v Gardam, 14/11/2013 High Wycombe County Court. District Judge Jones found the judgement by District Judge Jenkins persuasive and ruled that the claimant did not have the right to bring the case in their own name. The witness statement therefore contained incorrect information. It was not apparent from the witness statement that the witness had the required expertise to interpret the contract correctly.

In all known cases to November 2013 involving ParkingEye when the landowner agent is Colliers International the signature is identical on every document and therefore appears to be photocopied. The date is added at a later time, and several different handwriting examples have been identified. Cases have been found from late 2012 to 1-10-2013, indicating this practice has been continuing for almost a year. In at least one case the witness statement has the same date as the parking event, creating the reasonable suspicion this was backdated – a witness statement is not produced for each of the 200,000 parking charges issued.

In several cases involving ParkingEye when the landowner is Aldi, the document is signed by somebody who is not the witness.

In several cases involving Paul Shrewbrook of the Range as the witness, the date has been added in multiple different handwritings, leading to the reasonable suspicion it was added after the event.

In cases involving Jon Briant as the witness, he sometimes asserts that Fistral beach is owned by Fistral Beach Ltd and at other times that it is owned by Britanic Industries.

ParkingEye have only recently started taking motorists to court in numbers, and these examples therefore represent a sizable fraction of the cases that have made it to a hearing. Moreover, the fact that irregularities in other cases are not documented does not mean they did not occur; it just means that the defence did not pick up on them. There is therefore reasonable certainty that large scale irregularities are taking place within ParkingEye, that their procedures around landowner witness statements are not robust and that they do not have authorization in place in a large percentage of cases.

ParkingEye postal chaos. Prankster requests information

The Prankster has helped large numbers of people in ParkingEye court cases. One running theme is the chaotic nature of ParkingEye's use of the postal service.

Many people never receive letters which ParkingEye say they sent. The most common letter not to arrive is the 'Letter before action'. The Prankster has often asked for proof this letter was actually sent, but ParkingEye have always declined.

The Prankster has also previously reported a major failure of the system ParkingEye use to send out mail, imail, and has reported that ParkingEye have sent out underpaid mail in the past, leaving their victim to pick up the tab.

Many people send letters which ParkingEye claim never to have received.

The Prankster is therefore sending out a request.

If you have experienced any problems with ParkingEye and mail, please email the details to prankster@parking-prankster.com. The details The Prankster would like are:

Court reference, your name or initials, date letter was send, type of letter, who sent letter (you or PE) if not obvious, whether either side later provided proof of posting, other interesting details - if any

The Prankster can then compile the information and make it available for use in defences.

Judge in court cases can decide on the balance of probabilities. If they receive evidence that large numbers of mail goes astray then it will be far more believable than if you are just trying to convince the judge your letter was the only one.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

The Prankster redacts

The Prankster has received a letter on behalf of ParkingEye stating that they believe their job titles are confidential and that they do not wish them to be published on the blog. The Prankster does not believe that there is any confidentiality involved in a list of job titles which The Prankster has arbitrarily grouped into categories, but he still respects ParkingEye's wishes and has redacted all job titles and quantities from the blog.

P4Parking pass BPA audit

This thread on pepipoo confirms that P4Parking passed their BPA audit in August 2013.

The thread also points out they made the following errors while issuing a parking charge:

• The company registration and VAT numbers on the Notice to Driver belong to P4Parking (UK) Ltd
• That company has been dormant or non-trading since March 2010
• There is therefore not likely to be any contract for car park management between P4Parking(UK) Ltd and the landowner
• The signs refer to a different company, P4Parking trading as P4Parking Ltd
• P4Parking went straight from issuing a windscreen ticket to debt collection. No Notice to Keeper was ever given
• The debt collection letter stated the car was in a different place to the NtD letter
• P4Parking refused to give a POPLA code after the keeper appealed within 28 days of receiving the debt collector letter
• The debt collector, TNC, ignored the keeper's letter that the debt is denied
• TNC sent three more letters demanding payment and one demanding urgent consultation
• TNC refer to the charge as a 'Penalty Enforcement Notice'
• The signs indicate the amount is a contractual charge
• The ticket indicates the amount is for breach of contract
• The signs state: Your vehicle may also be issued with a parking charge notice if found; Parked without displaying valid Road Tax issued by the DVLA
• There is no such thing as 'Road Tax'. In any case, issuing charges for non display of a Tax Disc is not a function available to private parking companies
• This is not an isolated incident of bad practice
• Here is another

No doubt the BPA will sort all this conflicting information out to the satisfaction of their members, and help drive up standards in parking.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

POPLA November 2013 newsletter. Uncommented version

The Prankster reproduces the contents of the November POPLA newsletter for the benefit of those motorists who have not yet been personally emailed a copy.

The Prankster welcomes POPLA's increased openness, but considers that the newsletter should really go up on the web site at the same time as it is emailed to Operators.

The Prankster will comment on the newsletter in a future post.

1 | P a g e
POPLA Newsletter
November Issue
2013 Welcome to the November 2013 Issue of the Newsletter of POPLA, the independent appeal service for motorists who have received a parking charge notice in respect of vehicles being parked on private land.

