ParkingEye ignore PCN (Personal Costs Notification)

One definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same action, yet expect a different result.

ParkingEye have now contested over 80 cases at POPLA where their charge level was contested, and the score is currently Motorists 81 ParkingEye 0.

Motorists can therefore feel fairly aggrieved that they have to spend time and effort preparing a POPLA defence when ParkingEye have no chance of winning; ParkingEye's accounts show they make a profit of over 30% on parking charges and as they are required to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss this is an obvious impossibility.

One motorist therefore warned ParkingEye that if they refused to cancel his charge and that he was forced to continue to POPLA he would charge them for his time and effort if he won. ParkingEye refused to cancel the charge. The motorist appealed to POPLA and won, and duly issued his invoice to ParkingEye.

ParkingEye ignored the invoice and all subsequent communications and hung up the phone whenever the motorist tried to contact them.

This is surprising, because in all their court documents ParkingEye roundly lambast motorists for ignoring letters that they send.

In the end, as a last resort, the motorist has been forced to issue a court claim against ParkingEye.

The Parking Prankster will follow the case with interest. ParkingEye now have 14 days to acknowledge the claim or face default judgement.

Will ParkingEye finally spring into immediate action? Will they pay up? Will they attempt mediation? Will Capita send a few lawyers over to help out? Will ParkingEye use a photocopied signature on their witness statement or will they follow proper procedures?

Only time will tell.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Parking Company pay Motorist's PCN

Yes, that headline really is the right way around.

On the weekend The Prankster learned that New Generation Parking forked out two hundred and fifty pounds as compensation to a motorist they had pursued with a parking charge.

The motorist, a blue badge holder, had apparently parked in the wrong place while displaying his badge. After the initial appeal to New Generation Parking was turned down, the motorist appealed to POPLA who ruled in his favour.

“After considering the photographs of the surface of road where the appellant parked, it is evident that the lines marked on the road are approximately the same width of some of the cars parked in the site. Furthermore it is not clear whether or not the lines are coloured, nor is it specified in the sign what ‘coloured’ actually means.
This would have caused confusion in the minds of motorists; in particular it would not have been clear to motorists whether the road had marked on it a bay or a hatched area.
I find that that the operator cannot enforce a term of a contract that was not made sufficiently clear to motorists at the time the contract was formed, nor is it specified in the sign what ‘coloured’ actually means and on this ground alone I must allow the appeal”.

Obviously, everything is 'coloured' (except perhaps giant invisible erections).

The motorist therefore sent a PCN (Personal Costs Notification) to New Generation Parking for his time and effort involved in fighting a charge which was totally unenforceable.

After some to-ing and fro-ing, just before the deadline at which court action was due, the parking company coughed up.

The Prankster is now in awe of Mr Donovan and congratulates him for his persistence and for the way he has stood up not only for his own rights, but also for the rights of other motorists.

This contrasts with the behaviour of the British Parking Association Ltd who have been a bit of a lame duck throughout. Despite New Generation Parking changing the signs in the car park, the signs still state parking is banned on 'hatched or coloured areas' without specifying what coloured means - exactly the problem that POPLA ruled on. The signs are also smaller than the size stipulated by the BPA Ltd code of practice but have been bolted on to the previous, larger signs. The BPA Ltd have however closed the case and consider the signage to be sufficient in both content and size.

The BPA Ltd have ATA status with the DVLA and are therefore expected to police their own operators. This does not mean always siding with the people who pay their wages - the parking companies. They also have a duty of care to the motorist. If the BPA Ltd are going to consistently ignore problems with their operators and fail to properly enforce POPLA rulings, The Prankster considers their ATA status will eventually come under threat. The DVLA have already considered threatening their ATA status once. Now that there is a viable alternative, The Independent Parking Committee, the DVLA can pull the plug on the BPA Ltd at any time without bringing the industry to a halt.

