C7GF50J7 Link Parking v Ms P 2/11/2016 Wrexham
This case concerns a residential car park. The motorist in question has her own assigned parking space which she has successfully managed for several years by installing a post which can be raised and lowered. She has never had any problems with this system.
One day on arriving at the property she discovered a letter from the management company explaining that the car park was now managed by Link Parking. On returning to the car she discovered that a ticket had been issued.
She naturally appealed, expecting that any reasonable parking company would cancel the charge. Link Parking declined. As the motorist refused to pay, a claim was issued by Gladstones Solicitors.
The hearing took place in Wrexham Court No.3 in front of Justice Louise Metcalf. Ms P was introduced to Mr. Pickup, a barrister from LPC, instructed by Gladstones and acting for Gladstones. Mr Pickup was a pleasant young man who does a lot of parking case work and is based about 60 miles away in Bury. The hearing began at 10.00am in front of the Judge, who informed Ms P she had received no papers from her. Mr Pickup confirmed he had received his copies. Both sets had been sent by Ms P on 17th October via Royal Mail Special Delivery (to arrive next day, deadline was 19th Oct) Presumably the papers were lost somewhere in the Law Court building. Ms P. then handed her copies to the Judge, who then sent the parties out, and heard another case.
The case resumed just after 11.00am; by this time the Judge had read the defendant's copy. After reading both submissions, she stated Link's case was “fairly simple”. She then asked both Ms P and Link’s rep questions. Finally she asked if Ms P. had any further questions, Ms P asked if she would be disadvantaged in any way because her documents had not found their way to the judge. The judge assured Ms P it would not as she totally believed that she had sent them. She then sent both parties out and they were called back in just before noon, where they listened to the summing up. At first Ms P thought it was going in Link’s favour but then the judge read Ms P's submission regarding contracts. The judge also read the submissions regarding signage compared to the Beavis case.
The judge ruled that that for Link or CPML (the management company) to have any right to manage the parking on the Landowner's property, the deeds would have to be altered to state this for the whole site. She ruled that the Landowner could not be penalised for parking in her own space.
She dismissed the claim and asked if the defendant was claiming expenses, which was declined. It appeared the judge was influenced by the transcript of the similar case from Croydon court of PACE v Mr N, which is available on The Prankster's web site.
If there is car park management at a residential site, this will be primarily to stop non-residents from parking. No reputable car parking company would target the residents and refuse to cancel a parking charge, issued to a resident, especially if they have only just been informed of parking restrictions. Sadly, Martin Gardner is far from reputable and the large number of failed court cases show he runs a rogue company with no regard to the law, proper parking management, or common decency.
Also sadly, Gladstones Solicitors seem to be encouraging him that this behaviour is acceptable and above board.
For this particular car park The Prankster is aware of one ticket being issued to the management company representative, a large number of tickets to residents, and none whatsoever to non-residents. This does not seem to be a useful service at all.
Martin Gardner of Link Parking, you've been Gladstoned!
The Parking Prankster