John Davies is the director of Gladstone Solicitors. He is also the co-owner (along with Will Hurley) of the International Parking Community (IPC). This week John's law firm was forced to drop another in a long line of bogus claims.
Sadly, although he calls himself a barrister, he appears to have little knowledge of the law around parking, as evidenced by the large number of lost or discontinued parking claims his firm has overseen.
Will Hurley's sham "Independent" Appeals Service was also shown up to be at fault. The IAS is run by Bryn Holloway. Although Byrn claims to be an ex-judge, his knowledge of parking related law is apparently as poor as John Davies, as evidenced by the fact the courts pay little regard to the principles his barista's use to make their judgments.
This was yet another claim which had no hope of success. The full story is on Pepipoo.
The defendant was a resident in a block of flats. Parking and Property Management Ltd were employed to "look after" the parking areas.
The defendant had an allocated space and was visited by friends. They decided to visit a show in the evening using the defendants car, leaving the visitors car in their allocated space. They called P&PM to get a temporary permit. The agent was unable to hand on of these out, so they were given a "Maintenance/Builder permit".
They were away for one night and found a windscreen ticket on their return. The defendant took the ticket as they were embarrassed their friend was given a ticket on their own spot.
He appealed to P&PM on his friend's behalf, giving the driver details, but the appeal was dismissed as the permits expired on the 12th and the ticket was issued on the 13th August.
He appealed to the IAS but the appeal was dismissed for the same reason.
Those well known comedians Gladstone Solicitors then filed a claim against the resident. As the resident was neither driver nor keeper of the car, there was of course no prospect of success. Even if the resident was the keeper, there would still have been no prospect of success as their lease gave the right to a parking space. The lease did not specify a requirement to display a permit and therefore Saeed v Plustrade comes into play.
However, Gladstones never let facts or legal arguments get in the way of making money from their clients by filing ridiculous claims. Due diligence is not a phrase which passes John Davies lips often, it appears.
The resident filed a defence on the basis they were not the driver or keeper, and the lease gave them the right to a parking space.
Although most responsible and sensible solicitor firms would have advised their client they had no case at this point, Gladstones are well known for their poor understanding of the law. Hapless administration assistant Vladimir carried on the claim on behalf of Gladstones, asking for the claim to be decided on the papers. This is a tired trick of Gladstones, and should almost always be resisted.
A court date was set for 31st July.
Somewhere around this time P&PM got turfed out.
Shortly later they threw in the towel and discontinued the claim.
Residential parking management is not about making money from residents. The purpose of the control is to deter outside motorists from parking.
P&PM failed to understand that and so got the boot.
The Prankster believes that only a totally incompetent and shambolic firm of solicitors would have filed a claim like this. it is obvious to anyone who understands the law around parking the claim had no prospect of success.
The Parking Prankster