Thursday, 21 April 2016

Link Parking win Pyrrhic victory in court. Will Hurley's two faced behaviour exposed.

Link Parking won in court in Cardiff, charging a visitor to a housing estate for daring to have their wheel a few inches over the line.

Their evidence pack showed the car parked in the next bay had no problems.

Despite Gladstones attempts to foul-up the case by filing signage which belonged in another car park***, the judge decided to be lenient and allow Link to introduce new evidence after the filing deadline.

The victory showed how out of touch with the needs of their customers Link Parking are. The landowner had repeatedly asked Link to cancel the charge as the motorist was a genuine visitor. When Link refused, their contract was cancelled by the landowner.

The court hearing was therefore something of a last hurrah for Link Parking. Link Parking will have been well out of pocket with the case, paying Gladstones to file the case and prepare a witness statement, plus a solicitor from LPC law to conduct the hearing for them. And of course they will no longer be plying their unwanted trade in the housing estate, having been given the boot for overly aggressive parking enforcement.

Prankster Note

This is an excellent example of how two-faced Will Hurley of Gladstones Solicitors and the IPC is. Will has spouted off countless times on behalf of the IPC, including on national TV, about how his organisation is all about landowners rights, and how landowners should be able to control parking how they like on their own land.

However, when Will is wearing his Gladstones hat he is perfectly happy to ride roughshod over landowner wishes, ignore their requests to cancel charges and kowtow to the parking operators.

This is of course a poor long-term strategy, and one guaranteed to lose contracts long term - no sensible customer will renew contracts from a service company ignoring their wishes.

The Prankster believes that proper parking management companies do not act in this way and that there is a better way.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

*** Where have we heard that before


  1. That's disgraceful.
    Worthy of appeal I say. Especially since the last post you made seems to go against the non contractual basis of parking where it's forbidden in the 1st place.
    Also there can be no justification for the claim where the landowner has told them to desist before the court case.

  2. landowner should bring charges against Link for breach of contract (failure to cancel) , another nice bill for them from gladstones for defending