Thursday, 3 November 2016

AS Parking Gladstoned again

C6GF0D56 AS Parking v Mr R, Truro 3/11/2016

Mr R parked outside of a marked bay and on a yellow hatched area by about 8 inches as a courtesy to the car next him, as otherwise the driver wouldn't have been able to get in his car.

The Judge questioned Gladstones competece; "Do they even know what they're doing.....?" and dismissed the claim, agreeing that Mr R had acted reasonably and courteously.

Prankster Note

An observer reported that Kevin McManus was spitting feathers!

Kevin McManus left the BPA to join the IPC. It is one thing to use the so called "Independent" Appeals Service to push through bogus parking charges. However Parking Companies are then encouraged by Gladstones, with their pitiful grasp of legal issues regarding parking, to file a claim. At that point they realise that Gladstones legal expertise is so much hot air.

Kevin McManus, you've been Gladstoned!

"Do they even know what they're doing?"

Apparently not. It is therefore incomprehensible that the government allows the two charlatans Will Hurley and John Davis to run a parking ATA without properly supervising them and making sure that someone who does understand the law regarding parking runs the "Independent" Appeals Service.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
at

8 comments:

  1. Fractious Tart3 November 2016 at 15:38

    Two lost souls, Kev and Gang and their clients.
    They'll do each other in before long
    https://youtu.be/eEjOzeuaaAQ

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown5 November 2016 at 08:45

    I never knew that acting reasonably and courteously was a valid legal defence in a court case. If the contract stated that parking within the white lines was a condition of parking there then it seems that a breach was made. Common sense should prevail in situations like this, but the law is often not on the side of common sense...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Parking Prankster5 November 2016 at 09:18

      The judge is perfectly entitled to use existing case law such as ParkingEye v Beavis, and rule that in a situation like this there is no commercial justification for enforcing the charge because this would leave the car park one space empty to the detriment of retailers and customers. As this is a supreme court case it is binding on lower courts, so the judge would have to follow its case law.

      Delete
    2. Unknown5 November 2016 at 12:59

      Thanks for your reply and it's good to know that something positive came from the sad outcome of Barry's case.

      Delete
  3. The Dude5 November 2016 at 14:32

    Has anyone got a pic of Kev spitting feathers ?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Dude5 November 2016 at 14:32

    Has anyone got a pic of Kev spitting feathers ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. alan6 November 2016 at 09:41

    http://www.exploreclarion.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/17-clowns-pennywise.w529.h352-2.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  6. alan6 November 2016 at 09:42

    sorry , wrong pici , that was "trev" coming out of preston court

    ReplyDelete