Printfriendly

Saturday, 28 January 2017

ES Parking Enforcement, you've been Gladstoned. Again

ES Parking Enforcement Ltd v Ms Q. C0GF4C5K. Preston.

Ms Q's vehicle stopped briefly in the Spinningfields Estate, Manchester. There was no signage nearby and no road markings to indicate this was not allowed. 

ES Parking Enforcement have a spy CCTV camera installed on this street which takes photos of cars which stop.

ES Parking Enforcement used photos from the spy camera to issue a parking charge which Ms Q contested, and the case eventually ended up in court. 

Gladstones could not be bothered to follow practice directions or the judge's instructions - that kind of legal nitty gritty is only for the hoi-polloi, not for the paragons of virtue inhabiting Gladstone Towers. As is their habit, the witness statement was therefore served late. It should have arrived on 13th January, but was only dated 16th January. This is not an isolated incident and therefore is a clear indication of Gladstone's arrogant attitude towards the court process.

Ms Q served a skeleton argument to the court and Gladstones ahead of time to give them clear indication what was going to hit them it they attended court, and to give them a chance to discontinue. They failed to take their chance.

The Hearing

Brian Hargreaves turned up and represented himself to save costs. He discussed the case for about 45 minutes with Ms Q before they went in, with quite an open conversation. He said he wasn't going to bother seeing if Ms Q would settle but did she know that she could get a CCJ if she failed. He suggested he had won a few cases and that several people settled at court prior to the hearing.

He said that it wasn't worth bringing a solicitor  and that he was only there to save the reputation of the company. He wanted to know if the Parking Prankster was going to be there, who he described  as a 'pyjama wearing, toast eating nothing to do all day kind of person'.

The judge gave him a roasting from the outset and  and he turned a lovely shade of beetroot for the rest of the hearing. The first point of contention was that ES Parking Enforcement had not completed the particulars of the claim properly, that the judge had told ES Parking Enforcement this before, and that the judge was angry that he was there again with the same documents.

Regarding the actual claim, the main point was that ES Parking Enforcement were trying to establish a contract existed but the judge said this was not possible. The judge said he would like to take it higher but could only rule on the case today.

The claim was dismissed and Ms Q was awarded her full costs.

After the hearing Ms Q spoke to the usher who said she had been asked by the judge to pass on his thanks and congratulations on the legal paperwork and defence she put forward. No doubt it was a joy to receive something clearly laid out and on time as opposed to the shoddy stuff Gladstones throw together. 


Prankster Notes

The Prankster will put down his toast and brush the crumbs off his pyjamas before commenting.

Mr Hargreaves has had a torrid time in court this week. Judges in Manchester and Preston have wised up to the fact there can be no parking contract when you briefly stop your car.

Mr Hargreaves now has dates with destiny in Wigan and Huddersfield. No doubt he will find out there whether judges talk to each other or not.

Although the judge will no doubt be amused by Gladstones template claim that the signs were bound to have been seen, the reality of all the photographic evidence submitted by both sides is that there were no signs in sight. Such a blatant lie in the witness statement is disrespectful to the court and the defendant. Whoever threw this witness statement together 3 days late in Gladstone Towers should be ashamed of themselves.

Finally, despite what Brian Hargreaves suggests, losing a court claim does not automatically mean that a CCJ will remain on record against you and damage your credit score. A CCJ only remains on the register if you fail to pay the judgment within the allotted period.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster



5 comments:

  1. Yet another breach of DPA. I really would like all people who have this on their side take advantage of it.
    It's only by biting back that the effects will be felt and might, just might, get a PPC to back off once a counterclaim is threatened.

    ReplyDelete
  2. " Whoever threw this witness statement together 3 days late in Gladstone Towers should be ashamed of themselves"

    Buts thats the point, they have no shame, neither does their shill 'appeals' service.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Are they under the illusion that they are a professional outfit or are they thiefs and they know it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. As ` understand it NO CCJ goes on any register after a hearing. The loser has 21 days to make full restitution to the claimant. It is only when this does not happen, will Registry Trust be advised of the judgement, and only then it becomes a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am going through this now, Gladstone have issued me proceedings to go to court would I win?

    ReplyDelete