It is therefore vitally important to bring to the DVLA's attention all instances where the BPA Ltd is not correctly following up on motorist's complaints about rogue parking operators.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Parking company taken to court by motorist

Several parking companies are currently being taken to court by motorists trying to recoup costs involved with fighting tickets which have had no validity. Although parking companies are keen to issue charges of £100 and upwards for minor transgressions such as being 1 minute late or parking slightly over a white line, they are not so keen to pay motorists when the parking company has been found to be in the wrong.

Some cases have now completed and it is clear the courts will award the motorist their costs in the right circumstances.

Here is a poem submitted to The Prankster regarding one such case completed recently.

Ssshh someone took a PPC to court
Because the PPC weren't being a sport

The PPC declined an appeal that had the right line
They tried to make out that it was a just fine

So the keeper reached out to rap their hand
He tried to make them understand
That what they were playing was a crime
And by continuing they were wasting his time

So he presented a PCN - a Personal Cost Notification
Of course a 50% off before the Popla negation
No word was heard and Popla appeal accepted
A full PCN was thus sent as expected

But the PPC continued to ignore
Until an MCOL for 1000 hit their floor

They were going to fight the claim
Of course the keeper had to play the game
One wrong step and all would be undone
After all they thought he could be outdone

5 months later at the 11th hour
....The keeper ready to devour
And to put forth a legal precedence
That would kill off any future PPC offense

...The PPC fully settled the claim!

Lesson: Do not allow bullies to continue their current behaviour!

If you want to claim money from the parking company, The Prankster suggests the following;

In your initial appeal, warn the parking company you will charge them if they do not cancel your ticket and force you to spend time and effort appealing to POPLA. Warn them that you will charge them if you win your POPLA appeal.

Tell them that your charge will be a contractual charge, and that they will be deemed to have accepted the contract by performance if they fail to cancel the charge.

Although in this case the parking companies had to fork out £1,000, The Prankster suggest a figure of £100 will have most chance of success in court.

The Prankster also warns that court action is always risky, and the chance of success will depend on you following court procedures correctly and getting the right judge. Success is not guaranteed - there have also been cases where the judge has ruled in favour of the parking company.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Muppet lawyers Hurley and Davies claim against non-existent vehicle

AS Parking v "Fleet Management Ltd".

Guest Blog

On the 29th of May 2015, AS Parking allegedly ticketed a vehicle in the Main Car Park Port Isaac, Cornwall. Which is curious, because the vehicle was registered with the DVLA on July 31st 2015.

Nonetheless, Super-Kev at AS Parking applied to the DVLA at some point in August 2015 for the keeper details, which came back as a fleet management company, and proceeded to issue a Notice to Keeper.
                                                                                       
The Fleet Management company replied with a “this vehicle was not registered at the time, please check your details” type of letter, along with a copy of the V5 confirming the date of registration. The issue seemed to have been dropped as no reply was received, and the fleet management company carried on with their daily processing of dozens of PCNs. Regardless of the compliance with POFA 2012, the fleet management company maintain their professionalism by responding to each NtK as if they were fully compliant.

For reasons still unknown, AS Parking then sent a final reminder in June 2016, nearly a year after their initial Notice to Keeper.  In July 2014 a document from Messrs’ Hurley & Davies arrived, pertaining to be a Letter Before Claim. Clearly as an error has been made, the Fleet management company provided a copy of the V5 in reply, along with a covering letter. It’s usually prudent and sensible to be upfront in such instances, and potentially save a lot of work further down the line.

Alas, it was futile.

On July 19th 2016, a claim form from Northampton arrived with the fleet management company, suggesting that £237.77 should be paid to AS Parking. Needless to say, this was acknowledged, however before a lengthy defence was submitted, the fleet management company tried to apply some common sense to the issue.

Another letter to Gladstones was sent on July 22nd, along with a letter to AS Parking, and also the landowners - St Endellion Parish Council, who in their infinite wisdom not only agreed to let AS Parking “manage” their site at Port Isaac, but also refused to acknowledge the clear error in the claim, and their Parish Clerk suggested that the fleet management company should submit the defence and continue the debacle.

