Monday, 3 July 2017

Millennium Door And Security Group lose claim over 4 residential tickets

Millennium Door and Security v Mr T. Swansea 03/07/2017. D7GF651J. DJ Batcup

Mr T represented himself. David Bellis and an assistant represented the claimant.

There were 4 tickets involved, all for a residential site where Mr T's leasehold gave him the right to park.

DJ Batcup agreed, and dismissed the claim because the leasehold took precedence over Millenniums contract.

In the run up to the hearing, Gladstones requested a copy of the lease, which was provided to them. Despite this, they decided to continue with the claim. The lease did allow the management company to introduce regulations in various circumstances. However, the parking contract was not found to be such a regulation.

Prankster Notes

It is quite obvious and there is plenty of case law that an existing contract takes precedence, and cannot be unilaterally altered.

David Bellis has legal training and so will be well aware of this. It is likely then that he is taking out these claims because he hopes that his victims will not know the legal situation, and will either be scared of court and pay up, or will mess up in the court procedures, or will file an irrelevant defence.

In the Prankster's behaviour this is morally bankrupt behaviour.

Millennium Door and Security, you've been Gladstoned!

Happy Parking 

The Parking Prankster


  1. << Millennium Door and Security, you've been Gladstoned! >>

    Yet again!

  2. This stuff makes me want to puke.
    There will be other cases in the pipeline that will almost certainly go ahead even though they have no standing to usurp the lease conditions.
    Not only is it morally wrong I suspect that it amounts to fraud.

    How in hell can we get criminal charges presented for the "proper courts" to address.

  3. Tart's comments above and Prankster's comments from Friday make me wonder.
    "The judge knew exactly what the situation was re Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films and just wanted to hear the defendant say the right things about them being a criminal case and an Employer/Employee situation."

    If a judge knows something to be irrelevant, baseless or wrong - do they have to wait for the defense to point out the flaws? I would expect the judge to be able to see through the crap on their own. Or am I fundamentally misunderstanding the role of the judge in the adversarial system? Or is it just the issue of DJ Bingo!

    1. Yes, the judge is meant to be impartial and only consider any evidence before him/her. If you don't bring up the details you need, they're automatically not considered,

  4. Given all these rulings, why isn't the BPA keeping a master list so the parking companies cannot issue ticket at a location where judgements favor the consumer?

    1. Then see their funding stream jump ship and join the IPC?

      The BPA is desperate to hang on to their members; they dare not ruffle one single feather. Have you seen any BPA member sanctioned in the past 18 months, despite some very dodgy goings on?