——-
Delays
We previously announced that, due to the high number of appeals being received at POPLA, unfortunate delays arose in the time decisions took to go before the Assessor.
We took urgent action to clear this, including temporarily extending the period before the scheduled hearing date for appeals and also the appointment of a number of new Assessors.
We are pleased to confirm that these short term actions proved very successful and that appeals are now being scheduled as normal, although we will take account of the season holidays. Our aim is for all appeals now to be decided within the previously stated timescales.
An average of 550 appeals are now being received each week and whilst, at any point in time, some cases may stand adjourned for various reasons, the measures above helped to clear general backlog that had built up.

SEASONAL HOLIDAYS
POPLA offices will close at 16:30 on Friday 20 December
2013 and reopen at 09:00 on Monday 6 January 2014

2 | P a g e
Operator’s rejection
Whether described as a notice or letter, the operator’s rejection of initial representations made to them in respect of a parking charge notice is important. It should set out the reasons for the rejection, dealing with all matters that have been raised. Experience shows that rejections that do so may well mean that an appeal to POPLA does not follow, if the recipient can see that all their points have been satisfactorily addressed.
Under no circumstances whatsoever is it appropriate for an operator to suggest in a rejection that an appeal to POPLA is ‘unwise’, ‘unnecessary’, ‘bound to fail’ or anything similar.
If an appeal comes before POPLA where it appears that operator appears to have been actively dissuading an appellant from making an appeal, the matter may have to be referred to the BPA.
As previously stated, operators must be careful to ensure that the wording of any rejection does not, even inadvertently, appear to suggest that the charge might increase by making an appeal to POPLA.
Verification code
Operators must, on every occasion, include the verification code in their rejection of representations. The recipient of the rejection should not have to ask for it.
Failure by an operator to provide a verification code in their rejection letter is a breach of the Code of Practice, sanctionable by the BPA.
Rather than just a reference, the verification code should be clearly identifiable as such, for example:
Your verification code, which you will need to appeal to POPLA, is XXXXXXXXXX.
Even if the verification code is automatically printed on an enclosed appeal form, it must still be in the dated rejection notice/letter. If it is not, and if the issue arises, it may then be difficult for the operator to show exactly when the verification code was provided to an appellant.

3 | P a g e
Evidence
Assessors at POPLA consider evidence produced by the parties to the appeal. Generally, it is a matter for each party to an appeal (that is the appellant and the operator) to decide what evidence they wish to produce in order to assist their case.
Please note that the Assessor will not contact witnesses on behalf of operators or appellants and will not consider evidence from a party who seeks to exclude that evidence from the other party.
If an appellant or operator believes that their case can be put on the basis of partially redacted evidence then that is a matter for them but the other party should be aware that the Assessor will have no further details than have been supplied to them. Thus if, for example, a document is produced by an operator or appellant with a name blanked out, then that is exactly how the Assessor will consider the document.
However, as advised in the last Newsletter, just like every court, tribunal, ombudsman and arbitration service, in order to consider appeals effectively, POPLA requires certain basic information to be provided in every case by the operator, since they are the party seeking the parking charge.
This is what we said we require:
 A copy of any notice issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be produced, where relied upon.
 The original parking charge notice (or a true copy of it)
 The appellant’s representations to the operator
 The operator’s rejection of those representations
Whilst the statutory tribunals require these or similar items to be produced, and failure to do so may mean the appeal is allowed, this is not the case with an appeal to POPLA because there is no such statutory requirement. It appears that some appellants, perhaps taking incorrect advice from the internet, have misunderstood this.
Nevertheless it is what we expect operators to produce.
Since Schedule 4 has specific provision as to the content of notices, a copy must be produced to ensure that it complies with the statutory requirements.

4 | P a g e
A failure by the recipient of notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material date.
We have previously stated that we appreciate that it may not be possible for some operators to produce a ‘carbon’ copy of a parking charge notice which is issued at the scene. We also noted that some ticketing systems will create a full printout but not everyone will have such software. The submitted details do not have to be in any prescribed format but must be clear and must contain everything that is on the original, including all details about payment and the discount.
Operators who usually produce at least a representation of the equivalent notice for enforcement authority evidence in the statutory tribunals but do not do so for appeals to POPLA, may want to establish if there is any technical why they cannot do so.
As also explained on previous occasions, both sides of a parking charge notice should be produced (even if the reverse is a standard printed page) particularly if, for example, it contains payment details or explanations of codes used on the front.
The operator should also produce everything that the motorist has sent to them, whether by post, email or via the operator’s website including, for example, images. Appellants usually assume that the Assessor is aware of what has already been sent to the operator, even if they do not specifically refer to it in their appeal.
Further, if the motorist, in making online representations to the operator, is required to tick a box or similar, to make any declaration such as ‘I was/was not the driver at the time’, then the operator should produce this in their evidence. Whatever facts the operator and appellant know and agree, the Assessor will only be aware of them if set out by the parties.
Stating your case
Appellants
Appellants should set out their case clearly on the appeal form, whether written or done online. If it is handwritten, it is obviously important that is clear and legible so the Assessor can understand everything that the appellant is saying.

5 | P a g e
There is no need to use formal or legalistic language. If an appellant cannot work out which ground of appeal to trick, they should simply explain what their appeal is about and submit it, although remembering that the Assessor cannot allow an appeal because of mitigating circumstances.
Operators
Operators should set out their case clearly in the case summary. POPLA strongly advise all operators to produce a clear case summary with every appeal they contest. In this the operator can explain why the parking charge notice was issued and deal with each of the matters that have been raised by the appellant.
Issues considered
As explained above, Assessors at POPLA will generally only consider issues raised by one or both of the parties.
However, some matters are clearly fundamental in that, for example, the Assessor cannot make a finding of liability against a party when it is unclear who that party is. Equally, the Assessor cannot make such a finding if the amount of the parking charge is not clear.
Witness Statements
With the last newsletter we enclosed two model witness statements. These were drafted by the Lead Adjudicator in the interests of efficiency. They were not created or provided by any party to proceedings or by the BPA. It is common practice in courts and tribunals for model forms to be produced.
In many cases such forms will deal with the issues raised, without the necessity of the production of, in this case, contracts, which may be voluminous with much detail that is irrelevant to the issues to be decided.
We do suggest the format in which evidence is submitted. This applies to both parties but, in the main, it is operators who submit the most

6 | P a g e
evidence and we need to control the format to enable the service to run efficiently. Please see further information on this later in this Newsletter. This is not a question of how anyone can best win their case, which is a decision for the Assessor, but rather how we deal with the administration of cases in the most efficient way.
Workshops
POPLA has not run workshops of any description. POPLA does not provide coaching sessions for parties to appeals, or anyone else. Media and internet forum suggestions to the contrary are incorrect.
It is common for judicial heads of tribunals to attend conferences and seminars, and occasionally to speak at them. Such events may be subject based or purely legal but will always relate to principles.
As is also common throughout the court and tribunal system, from time to time user groups may be attended by administrative staff but these will never deal with individual cases.
Contacting POPLA
Further to the last Newsletter we would like to again remind parties about the most appropriate way of contacting POPLA.
POPLA have a number of public and personal mail boxes to which e-mails can be sent. For your communication to be dealt with effectively please follow the structure below.
Appellants
Appellants can submit an appeal online or by post.
The easiest way to submit an appeal is via our website at www.popla.org.uk. Appellants can also upload evidence from the website. A valid verification code is required to do either. The verification code must be supplied by the operator with their rejection of original representations

7 | P a g e
You CANNOT submit an appeal by email.
You can write to us at: PO Box 70748, London EC1P 1SN
You can email us at: enquiries@popla.org.uk but remember that you cannot submit an appeal by email.
You can telephone us at: 0845 207 7700
Please always quote you verification code when contacting POPLA.
Operators
It is essential that all evidence and other case pertinent information is sent to the appropriate mail box only. Evidence submission made to other POPLA mail boxes may not be received or considered by the Assessors.
If an email is rejected by the mail box please contact POPLA either by phone or email, attaching any rejection/bounce back e-mail messages as these will help us resolve any issues. Please do not attempt to resend the e-mailed evidence to any other POPLA mail box.
Email format
No more than one verification code / appeal per email
Subject line:
Subject line should read as follows when sending cases over multiple emails:
<<verification code>> part <<current part>> of <<total parts>>
For example, the second email for a case where the evidence is split over three emails with verification code 1230002013
The subject line should read: 1230002013 part 2 of 3
If the verification code is not in the subject line evidence may not be saved to the correct case file.
Email Body:
Evidence submissions or information pertinent to the case should not be placed within the body of an email. All written evidence

8 | P a g e
submissions and statements, including email chains, should be in PDF form and clearly labelled.
Attachments
Emails including attachments must not exceed 20 megabytes
Files to be submitted in the following formats:
Documents PDF only
Images jpeg, png, gif and PDF only (images no greater than 1 megabyte)
Moving Images CD only – AAF, 3GP, GIF, AVI, FLV, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, SWF, FLA, FLR, MKV, MOV, WMV and DivX.
POPLA Mailboxes
Correspondence to POPLA can be dealt with more effectively if it is sent to one public mail box, if you wish an individual can also be added to the recipients list.
Images
Parties submitting photographs/digital images should always consider whether their case is assisted in the particular circumstances by images being clearly stamped or marked with the true date and time. This the best practice in all circumstances.
Library images, captured before or after an alleged breach, are sometimes submitted by operators and/or appellants. These are often used to show the general layout of a location. However, it is equally important that the other party has a clear idea when such images were taken, particularly if, for example, they show signs, or indeed the absence of signs, upon which the party relies.

9 | P a g e
The correct date and time stamp should be clearly visible on the face of the images so it can easily be seen by the other party. This can be electronically generated by most devices. The Assessor is not an investigator and will not conduct any form of search into the image data since this may not have been immediately available to the other party when the image was supplied.

POPLA Closure
POPLA will close at 16:30 on Friday 20 December 2013 and reopen at 09:00 on Monday 6 January 2014. Appeals may still be submitted online but, to avoid the risk of automated mailboxes filling, operators should not submit evidence during this period.
However, the POPLA enquiry line on 0845 207 7700 will remain open throughout this period, except for 25 December 2013.
———
POPLA
PO Box 70748
London EC1P 1SN
0845 207 7700
calls to POPLA may be recorded
www.popla.org.uk ———

POPLA newsletter

The POPLA May 2013 Newsletter is available here

The Prankster applauds POPLA's decision to make this newsletter, and the previous one, available to the public.

The Prankster has POPLA's November 2013 newsletter, but this does not seem to be available yet via the site page.

The Prankster will comment further at some time on the November 2013 newsletter.

ParkingEye, POPLA, Witness Statements

ParkingEye's witness statements have now been widely discredited. ParkingEye have been found to use them to hide the fact that they do not have contracts in place and that their contracts do not give them authority to go to court in their own name.

The whole business about contracts being confidential is a smokescreen. ParkingEye contracts are available on the internet; put there, not by motorists but by their own partners.

The Prankster therefore recommends that the following be added to all POPLA appeals concerning ParkingEye.

ParkingEye Witness Statements

ParkingEye’s use of witness statements has now been widely discredited and I wish to robustly challenge the use of any such witness statement without the actual documentary evidence;  the full unredacted contract, together with the schedule and the ‘User Manual’. The user manual includes amongst other information, reasons why the landowner will cancel charges, and I therefore believe this is an integral part of the contract information.

In POPLA case 1771073004 the motorist submitted a witness statement which was rejected by the assessor, proving that witness statements are not automatically accepted by POPLA. The motorist challenged this decision, and the POPLA lead adjudicator replied:

“In this appeal, both parties produced evidence. The role of any tribunal of fact is to weigh often conflicting evidence. The Operator produced evidence to show that the vehicle was at a particular location. The Appellant produced a witness statement to show that it was not. The Operator produced images of the vehicle. The Appellant’s witness refers to having seen photographs of his vehicle in a location other than the site in question and but failed to produce the photographs or state where the vehicle was.”

This shows that assessors must weigh up the credibility of the evidence and cannot just accept a witness statement as true.

I will now provide evidence that ParkingEye’s witness statements are discredited by the courts, that they are used to cover up fatal flaws in their case, and that their practices and procedures around handling witness statements are not robust. I respectfully submit that I have produced enough evidence to show that ParkingEye’s witness statements cannot be relied on to be true.

The Evidence

1.     3QT52338 ParkingEye v Walkden 29/10/2013 Barrow in Furness. The hearing was originally held on 16/07/2013. ParkingEye produced a witness statement. District Judge Dodd found the witness statement extremely unsatisfactory, ordered the case to be adjourned at ParkingEye’s expense, and to reconvene at a later date. ParkingEye were ordered to produce a redacted contract from the landowner to the defendant, and a full unredacted copy to the Judge. The case reconvened on 29/10/2013. The contract sent to the defendant was dated Feb 2013 whilst the parking event was October 2012. The witness statement from Paul Shrewbrook of the Range and the attached letter of authority was not dated. The judge ruled that ParkingEye did not have authority to manage the car park because they contravened section 7.1 of the BPA code of practice which clearly states that the parking company must have written authority before any management of a car park can commence.

2.     3QT61897 ParkingEye v Barrett. 16/10/2013, Cardiff. The contract was dated 7/11/2012, which was after the Parking event on 24/10/2012. The contract was in a different name (Peachkey) to the landowner name (McDonalds Bridgend) given on the witness statement, although both contract and witness statement were signed by the same person. The contract had clause 22 redacted. ParkingEye stated that the witness statement from McDonalds referred to a different document, which they did not have in court. The witness statement also stated that the parking charge was valid. However, McDonalds had not been informed the defendant had broken down and were therefore not informed of the full facts by ParkingEye. District Judge C W Dawson adjourned the case and ordered ParkingEye to bring the originals of all documents next time. McDonalds, when informed of the irregularities, ordered ParkingEye to drop the parking charge and the case.

3.    3QT29139 ParkingEye v Shelley. 23/07/2013 The contact produced in court was signed in February 2013. However, the parking event was around October 2012. Once again the witness was Paul Shrewbrook of the Range.

4.     In 3QT62646 ParkingEye v Sharma 23/10/2013 Brentford County Court, District Judge Jenkins explained he was throwing the claim out because it was brought in the name of ParkingEye and not the landowner. He said the landowner could bring the case in their own name or jointly with ParkingEye if they wished. The witness statement therefore contained incorrect information. It was not apparent from the witness statement that the witness had the required expertise to interpret the contract correctly.

5.     In 3QT60598 ParkingEye v Gardam, 14/11/2013 High Wycombe County Court. District Judge Jones found the judgement by District Judge Jenkins persuasive and ruled that the claimant did not have the right to bring the case in their own name. The contract was produced in court and Judge Jones found clause 22 to be key, and that as ParkingEye could not act as agent of the Landowner then they could not bring the claim in their own name. The witness statement therefore contained incorrect information. It was not apparent from the witness statement that the witness had the required expertise to interpret the contract correctly.

In all known cases up to November 2013 involving ParkingEye when the landowner agent is Colliers International the signature is identical on every document and therefore appears to be photocopied. The date is added at a later time, and several different handwriting examples have been identified. Cases have been found from late 2012 to 1-10-2013, indicating this practice has been continuing for almost a year. In at least one case the witness statement has the same date as the parking event, creating the reasonable suspicion this was backdated – a witness statement is not automatically produced on the day for each of the 200,000 parking charges issued.

In several cases involving ParkingEye when the landowner is Aldi, the document is signed by somebody who is not the witness. The witness, Belinda Barlow (nee Ball) works in Trowbridge according to LinkedIn. The statements are signed by various people, including Rachel Organ, who all work in Swindon. Thus there is reasonable suspicion the witness has never seen the statement and associated evidence she is 'signing' for.

In several cases involving Paul Shrewbrook of the Range as the witness, the date has been added in multiple different handwritings, leading to the reasonable suspicion it was added after the event.

In cases involving Jon Briant as the witness, he sometimes asserts that Fistral beach car park is owned by Fistral Beach Ltd and at other times that it is owned by Britanic Industries.

In large numbers of cases the witness statement is signed by people with job titles such as manager, deputy port manager and the like, giving reasonable suspicion these people do not have the technical ability to correct interpret a complex 2 page contract and then make the statements they are signing for

Summary

ParkingEye resist producing the contract, not because it is confidential, but because in many cases it is not dated before the parking event, and in all known cases clause 22 means that they cannot act as an agent of the landowner and therefore cannot take court action in their own name. 

I include a sample clause 22 from their contracts:

22. NO PARTNERSHIP OR AGENCY
Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create a partnership or joint venture or
legal relationship of any kind that would impose liability upon one Party for the act
or failure to act of the other Party between the Parties, or to authorise either Party
to act as agent for the other. Save as expressly provided in this Agreement, neither
Party shall have authority to make representations, act in the name or on behalf of
or otherwise to bind the other.

In addition ParkingEye's procedures around witness statements are not robust and simply cannot be trusted.

For all these reasons I request that any witness statement be disregarded an only the actual underlying evidence be considered. If this is not provided I request my appeal is upheld.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Do you have a landowner witness statement from ParkingEye, CEL (Civil Enforcement Limited) or any other parking company? If so, please email a copy to prankster@parking-prankster.com to allow further evidence of malpractice to be investigated.

Witness statements not enough for POPLA. Assessors do not understand ANPR. Assessors can use 'proportionality' and can ignore parts of a motorist's case

Way back when, The Prankster appealed against a POPLA verdict. The Lead Adjudicator has now replied:

Dear Mr Prankster,

The Lead Adjudicator has considered your complaint and has asked me to reply as follows: “In this appeal, both parties produced evidence. The role of any tribunal of fact is to weigh often conflicting evidence. The Operator produced evidence to show that the vehicle was at a particular location. The Appellant produced a witness statement to show that it was not. The Operator produced images of the vehicle. The Appellant’s witness refers to having seen photographs of his vehicle in a location other than the site in question and but failed to produce the photographs or state where the vehicle was.
 The Assessor was satisfied that the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) evidence provided by the Operator was accurate. The Operator did send a notice to keeper and the Appellant had a chance to dispute that he was the driver, however, he did not do so. The Appellant states that the Assessor did not consider signage. The Assessor considered all of the evidence and found that there were a number of signs at the site and these would have been visible to the driver. Having considered all of the evidence and submissions put forward, the Assessor was satisfied that the terms and conditions of parking would have been visible to the driver from the signage at the site and that these made it clear that parking was free for two hours and parking charges apply thereafter. It is not necessary for the Assessor to consider every conceivable issue raised. The appeal is in relation to a parking ticket. Proportionality does not require extensive reasoning nor determination of nonsense issues such as cyber men invading the Operator.”

The Lead Adjudicator's reply raises several issues.

Witness statements by themselves are not sufficient

Firstly, witness statements in themselves are not enough and the Lead Adjudicator has confirmed this. This is in fact good news for motorists and the Prankster will blog about this in the future.

POPLA do not understand how ANPR works

Secondly, there are serious issues about the competency of  the POPLA assessors when it comes to understanding how ANPR actually works. While POPLA may or may not have the legal aspects nailed, it is clear they are in serious need of training with regard to what ANPR technology can and cannot do.

The semi-amusing aspect is that both The Prankster and the Lead Adjudicator know full well that The Prankster was not  in the car park for the times specified. The Lead Adjudicator is presumably just miffed at being called out on his team's obvious errors.

The Lead Adjudicator states that there is 'conflicting evidence'. In fact, this is not the case. The operator produced evidence that the vehicle entered the car park at 07:14 and left at 18:56. The Prankster does not dispute this. However, he also left the car park at around 07:20 and entered again at around 18:50. The Prankster has produced a witness statement confirming his vehicle was elsewhere sometime between 07:14 and 18:56. The evidence is therefore not conflicting at all, but fits in with The Prankster's case that he double dipped the car park and that the ANPR devices were faulty.

ANPR devices are not CCTV. They do not send a 24x7 video record back to Parking HQ. That would require too much bandwidth, and require too much storage. Instead, they have built in algorithms to detect number plates. When they do, and only when they do, they take an image, or series of images. These are sent back to Parking HQ and these are the only records that the operator retains.

Thus, for instance, if you drive close to the lorry in front and your car is obscured, or it is a misty morning and the algorithm fails to detect your numberplate, or the ANPR coverage is imperfect and it is possible to enter or leave the car park without passing through the ANPR field of view, then the operator will have no record of this. Ever.

They can search through their database, and their collection of stored pictures, but your vehicle will never appear. There will be no record of it, because the technology is fundamentally flawed.

The Prankster sent in as evidence the wikipedia page on ANPR to explain some of the reasons why ANPR technology will fail to detect a numberplate. He explained it was important that the operator describe how the search of their database took place and how they checked the coverage of their ANPR.

However, the assessor did not bother to consider this evidence. This brings the Prankster to his third and final point.

Invading Cybermen not a reason for appealing

Thirdly, invading Cybermen are not a valid appeal reason, even if it is the 50th anniversary of Dr Who. The Prankster accepts this, and in fact did not raise this issue with POPLA - it was only the assessor rooting around in The Prankster's original appeal to CP Plus who bought this up at all.

However, the far more serious points the Lead Adjudicator makes are these:

It is not necessary for the Assessor to consider every conceivable issue raised.

Proportionality does not require extensive reasoning

The Prankster raised several valid issues about the ANPR technology and the Operator processes. These are valid questions for The Prankster and every other motorist who happens to double dip a car park. The simple fact of the matter is that The Prankster visited the car park twice and the ANPR technology is faulty. However, the assessor completely ignored these reasons.

The Lead Adjudicator has said that if a case is difficult, such as this one, and introduces details the assessors do not want to get into, that the assessors can use 'proportionality' to disregard as much of the motorist's case as they see fit.

This is a very dangerous position to take, especially as The Prankster has shown the technology is fundamentally flawed.

The Prankster is lucky. He has plenty of photographic evidence, including GPS records to back up the fact his vehicle was elsewhere. He has photographs of the vehicle outside the car park with a timed and dated receipt in the window and an email sent of that photograph. The receipt date was after CP Plus said the Prankster entered the car park, and the email date/time was before CP Plus said the Prankster left. Thus, the photograph must have been taken between the times CP Plus said the vehicle was in the car park. These are essentially unforgeable pieces of evidence.

Ironically, he also has pictures of a massive invisible erection, because that was the day he set off to photograph the signs in Yate shopping centre car park.

There is therefore no possible doubt that the ANPR was faulty.

The sad news is that most motorists are not so lucky as The Prankster. They will not have evidence they double dipped, and so they will not be believed by POPLA.

POPLA have shown they will not believe the motorist's word alone, nor the word of a witness. They have also shown they do not understand ANPR, and do not consider it 'proportionate' to educate themselves. They will also believe the word of operators who routinely lie and use sharp practices.

The Prankster thinks it's a funny old world.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

The Prankster boobs yet again. ParkingEye job titles

[27/11/13 The Prankster has been asked to remove certain information from this post, and has of course complied]
[02/02/2014 The Prankster unredacts after considering that it is in the public interests and in line with his article10 rights ]

Actually The Prankster didn't boob again. He is just re-using yesterday's blog title in a blatant attempt to play the system.

Yesterday The Prankster had a massive amount of hits on the blog. He can only assume the word 'boob' somehow shows up highly in search engines. He has no idea why. Boob.

Today's blog lists the 166 jobs at ParkingEye. Boob.

The Prankster has arbitrarily assigned these jobs to categories which may or may not be correct. Some of the engineers The Prankster assumes are writing and installing software may for instance be involved with hardware and site installations, for instance. These days the word 'engineer' covers a broad category. Boob.

Appeals and Enforcement 40 Jobs

Appeals Team Manager
Appeals Team Leader
Appeals Deputy Team Leader
Appeals Assessor x 24
POPLA co-ordinator
Claims Team Leader
Claims Handler x 4
Enforcement Team Manager
Enforcer x 5
Enforcement Administrator Assistant

Sales 23 Jobs
Sales Director
Sales Administrator
Head of Business Development
Business Manager Telesales
Client Services Director
Head Account Manager
Account Manager x 5
Key Account Manager x 4
Commercial Manager x 8

In house systems 18 jobs
Technical Director
Software Development Manager
R&D Manager
Project Manager
Technical Installations Engineer
Technical Support Team Leader
Technical Maintenance Engineer x 7
Technical Support Analyst x 2
Data Analyst/Report Writer
Developer
User Support

Parking 20 jobs
Parking Enforcement Supervisor
Parking Enforcement Officer x 12
Highways operative x 7

Operations 33 jobs
Operations Director
Operations co-ordinator x 2

Installation team manager

Installation co-ordinator

Civils team manager
Civils co-ordinator
Driver assistant engineer
Electrical engineer
Engineer x 15
Maintenance Engineer
Maintenance Operative
As built surveyor
Surveyor
Signage co-ordinator
Signage installer

Pay and display maintenance

Warehouse supervisor
Warehouse operator

Legal 2 jobs

Head of Legal
Paralegal

Office 20 jobs
Receptionist x 2
Procurement Manager
Logistics Manager
Human Resources Manager
Director x 3
Company Secretary
Managing Director
Accountant
Accounts assistant x 2
Administration team Manager
Administration Team Leader
Administration Deputy Team Leader
Administration Assistant x 14

The Prankster notes the small amount of people apparently devoted to signage, and compared this to the large amounts of complaints about signage that exist. Boob.

The Prankster notes the small amount of people apparently devoted to handling the 400-500 claims Rachel Ledson files per week, and wonders if this is anything to do with the chaotic handling that is apparent with their claims processes, with ParkingEye missing deadlines, having claims stayed and failing to turn up at hearings. Obviously anyone with a claim stayed should point out that ParkingEye do not appear to have enough people handling claims and therefore any re-activation of the claim should be resisted. Boob.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
Boob

Prankster boobs again

In yet another example of sloppy research, the Prankster has messed up again.

In a post yesterday, he insinuated that Rachel Ogden did not know the name of her own boss. Of course, this is not true. She signs witness statements on her behalf regularly and is therefore more than conversant with her boss's name.

The simple truth is that Belinda Ball got married to Mr. Barlow earlier this year.

The Prankster send his congratulations to Belinda and Mr Barlow.

The Prankster's errors do not stop there. He cannot even read Rachel Ogden's signature correctly. Her real name is Rachel Organ. In an ironic twist of fate, The Prankster therefore got the name wrong of the person he was accusing of getting names wrong.

The Prankster sincerely apologises to Rachel Organ. Flowers are on the way and should arrive today.

Happy Parking

The chastened Parking Prankster

ParkingEye witness from Aldi, Rachel Ogden, forgets the name of her boss. Witness debacle continues

[For a retraction of this post, see here]
The Prankster has a growing collection of joke witness statements that ParkingEye use at POPLA and in court.

Here is one from Aldi supermarket. The first problem is that it is not signed by the witness, but by somebody else. It is therefore a somebody-else statement and not a real witness statement at all.

The second problem is that there does not appeal to be a Store Operations Director working at Aldi called Belinda Ball.

There is a Belinda Barlow...apparently - although she is perhaps poorly and not up to signing documents herself as her signature has yet to be seen by The Prankster.

Poor old Rachel Ogden. It's always embarrassing when you forget the name of your boss!

Happy Parking

Rachel Ogden
(pp The Parking Prankster)

ParkingEye - are they just making it up as they go along? Accountant apparently urgently needed!

The Prankster has received a large amount of documents that ParkingEye use to try and explain off their charges as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. They make interesting reading.

Here is one from a parking event in October 2012.

Here is one from early November 2012

And here is one from later in November 2012

So, what did happen in early November 2012 to make ParkingEye's costs jump £2 a parking charge, from £53 to £55?

Why did it come back down again?

Are ParkingEye just making it all up as they go along?

Are these paragraphs all referring to the same set of company accounts, and if so, why do the calculations vary.

Have ParkingEye discovered a new set of mathematical rules that only apply to the Parking industry?

Do ParkingEye need a new accountant, and if so, why is this post not advertised on their jobs page?

Lastly, if the costs are £55, and the charge £100, that leaves £45 profit. How can 45% profit be justified as part of a pre-estimate of loss calculation.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
1+1=5

Do you have a court hearing with ParkingEye in the near future?

If you are being taken to court by ParkingEye, and have a court hearing in the near future then The Prankster would like to help out.

The likelihood is that he will not be able to appear personally, due to all the other cases he is helping with; however, if you contact him by email at prankster@parking-prankster.com then he will provide you with the following:

• details of all the suspicious landowner witness forms he has received and a sample letter to send to court to ask for the witness statement to be disregarded unless the witness turns up for questioning
• details of lies, unfounded allegations, misleading statements and dodgy tactics used by Jonathan Langham of ParkingEye, together with a signed witness statement from the Prankster and a sample letter you can send to court to ask for the witness statement to be disregarded unless Jonathan Langham turns up for questioning
• questions to ask in court that the ParkingEye tame lawyer will find it difficult to answer
• evidence you can use in court, including a copy of ParkingEye's contract
• sample points you can file for your defence, if the filing deadline has not expired
• The Prankster's guide to a court hearing

In return, the Prankster asks for the following

• Permission to use details from your case, which includes your case number and your initials (but not your full name unless you state otherwise) to help others
• A copy of the claim form, to prove you are not really ParkingEye
• A copy of the landowner witness statement

If possible, The Prankster would also like the following, but this is not essential

• A copy of Jonathan Langham's witness statement, together with any new evidence introduced at the time. This will often be a redacted copy of the contract and a pre-estimate of loss calculation, but may include other stuff as well. 
• Evidence previously sent is not necessary, but might be helpful. Please clearly indicate it is old evidence if you send it
• A copy of ParkingEye's pre-estimate of loss calculation, if not already included
• A copy of the front sheet of ParkingEye's contract, if you have it. To allay ParkingEye's fears, The Prankster will not publish this on any forum, or indeed on the internet. He agrees only to use it for the purposes of proving that ParkingEye are poltroons of low integrity and only if the front sheet suggests this is the case

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

WY Parking. Why? Why? Why?

Why would the BPA Ltd ever let them join?

The simple answer is that the BPA does not have robust procedures in place to vet new members. Their policy seems to be, collect the loot first and check afterwards.

The BPA's rivals, The Independent Parking Committee, have far more stringent requirements and are fast becoming the industry leader in terms of driving standards forward. The BPA, meanwhile, seem happy to backpedal, revising their code of standards to accommodate their biggest customers like ParkingEye.

ParkingEye are known to issue so many wrong tickets they have to cancel around 55% on appeal. Because of this their appeal department is overwhelmed. They could not cope with the 35 day deadline for dealing with appeals and so got the BPA to rewrite the code of practice.

Meanwhile, back to WY Parking...

Their signs state the charge is £60.

The windscreen letter states the charge is £90, reducing to £40 and increasing to £149.

The appeal rejection states the charge is £90, currently reduced to £40 and increases to £190.

The IPC would simply not let them get away with this because wording on all signage and correspondence is vetted before enforcement action can take place. They also check that contracts are in place with the landowner and that signage plans are acceptable.

The BPA appear to be happy for any shyster to rock up with a few signs and a sheaf of window stickers.

The set of pictures indicate a large number of breaches of the BPA code of conduct. Goodness knows what other breaches lurk beneath the surface. Luckily for WY parking they have joined the one ATA that do not appear to care if their members behave shoddily as long as they pay their subscriptions.

The Prankster will check the BPA list of sanction points for November when they become available, but sadly does not expect to see WY parking's transgressions listed.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UKPC and the time travelling POPLA code

This post on pepipoo tells the sorry tale of a parking company who told lies to the British Parking Association and got found out by the motorist.

Luckily for the parking company, the British Parking Association are currently toothless and the probability of them issuing sanction points for this is about as likely as Manchester United picking The Prankster for next weeks first team. (Hint. David Moyes, if you are reading this, my email address is prankster@parking-prankster.com and I am available Saturday but not Sunday)

The parking company, UKPC, lied to the BPA and told them that a POPLA code was issued to the motorist in a letter that mysteriously never arrived.

However the motorist caught out UKPC because the POPLA code secretly contains the day it was generated, as explained in this post. The POPLA date code was 311 which means it was generated on 7th November, which was after the motorist complained to the BPA. UKPC say the letter was sent out on the 28th October, which is obviously impossible. They therefore only generated the code after the BPA contacted them.

Steve Clark of the BPA has confirmed that he is not interested that UKPC have lied to him, and that the case is closed.

The Prankster commends Mr Clark's bullish attitude and no doubt he will be playing centre forward alongside The Prankster at Old Trafford in the near future.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

The Prankster would like to thank SRM for bringing this interesting case to his attention

ParkingEye witness statement debacle continues - who owns Fistral Beach car park?

The Prankster would like to reiterate his appeal to send in ParkingEye landowner witness statements or letters of authority. Please use the usual email address prankster@parking-prankster.com.

From the statements received so far it appears that the ParkingEye have raised incompetence to industrial levels. Their witness statements simply cannot be trusted.

Here are two witness statements The Prankster has received for the car park at Fistral Beach in Newquay.

July 2013

October 2013

 

The Prankster is left wondering if Fistral Beach Ltd is the landowner and owner of the site, or if Britanic Industries Ltd is the landholder (and the landholder) of the site.

Does Jon Briant have any idea who owns the site? Does ParkingEye?

Did the site change hands between July and October? Did ParkingEye send out invalid witness statements, and if so did they contact the recipient to advise them of the mistake?

Why does Lloyd Spencer, senior valuer for Cornwall Council think the freehold of the car park is held by Cornwall Council?

Do ParkingEye have a contract with Fistral Beach Ltd or Britanic Industries Ltd?

Does Jon Briant have any idea what the difference between a landholder, landowner and owner is? Does ParkingEye? Does anyone?

No doubt Capita will be more than pleased to sort all this out.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

An open letter to Simon Renshaw Smith of VCS parking regarding Liverpool John Lennon Airport

19/11/2013

Dear Mr Renshaw Smith,

I wish to draw your attention to the procedural impropriety in your operational activities on the approach roads within Liverpool John Lennon Airport.

You are actively operating under contract to issue civil penalty tickets (PCN’s) for traffic offences on the roads such as stopping at the roadside, whether for seconds, minutes or even longer, or for parking on the roadside verges.

You are doing so based on an allegation of contractual agreement for a breach of parking conditions and are actively sending out a notice to keeper in each case where you ask for the name and address of the driver. You are doing this under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

As you are no doubt aware, due to your many years of experience in emptying people’s wallets, where land is governed by byelaws the remedy for any breach of conditions of those byelaws is through the criminal courts, such as a magistrates.

Not only that, since the byelaws set an amount of penalty for failure to comply with them; a further amount based on your own assessment is unlawful at best and perhaps even fraudulent.

A set of the byelaws for the Liverpool Airport have now been obtained from a reliable source, Liverpool City Council,  which sets out the airport’s stance on roadway use, or misuse. It also lays down a penalty upon summary conviction for a breach of the byelaws of £5 for the 1^st offence and a further amount of 40 shillings for a continued daily breach.

I put it to you that these byelaws govern the airport’s penalty regime for the alleged contraventions you are enforcing. In fact there is no penalty for stopping at the roadside. There is no offence committed so there can be no penalty unless it can be proven in a magistrate’s court that this action amounted to a failure under para 14: “Driving or placing a vehicle carelessly or dangerously or without due consideration for persons using the airport”

Para 18 gives notice that a “failure by the driver of a vehicle to comply with any direction for the regulation of traffic given by a constable or any person acting on behalf of the council or a traffic sign” will be subject to the penalty regime of the aforementioned £5 plus 40 shillings per day afterwards.

The mention of the traffic signs and the council's part in the overall monitoring means that the signs must be compliant to the TSRGD which are those shown for the public highways; not the ones arbitrarily stuck at the roadside by yourself which are meaningless in the context of the legal status of the byelaws.

Furthermore, POFA 2012 3(1)(c) states that Schedule 4 only applies on land on which the parking of a vehicle is not subject to a statutory control. It further states (3)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question.

The byelaws state at para 2.19 that the following act is prohibited.

"parking a vehicle elsewhere than in a place provided for that purpose."

The penalty for this is a fine not exceeding five pounds.

POFA 2012 therefore does not apply, and you may therefore only pursue the driver and not the registered keeper. Moreover, you may only pursue them for the sum of five pounds.

Knowingly pursuing the registered keeper when POFA 2012 is an offence which the DVLA take extremely seriously and may ban you from access. The BPA wrote to you in their electronic newsletter this month reiterating this.

I put it to you, Mr Renshaw Smith, that your company is operating unlawfully at the Liverpool Airport site and ask what you intend to do since this has now been brought to your notice.

May I remind you that since this is an unlawful operation, you may well be required at some later time to recompense the amounts of the PCN’s already paid by drivers, and perhaps face tough questions in a court of law, not just a civil court.

Happy Stopping Briefly At the Roadside

The Parking Prankster

The Prankster would like to thank his source for the above