In the interest of transparency and fairness, (something that seems to elude the business empire of Hurley & Davies), the fleet management company again highlighted the error to Gladstones on August 4th. No reply was received, although a number of read receipts were returned by the email.

Needless to say a defence was submitted, covering the usual aspects of keeper liability, landowner authority, challenging whether it was even relevant land under POFA, but also highlighting the clear error in issue date and registration date.

August 16th, 2016, correspondence was received at the Fleet Management company from Gladstones confirming receipt of the defence and the intention to have the case “heard on the papers”. Not a chance – this particular fleet manager is well aware of the tricks and tactics of Gladstones, so refused to accept this offer, and again the clear error was highlighted.

It also occurred to the fleet manager that this case would likely be heard in Truro, something of a 700 mile round trip and involving an overnight stay. Again in the interests of transparency. All parties including the landowner were notified that the costs claimed in defence could be significant. No reply was received from any of the other parties.

Imagine the surprise of the fleet manager when notification from the court was received on August 30th to confirm the case would be heard in Manchester – a nice commutable distance, but not quite as picturesque as Cornwall.

Once again, the fleet manager reminded all parties that the case was continuing despite the clear error in the claim. Once again, nobody responded.

And then it all went quiet. Had somebody seen sense? Had the claim been discontinued? On October 10th 2016, a letter from the courts was received, and scheduled a hearing for January 2017...in a court not 2 minutes away from the Fleet Management company.

On the 19th December 2016, a hearing fee was paid, so it looked like the fleet manager was going to have to prepare for a short trip to court, but decided to worry about it after Christmas, because just how much preparation would be needed to show two individual documents to a District Judge?

At some point over Christmas, the greatest living legal minds in Cheshire had something of a Eureka moment, because on December 31st, a Notice of Discontinuance was filed with the court.

The fleet manager is now a little disappointed at missing out on the opportunity to face the mighty Gladstones in court. Despite the regular court claims received by the company, to date, none have gone to a hearing. Gladstones seem happy to pursue individual people all the way, but seem very reluctant to face up to corporate entities in court room. How could they argue that a Ltd company was the driver, on the balance of probabilities? And how do they argue keeper liability when even POFA recognises that the Keeper and Registered Keeper are not necessarily one and the same?

Helpfully, a certain QC called Jonathan Kirk (you may have heard of him from Parking Eye v Beavis) very successfully argued that distinction in front of HHJ Burgess – Regina (House of Cars) -v- Derby Car and Van Contracts Limited [2012] but we’ve not had the opportunity to test this in front of a judge yet.

Maybe next time…

Prankster Note

Legal muppets William Hurley and John Davies continue on their misguided mission to bring the legal profession into disrepute.

Their firm Gladstones Solicitors had no fewer than 9 chances to recognise their utter dereliction of duty to their client, and failed each time. Their strategy of reducing costs by ignoring all communications from defendants is now well established, but fails all legal guidelines.

It must be said Gladstones were lucky that the defendant was a company. Had the defendant been a person then they may have had a rather large data protection claim against AS Parking.

As it is perhaps they may still look forward to a word from the Solicitors Regulatory Authority.

AS Parking...you've been Gladstoned!

The IPC

It has to be noted that Hurley and Davies strategy of non-communication is not only a characteristic of the Gladstones business, but is also the way they run the IPC and the IAS. The Prankster has seen a large number of complaints against both the IPC and IAS. Without fail they receive template replies which do not address the complain and dismiss the complaint without Hurley and Davies having to lift a finger apart from to press the print 'Fob off' button.

Not only that, but they deliberately make the complaints process as difficult as possible, requiring it to take place online and requiring a large amount of personal data seemingly unconnected to the complaint.

The Prankster calls on the government to remove ATA status from the IPC until they provide a proper complaints procedure which genuinely considers complaints.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster