Friday, 29 January 2016

Update on Michael Schwartz (now of Civil Enforcement Limited)

The Prankster has received a number of emails from people who complained to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority about Michael Schwartz.

The SRA were also investigating Mr Schwartz about another matter, and practicing certificate conditions were imposed on Mr Schwartz. This decision is available here

  • Mr Schwartz shall act as a solicitor only in employment, the arrangements for which have been approved by the SRA.
  • Mr Schwartz is not to be a recognised sole practitioner, manager or owner of an authorised body.
  • Mr Schwartz shall not hold, receive or have access to client money, or act as a signatory to any client or office account, or have the power to authorise payments in or out of any client or office account or any transfers from any client or office account.
  • Mr Schwartz shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for them.

This is presumably why he is now signing particulars of claim as a Civil Enforcement Limited employee. It's obviously quite amusing the SRA think CEL is a fit and proper employer, considering the way they conduct litigation.

Mr Schwartz is still under investigation for other matters which are being considered by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Any decision will eventually be published on the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal website here.

Despite this, Mr Schwartz is still ignoring practice directions. His company is sending out wholly deficient letters before claim which give the defendant no idea what the claim is about.

The Prankster has receive a large number of identical draft particulars. The badly mailmerged documents only contain two pieces of individual information - the name of the defendant and the name of the car park. The covering letter also contains a supposed PCN number.

The defendant therefore has no idea what the claim is about - what the date of the parking event was, what the vehicle was, why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, or in short, anything useful at all.

This is in clear violation of the pre-action protocol

3.  Before commencing proceedings, the court will expect the parties to have exchanged sufficient information to—
(a) understand each other’s position;
(b) make decisions about how to proceed;
(c) try to settle the issues without proceedings;
(d) consider a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to assist with settlement;
(e) support the efficient management of those proceedings; and
(f) reduce the costs of resolving the dispute.
Mr Schwartz's company CEL then ignore any attempt by the defendant to find out what the charge is about, and go on to file a claim. This time, the actual particulars filed arrive within 14 days, and are slightly more revealing. They are again identical to all other claims, but this time the badly mailmerged new particulars do reveal the date, vehicle and carefully selected words from the supposed signage.

This is of course, yet another signature to add to the Michael Schwartz collection.

Any defendant who has received wholly deficient letters before action and particulars of claim like this can refer the matter to the Solicitors Regulator Authority for consideration in the upcoming tribunal. Any other matters concerning Mr Schwartz can also be raised.

If you think this is how solicitors and parking companies should conduct litigation then please ignore this blog. Otherwise, please ask the government to investigate by signing Barry Beavis's petition.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. He doesn't even know what the BPA stands for...

  2. And he can't spell "claimant"

  3. I thought it was the high court that used 'commercially justifiable' while the Supreme court reverted to 'not unconscionable' which would then not contradict Dunlop and allow the fudgement?

    1. Neither is strictly correct. The SC set out an entirely new judicial test which focuses on whether a clause is proportionate to a legitimate interest in securing performance.

  4. CEL's very own Rachel. Aspiration to the big time? I wonder if Crapita are interested in making a bid?

  5. CEL's very own Rachel ....only at weekends. Allegedly

  6. Only these are the sort of companies that could employ him so no surprise he's ended up here. Bent solicitor.

  7. Point 3

    "There are many clear and visible signs IN THE CAR advising drivers of the terms and conditions..."

    How do the magic ANPR cameras place many notices IN THE CAR?

  8. Ol' Michael is not well known for his command of English. Come on, the guy can hardly spell his own name. Expecting him to write and understand complex legal documents is hardly fair. Oh, wait...

  9. His spelling is bad. I wonder if he also spells 'hunt' with a 'c', 'banker' with a 'w' etc!