UKPC v McCarthy. Score draw. No penalties after extra time

UKPC vs McCarthy 15/12/2016 Luton C2HW10Q1

UKPC were claiming £900 for 6 unpaid parking tickets on a residential site. Mr McCarthy was counter-claiming harassment for 40 or so wrongly issued tickets. UKPC were using SCS law to process their claim.

Guest report

I met Mr Taylor, the representative of SCS, at the door of the courts and after a brief chat I found him to be a nice enough man and who told me he represents SCS and UKPC on numerous occasions as a freelance solicitor in various regions of the country. We entered the court and the judge explained to me how the proceedings would go (as I wasn't legally trained) and that I would hear UKPC's arguments first and then would be allowed to give my account.

Mr Taylor of SCS pitched his claim first. The witness statement given by UKPC had stated that they had a copy of my lease, but they had in fact attached a copy of another apartment block (not connected) altogether. However they had spotted this and at the court brought a copy of my lease (handed to them by the managing agent) and stated it was an error in submittal.

The judge allowed them to submit this. The lease stated that "I would not park in an obstructive location in the communal areas". I did object to my lease being handed in on the day as I had no time to cross-reference or check if it was my lease at all but the judge stated that we could do one of two things; first being proceed on the assumption it is my lease or stop proceedings and obtain my lease from the land registry. I chose to let them proceed.

Mr Taylor stated that they had been employed by my managing agent to manage the site and that there was a legitimate interest for doing so referencing the Beavis case.

There were 6 tickets in total being claimed referenced a-f with two issued before the DVLA investigation of UKPC and 4 after. Mr Taylor went on to state that each ticket was issued and then when not paid passed on to debt recovery companies etc to bring the claim up to circa £900.

My opportunity came to speak. I referenced my witness statement and  the points raised in the statement.

My first point was that the contract UKPC were operating under was dated 2012 for a period of 3 months. However the judge ruled that the contract carried on by conduct and as UKPC were still on site the contract was deemed to be in place.

My next point was that the contract stated that it was on the basis that UKPC operated within the rules of the BPA and that they had not been. I touched on the signage being unilluminated and there not being a P sign at the front of the premises which has now been put in place. I had attached a copy of the British Parking Association t&c's and code of practice to my statement but did not bring a copy to the court and did not make my point clearly enough on this. The judge did have a copy but failed to review and in haste I did not prompt her to.

My next point was that the signage was strictly prohibitive and that it did not allow parking and as there was no offer to park beavis did not apply. With the managing agent sending my lease over I don't think this argument stood.

I also stated that I was not the driver that my brother and wife both used my car. I stated that UKPC had not followed the rules of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act as the tickets and notice to keeper did not have the time periods stipulated on them nor did they show any grace periods. Again unfortunately I did not have schedule 4 with me as I naively assumed that the judge would have had this information. Perhaps I should have asked to stay proceedings until I had the information printed as she had offered to do with my lease.  In judgement the judge stated that it was most unfortunate I did not have this with me to rely upon.

My main point was the reference to the mail online article I had included in my witness statement regarding the practice of UKPC doctoring tickets. I argued that during the period they had been suspended by the DVLA their equipment was obviously not adequate and open to fraudulent activity. In her judgement she agreed.

UKPC's witness statement said that this was an isolated incident in one region of the country however the judge stated that they had failed to say what region of the country (perhaps cunningly) and that it could have been Watford. For this reason the judge dismissed the first two tickets in UKPC's claim as they were issued in 2014 and early 2015. I argued that UKPC were still doing this as my car was never parked in the location during the time periods they were saying it was and said in court I am fully stating that UKPC are still doctoring tickets. I made no exception and stated that was exactly what I was saying. Mr Taylor of SCS stated that it was highly unlikely that a company already found guilty of doctoring tickets would continue to do so and the judge in her statement agreed on this point as she had no evidence to show that they were still carrying this out.

I raised the point that I was counterclaiming for harassment and that although we were discussing 6 tickets issued that I had in fact received between 30 to 40 tickets and I had attached numerous emails I had complaining to my management company that the tickets were issued out of the time scales and days that the scheme was not in operation. On a few occasions the managing agent had replied apologising and stating that they had brought up the issue with UKPC. Mr Taylor in his statement said he did not want to even touch on my harassment claim as he believed it fell "so foul of outlining harassment under the act".

The judge however in her statement stated that she believed I was a credible and truthful witness and that I had been clearly upfront about everything from the start and during cross examination. She stated that with the 30/40 tickets I would have received chasing letters and debt recovery letters. That UKPC would have obtained my details from the DVLA incorrectly and for that I would have felt distressed and alarmed by this. I was claiming £1000 but did not reference a precedent to this which she felt was unfortunate. However she said in the absence of this that she found in my favour for the exact amount of the four tickets she had found in favour of UKPC tickets (£580) with us both having to pay each others costs.

Having seen a copy of my lease the judge found in favour of UKPC on four of the parking tickets. She stated that it was most unfortunate that I did not have the POFA sch4 and BPA guidance with me.

Both parties asked for leave to appeal, which was refused.

Prankster Note

This was an extremely creditable performance by Mr McCarthy up against an experienced advocate. If this hearing could be held again, it is likely Mr McCarty would succeed in getting all the charges cancelled. Sadly, time travel is not yet possible.

The case underlines the need to bring copies of everything to court with you. This is why lawyers always trundle around with huge suitcases - they are full of paper relating to their cases. Bring a copy for yourself and a copy for the judge. You should have already sent the other party a copy. Although it shouldn’t be necessary to print out statutory legislation - judges all have terminals on the desk linked to the MoJ portal where they can easily look up statutes - this case shows you cannot rely on the judge putting in the legwork.

The judge correctly pointed out that the DVLA was accessed incorrectly. This would be a breach of data protection regulations, and for each breach an amount would be payable.

The case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.

The case of VCS v Phillip, claim number C9DP2D6C Liverpool 07/12/2016, while not binding, concerns a motorist awarded £250 when the DVLA details were accessed with no cause.

A sum of £250 per breach would therefore seem to be in order.

Mr McCarthy can now consider claiming £250 for any tickets where UKPC accessed the DVLA incorrectly. This would be for a data protection breach, separate to the harassment claim. As there are 30-40 of these tickets, a claim of £7500 - £10,000 would be in order, and Mr McCarthy may want to get legal advice before embarking on this.

Of course,  any new tickets invalidly issued by the parking company can also be added to the claim.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UKPC lose residential case. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

UKPC v Mr Aziz Birmingham 9/1/2017 C2HW01A6. DJ Gibson

Mr Aziz visited a residential block and parked with full permission of the tenant. He received 2 parking charges of £100 each, which UKPC magically inflated into a £400 claim.

Mr Aziz contested the claim on the basis that the charge was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and that UKPC did not have authority to issue charges as he was parked with the permission of the tenant.


First Hearing

The first hearing was before DJ Rich on 29/09/16. DJ Rich disagreed with the pre-estimate of loss point, but found that there was no chain of authority to prove UKPC could override the  lease. He adjourned the case on UKPC's request so that they could come up with some paperwork.

Second Hearing

Mr Aziz represented himself. UKPC engaged SCS law who contracted Simon Villae to appear as advocate. Before the hearing Mr Villae confided to Mr Aziz that he expected to get a tongue lashing from the judge due to the awfulness of the UKPC's bundle. DJ Gibson did not disappoint him, and laid into him as UKPC had failed to provide any evidence that they could override the lease, despite asking for an adjournment. They did provide a letter from the Management requesting them to put up a sign banning parking in the bin storage area, but as this was not where Mr Aziz parked, DJ Gibson ruled this was totally irrelevant. The photographs UKPC supplied were heavily pixelated and almost useless - Mr Aziz's vehicle appeared to have oval wheels.

DJ Gibson dismissed the claim on the basis UKPC did not have authority to override the lease and issue charges. She also followed the lead of HHJ Charles Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, and ruled that ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 did not apply to residential cases. There was no way that residents or their visitors would agree to pay a charge of £100 to park in spaces they owned. The charge of £100 therefore had no commercial justification and as it was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss was therefore a penalty and not justified.

DJ Gibson asked Mr Aziz if he had got his defence from the internet. Mr Aziz said he had. DJ Gibson said there was nothing wrong with this but cautioned Mr Aziz to be wary as case law was forever changing and so he should always make sure any research was up to date.

Prankster Note

When a parking company request an adjournment this should always be resisted on the grounds that they have employed a professional solicitor to assist and should therefore be fully aware of the paperwork required, and it would be out of proportion to the value of the claim to have a second hearing. The advocate costs, which are not reclaimable in the small claims track, far outweigh the value of the claim.

If there must be an adjournment ask for a wasted costs order which would be the full value of a lost days pay under the unreasonableness rule 27.14(2)g

Take a copy of the rule
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27

It should be noted that HHJ Charles Harris QC uses this rule to award £2,000 in costs against a parking company in a residential case.

Members of the British Motorists' Protection Association provided assistance to Mr Aziz, and he passes on his thanks.

Data Protection Act 1988 (DPA)

It would appear Mr Aziz has the possibility of two data protection claims against UKPC for obtaining his personal data from the DVLA and continuing to use it when no lawful reason existed. The going rate for these breaches is £250 each.

Parking Cowboys have written an insightful piece regarding making a claim for a DPA breach.

UKPC are already around £500 down on this hearing

If Mr Aziz decides to take action and successfully pursues a DPA breach this would leave them £1,000 out of pocket for issuing two bogus charges.

Happy Parking 

The Parking Prankster

UKPC lose residential case

UKPC v Ms R C4HW0G3N at County Court Gloucester and Cheltenham on 8th March 2017.

Ms R parked in her residence, but forgot to display her permit. She considered that she had the right to park at her own home, but UKPC disagreed.

Guest Court report from Ms R

At court UKPC sent an SCS Law rep who was a pleasant enough lady and I represented myself.
District Judge Iacopi began with UKPC's authority to bring the claim against me. She examined the contract submitted by UKPC which had no date and referred to it as a 'Warden Patrol Parking Contract'. The Judge found no evidence within the contract of a chain of authority between UKPC and the landowner.

 The SCS Law rep referred the Judge to UKPC V Peenith (C9QZ6915) and stated signage erected at the site was proof of a contract. The Judge said of this case  'that's not binding on me'.

The SCS rep stated UKPC had been operating for 6 years at the site so must have a contract, The Judge replied there was no evidence in the claimant's bundle of any authority.

The SCS rep also referred to the lease which stated estate regulations could be varied (parking) but the judge pointed out there was no information as to what the estate regulations were and whether they include parking.

The judge summed up this case stating on the basis of the evidence provided she did not believe there was a chain of authority therefore UKPC had no standing to bring the claim. The judge pointed out that the claimant had failed to get  past the first hurdle (authority) and would have failed the second hurdle (lease).

After a year of stress caused by UKPC the claim was dismissed after 20 minutes and I was awarded costs due to taking time off work.

Prankster Note

Parking companies who try and make their money by 'fining' residents to park in their own places have no place in modern parking management.

The only purpose of paper permits is to generate income for parking companies - they do not provide a proper regulatory system.

A proper system would allow residents to electronically register as many cars as they want to use their space, and also to provide retrospective cancellation of charges if the parker is genuine.

The judge was quite within her rights to be skeptical about the chain of authority. In the Prankste's experience, parking companies who have a contract will produce it in court. Those who have not, or who have problems, try and bluff the judge.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UK Parking Control continue to issue fraudulent tickets

Three drivers, all strangers to the area received £100 UKPC parking charge notices in July for parking in a Hampshire road named Damson Drive which leads to a housing estate like many others in the area. The distorted UKPC “evidence” photograph showed no evidence whatsoever of wrongful parking or that it was any business of UKPC. It showed the road and houses in the distance, but no houses where the cars were parked and no UKPC signs in this road (there aren’t any).

Damson drive is signed as a local authority public highway the same as all the other roads nearby. There is no entry sign to show that Damson Drive is private land (and UKPC has produced no evidence to show that it is).

There are no UKPC signs or any parking restrictions signs whatsoever in Damson Drive where the cars were parked.

The parking charge notices impertinently and dishonestly alleged that these drivers agreed to the imaginary terms and conditions of parking ‘clearly and prominently displayed’.

Purporting to be evidence of the imaginary parking violation the Parking Attendant provided a photograph which he later took of a hardly-readable UKPC sign located somewhere else near some houses – so therefore not where the cars were parked.

UKPC knows they have not installed signs of any kind in Damson Drive where the cars were parked and the Parking Attendant knows that otherwise he wouldn’t have issued a fallacious parking charge notice and then provided bogus evidence of signs he alleged to have been contravened by the drivers.

UKPC refused to cancel their parking charge notices and repeated the false allegations and their demands for money so two of the affected drivers have now filed Crime Reports for investigation by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau. UKPC and the Parking Attendant are both cited as the perpetrators.

Prankster Note

UK Parking Control are well known for issuing tickets on land which they later fail to prove they have authority for. Large numbers of POPLA appeals are won because UK PC fail to prove they had authority to issue tickets.

However issuing tickets where there is obviously no signage, and then failing to cancel on appeal is clearly the kind of fraudulent activity which sends the parking industry into disrepute.and gives all parking companies a bad name.

The Prankster suggests that UK PC should join the IPC, where a generally lower standard of operator behaviour is required for charges to be regarded as enforceable - the IPC appeals system does not require parking companies to prove they have authority, and does not require entrance signage or signage to be in the proximity of the parked vehicle. However they will need to join before they get any more sanction points as banned operators remain banned even if they change ATA.

[Update 26/10/2015] This newspaper article clearly shows other drivers have also been ticketed, and that POPLA have ruled UK PC have not shown they have authority to issue tickets in that location.

http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/local-news/driver-successfully-appeals-unauthorised-100-9318812
Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Tracy Kiss sticks it to UKPC

The Parking Prankster is loving Tracy Kiss's blog highlighting the sneaky and duplicitous tactics employed by UKPC.

Following in the footsteps of radioactive spiders and Spartacus, The Prankster has no doubt that ordinary entrepreneur, author, blog writer, mother, survivor and model Tracy Kiss will also get her parking charge notice cancelled. What a shame it seems to be taking so long.

Here are some of the underhand tactics employed by UKPC, according to the Prankster's reading of Tracy's blog.

Ignoring an undertaking given by their employee

The Parking Attendant clearly told Tracy that the ticket would be cancelled. As an employee and agent of the company, UKPC cannot ignore his undertaking.

Losing her letter

UKPC 'lost' Tracy's letter, along with her copy of the ticket. How convenient for them! The Prankster has also been the victim of similar mysteriously lost letters by parking companies. Like Tracy, The Prankster always photographs everything before he posts it. He also gets a proof of postage, which is free from any post office.

Not providing any reasons for refusing the appeal

The Lead Adjudicator of POPLA has written about this kind of behaviour in his annual report in the section 'Standard Wording in the Operator's Rejection'. Parking companies should not issue template rejection letters but should actually address the issues raised by the motorist.

UnPOPLAular

The Prankster is disappointed that Tracy did not appeal to POPLA because he is certain she had more than enough grounds to get the charge cancelled. UKPC have one of the worst records at POPLA with more tickets cancelled than any other parking company.

DVLA in on the scam?

The saga continues. Now the DVLA has stonewalled Tracy as well. While trying to find out if UKPC have lied to her, the DVLA have refused to provide her with any details, trying to charge her twice as much as  the parking company paid them for the information in the first place. They have also refused to provide her with the same information that has been provided for free to other people in the past. Is this a conspiracy between the DVLA and the parking companies, or is this just incompetence on the part of the DVLA? After all, the person who should have answered Tracy was on holiday, and a minion answered in his place. Perhaps it was just a mistake and when Mr Evans returns from holiday he will be able to sort everything out.

The Prankster eagerly awaits the next turns and twists in the story. He wishes her luck and is certain she will prevail in the end. He notes that pepipoo and Parking Cowboys are on the case and are helping out!

More UKPC boo-boos

Here is a story Nutsville ran about UKPC forgetting to secure their servers.

If you paid a parking charge to UKPC in the last six years, especially if it was at a hospital, and especially if that hospital was Stoke Mandeville, Wycombe or Amersham, check out The Parking Prankster's previous blog entries starting here to find how to claim your money back.

Why POPLA witness staements are worthless. UKPC lose in court

UKPC v Miss H, Altrincham County Court.

The Prankster was contacted at short notice to help Miss H. Miss H had seen the Prankster blogs about faked UKPC photographs and thought the same might apply. The case looked unwinnable to The Prankster based on the submissions filed by both sides, but John Wilkie decided to take it on anyway as UKPC were claiming hugely inflated costs which made it likely a substantial saving could be made even if the case was lost. Mr Wilkie also studied the photographs carefully and agreed they did appear to be fake.

As a result, a skeleton based on the usual arguments was supplemented with an argument about photos, and a preliminary application about the likely non-attendance of the witness, Michael Elliott of UKPC, citing Link v M Ltd, PE v Mr H and UKPC v Mr M, was prepared.

Mr Wilkie was firmly of the view that if the preliminary application failed, the case was lost. The preliminary application failed.  However, the judge did say that she would give less weight to the evidence due to Mr Elliot's non-attendance and failure to notify the defendant.

And so the hearing began. For the Claimant, the young challenger, Mr Tang of SCS Law. For the defendant, the venerable Mr Wilkie.

Initial arguments by the claimant centred on Authority and actual evidence of the parking. Once he had dealt with these points, some of which were conceded (including that the OP was driver, had parked, had seen the signs, and had breached the terms) this was handed over to the defendant.

A 'contract' between UKPC and the 'landowner' had magically been produced on the day and the defence had been given 5 minutes to look this over and noted that there was no date, no authority from the lessee, no actual chain of authority from the Landowner to the Parking Company, and no
authority to sue in UKPC's name. Having brought all this to the attention of the court, the point was made that without a date, there is no evidence that this contract was in place when the parking events occurred, two years ago.

Following this, the Signage was attacked, as the single sign submitted was not the only sign in place, and hiding evidence like this which is visible in your photos is a bad idea.

Then came the photos. A photo taken at 12.41 on 17 September was in exactly the same parking space as 22 hours later, on 18 September at 10.34

But the killer point was that the same two other cars were also parked in the same place, to the left of the target vehicle, and also across the wall in a different car park.

As Mr Elliot was not present to be questioned on these discrepancies, Mr Wilkie suggested that this caused enough of an issue to justify dismissal of the evidence and claim.

The point was made that UKPC NtK's don't comply with either Section 8 or Section 9 of Schedule 4.

Finally, Mr Wilkie argued that as the newly revealed contract stated that UKPC was agent of the Managing Agent, who was Agent for the Landowner, who was Agent for the Lessee, there was no way Beavis could apply, despite the site type being the same, as PE paid to the principal, where on this site the contract revealed no fee paid for the management contract in either direction.

The other side was given a chance to respond, and made the submission that if they didn't have permission to put up the signs, why were they there. Mr Wilkie countered with the Akhtar appeal...

The judge asked us to leave for 5 minutes to consider her judgment.

Judgment

1) Signs are sufficient to make a contract, despite the lack of consideration - Beavis applies. Signage was also sufficient to notify the reasonable man of the parking terms and conditions.

2) Statutory deficiencies in the NtK were irrelevant as the OP had admitted to being driver

3) Accuracy of photos - it was fair to say that the photos drawn to the attention of the judge did raise questions of the reliability of such evidence, and therefore cast a doubt on the entire evidence provided, however, this was not raised prior to the courtroom door, and either adjourning for an expert witness, or even instructing same, would be disproportionate to the value of the claim, especially when the OP admits they were parked.

The judge then returned to the Authority.

1) The authority relies on a contract. The contract as produced put the judge in difficulty as there were various issues in reliability of the document.

a) The contract is apparently for a different site according to the front of the contract, but the current site according to the content.
b) There is no date on the contract
c) There is no power in the contract to issue proceedings.

2) The contract refers to using a company called Debt Recovery Plus Limited to enforce, but this does not in itself mean UKPC cannot sue.

3) The judge reminded herself that it is for the claimant to prove their case, and because of the lack of a chain between landowner and UKPC, there was a gap in the authority. While this was addressed to a certain extent in the witness statement, the Claimant could not be cross-examined or give evidence in chief as to the veracity of the documents submitted.

As a result, the judge was not satisfied that the contract and evidence as supplied was sufficient to prove the claimant had Locus Standi. In the judges view, the fatal point to the case was the lack of attendance of the witness.

As a result, the claim was dismissed, with £90 loss of earnings for the Defendant.

Mr Wilkie would like to thank Mr Tang for his candour and professional courtesy.

Prankster note

Mr Wilkie is now 21-4

The result of this case once again throws into doubt the practice of POPLA allowing witness statements regarding contractual provenance to be used. These are pro-forma documents created by POPLA which are just handed to someone to sign to say a contract is in place. This case proves that even if the landowner or operator thinks a contract is in place, the actual contents are of vital importance as a contract might not actually be in place.

The IAS are even more laughable and do not even require a witness statement to be provided. The IAS rules solely on the word of the operator that a contract is in place. This encourages corrupt practices and the Prankster has seen one case where the operator was ticketing on the public highway! The Prankster contrasts this with the way the IAS assessors consider motorist evidence. In a recent case the assessor refused to believe the motorists statement that the car contained a 92 year old disabled passenger, despite the presence of a blue badge. This double standard shows clear institutional bias and in The Pranksters view means that the IAS is not fit for purpose. In The Prankster's view any legal person associated with the IAS sham appeal system should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

On football match days in London large numbers of enterprising young men create car parks with signage, take cash payments and issue tickets. When punters return from the match the signs and the young men have disappeared, but the cars often have a ticket of another kind - one from the council

The council are sadly unlikely to cancel the ticket.

UKPC are essentially operating in the same way. Without a valid contract from the landowner the contract to park is of no more value than that offered by the enterprising young men in London.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UKPC banned by the DVLA

UK Parking Control Ltd have been banned from accessing the DVLA database. This means for instance that if they issue a windscreen ticket, they have no way of following up and contacting the keeper (unless the keeper appeals giving away their address). This also means that any ANPR site they manage is now effectively useless because tickets cannot be issued at all. Essentially then, their income stream dries up, and any landowners using them have no effective parking management.

This is therefore not a step undertaken lightly by the DVLA. Although the DVLA are not divulging the exact details, they are investigating UKPC for a potential breach of contract. The DVLA will not be releasing details until the investigation is finished. UKPC will be hoping that the investigation is swifter than the investigation into MIL Collections, which has so far taken several years and is still continuing. Perhaps the investigation will be as quick as the one into Proserve, which only took a year or so.

There are around 200 private parking companies and The Prankster receives most if his complaints  about 20 or so of them. Sadly UKPC are one of those companies. UKPC have a long history of dodgy practices, being caught out faking timestamps on photographs multiple times, using council signs to fool motorists, and a myriad of other dodgy practices.

He takes large numbers of motorists to court on bogus charges which have no basis in law. Although he is fully aware of this, he continues to do so in the knowledge that most motorists are scared of court and will pay up on receiving his bullying letters.

Rupert Williams owns UKPC and the network of other companies he owns makes interesting reading. He has siphoned millions out of the business into his own pockets and his other businesses, (inclusing writing off huge loans) yet pays his staff a pittance.

Any UKPC who wishes to contact The Prankster confidentially can do so at prankster@parking-prankster.com

The DVLA needs to take strong action and weed out the 10% of the industry who are not interested in providing proper parking management, but who instead devise schemes to fleece motorists to line their own pockets. These companies give a bad name to the industry, hurt the legitimate parking companies and most of all hurt motorists.

When UKPC previously broke the law by forging timestamps on photographs so that they could charge motorists even though they did not overstay, the issue was brushed under the carpet and no proper investigation was undertaken by the DLVA. Frankly, UKPC have run out of chances, and if they have been found to do wrong, the DVLA should sens out a strong message to the rest of the industry that abusive practices are no longer acceptable.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UKPC - you've been Gladstoned!

C3HW73F4 UKPC v Mr M Southend 15/11/2016

Mr M was in and out of court in minutes. 

The judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the claim stated the vehicle was parked in Windermere road. However, it was actually parked in a different road - Stanier Close. UKPC's solicitor tried to argue this did not matter as he knew the car was in Stanier Close; however she put him right by informing him that the particulars of claim need to be correct.

As the hearing was over so quickly, Mr M did not have time to bring to the attention of the judge that the notice to driver and notice to keeper were incorrect; and the so-called parking contract was with a company who did not appear to have the right to form a contract, as they were not the land owner or managing agent of the residence.

He was also unable to bring to the attention of the judge that the evidence submitted by UKPC appeared to have been photoshopped as the notice to driver had the road name changed and was therefore different to the actual notice to driver.

Additionally UKPC had the contract boundary map wrong, including areas which are controlled by another parking company.

Lastly, even had UKPC got their documents correct, there was no liability. Mr M is a tenant and his tenancy agreement does not require him to show a permit to park. UKPC cannot therefore unilaterally override this tenancy agreement, as shown by several recent cases.

Prankster Note

The claim was brought by SCS Law (aka LPC Law) on behalf of UKPC. As this was a hopeless case with no chance of success, with evidence bordering on perjury, UKPC were well and truly suckered into taking out this claim

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UKPC caught apparently doctoring photographs again

Mr Wilkie scores a hat trick for the week - all three on the same basic argument.

Today's case was UKPC v Dr M, at Worcester County Court. Yes, I know he was in Taunton on Monday and Scarborough on Wednesday - Mr Wilkie likes his mileage allowance a little too much, methinks.

Dr M parked his car on the estate he lived on, and managed to acquire 23 tickets. All of these were for parking without permit or not in a place. The signage said "No unauthorised parking" similarly to the previously reported High Wycombe Three and UKPC v Mr M in Edmonton last week.

Mr Wilkie got sight of the Claimants bundle on Sunday, and immediately spotted issues with it, as there seemed to be fake photographs, where the shadow for a picture taken one day at 8am was IDENTICAL to the shadow taken the next day at 8pm. Two photos of the ticket in situ were taken 6
days and 4 hours apart, yet the car had apparently not moved, and nor had the shadow of the overhanging building.

As a result Mr Wilkie prepared a preliminary application citing UKPC and Mr M, and the DVLA ban for three months, and noting the likely non-attendance of the witness.

On arrival at court, this was handed to the usher and served on UKPC's agent, an SCS/LPC rep, Ms B. Ms B was surprised by this, as she was simply intending to argue points of contract law and Beavis. As the preliminary application detailed issues with the witness statement, it was made clear that non-attendance of the UKPC witness would mean as a minimum an application to adjourn, and ideally to dismiss.

The witness, Mr Elliot of UKPC, wasn't attending, nor was he going to, as he was on holiday for two weeks.

As a result, when the case was called, the judge asked about the Adjournment, which Mr Wilkie submitted, and he then asked for the hearsay application for the witness statement. Ms B pointed to a letter which suggested this, but wasn't explicit. The judge was less than impressed, and struck out the case with the Defendants costs for the day.

Needless to say that Dr M, the client, was absolutely delighted with the result.

Mr Wilkie points out that this has been the primary reason for all three of his wins this week, and makes the reasonable observation that if he can drag his own sorry ass about the country to fight these cases for defendants, the least the Parking Companies could do is show him the same
respect, especially as he has spent over 12 hours travelling this week, and less than 25 minutes actually before judges.

Prankster Note

It is rumoured that Mr Wilkie will be appearing in Berwick tomorrow morning at 10am and Truro tomorrow afternoon at 2, having breakfasted in Paris and luncheoned in Dublin.

Something is obviously going wrong with a system when a parking company is ticketing someone for parking at their own residence, and is then refusing to cancel the charges and taking them to court. No reasonable person would agree that this is responsible parking management.

Managing residents parking is all about allowing residents and visitors to park, while keeping away unwanted motorists. It is clear the system operated by UKPC is not fit for purpose if they are victimising the residents instead of providing proper management.

More worrying is the re-emergence of fresh cases where UKPC have apparently doctored photographs.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UKPC - you've been Gladstoned

Huddersfield County Court 6/10/2016 UKPC v Mr M

This was before DJ Woodhead. Mr Smith from SCS Law represented the claimant. Mr Wilkie represented the defendant.

Several items had been identified in the skeleton, including that the claim should be for trespass, not breach of contract, and the fact the the tenant of the property had "exclusive" use of the parking space, with no mention of parking restrictions in either the lease or the tenancy.

UKPC tried their arguments of Authority, Beavis, Lease binding tenant etc.

But the case fell down because the UKPC contract was with the "Gate Residents LTD" while the agent was the "Gate Residents COMPANY Ltd, and additionally there was no chain from the Leaseholder or the Freeholder to
UKPC. This "troubled" the judge, and she gave the other side every chance to show how she should proceed - they couldn't, so the claim was struck out.

There were no costs, but as the claim was for £5300 claim, the defendant was not unhappy.

Prankster Note

It seems that Gladstones are not the  incompetent solicitor's trying to scratch around for parking business. UKPC have been well and truly stuffed by SCS Law. A competent solicitor would have done proper due diligence before the claim was issued and advised their client of the dangers of proceeding.

SCS Law claim on their website:

We have issued over 2000 legal proceedings in 2016 in relation to parking tickets and attended over 4000 hearings representing parking companies at court.

This does appear to be somewhat fanciful as this appears to be more than the combined number of hearings for BPA and IPC companies (row 82 is largely MIL) shown in the graph of hearings (not claims) below. However, perhaps The Prankster's data is incomplete. SCS Law are a trading name of LPC Law, who handle ParkingEye hearings.


SCS Law offer the following Small claims price list

£150 checking claim
£150 letter of claim
£200 claim issue
£400 trial preparation
£250 court representation

They do also offer an undisclosed volume discount for repeat business.

It is therefore unclear how much UKPC paid out, but the Prankster expects from the above price list that costs will be somewhere between £300 and £600.

UKPC - you've been Gladstoned!

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

How to claim any parking charge back from UKPC

Edited to correct some court costs and procedural details.

You need more balls for this one, because it will take some time and effort, plus some costs up front. Because this may end up having to go to court, there is also no guarantee that you will get your money back.

First, read up on my three previous posts, explaining how UKPC regularly charge more than they are allowed to for Parking Charge Notices. G. Bozzino neatly sums up the position in his FoI request as follows:

Under Contract Law a provider of services may only claim an amount equivalent to actual loss or a pre-estimate of loss if a contract is breached; they may not demand a punitive sum. 

UKPC regularly charge extra amounts they are not entitled to, such as wages, office running costs and kickbacks to the land owner.

If this situation applies to any parking charge you have paid to UKPC in the last six years then you can claim your money back.

Step 1
Write a 'Letter before Action' to both UKPC and the landowner pointing out the above and asking for your money back.

Step 2
If this does not work, file an MCOL claim naming UKPC and the landowner as defendants. This will cost £25 (current court costs are explained here). Ask for a copy of the contract between UKPC, and a full breakdown of how the actual loss or pre-estimate of loss is arrived at.

Step 3
If they do not pay up, pay for a court hearing. The allocation fee is waived for claims under £1500, but there is a £25 hearing fee. As claimant you get first choice of court. The defendant is allowed to ask for a different court and if you do not agree a judge will decide. Going to 'their' court allows you to charge reasonable travel expenses if you win, so you might prefer to travel.

Step 4
Turn up for the hearing. If they do not, you will get a default judgement against them. If they do, then it depends what documents they filed. If the contract shows kickbacks to the landowner it should be a slam dunk. If they refuse to provide a contract, or try and argue the costs are genuine then it depends on your arguing power and the view of the judge. The odds will be heavily in your favour, but judges can be temperamental.

If you win, you can ask for costs. This is the small claims court, so they will be limited mostly to your travel costs. If you lose, you will have to pay their costs, which are similarly limited.

Step 5
If they still do not pay up, you may have to get a bailiff to seize goods. This will cost at least £100, and maybe more. If the landowner is a big company, it may be far easier to get them to cough up than it will UKPC.

Step 6
If you do get the money back, this will also include any extras such as bailiff fees, court fees etc. Well done!

As you can see, this is not for the faint hearted. However, if you feel strongly about this, it is a fairly straight-forward process.

How to claim a parking charge back from Amersham or Stoke Mandeville Hospitals

This freedom of information request discloses that Bucks Healthcare Trust and their contractors, UKPC have been overcharging for parking charges issued at Amersham and Stoke Mandeville hospitals. Private companies are not allowed to charge you a 'fine'. They can only recover actual costs, which cannot include general running costs of a business such as staff wages, building rent, fluorescent parking warden jackets and so on. It also cannot include any element of profit, or a commission to a third party. The true typical cost of issuing a parking ticket is probably therefore around £5, which will be the £2.50 fee to the DVLA for getting your address, plus some postage stamps and stationery.

Bucks healthcare Trust have admitted that the charges include many non-allowed elements. This makes the whole charge invalid, and you are therefore entitled to claim your money back from Bucks Healthcare Trust and UKPC. You have six years to do this in, so you can claim back to June 2007; normally you would be expected to claim as soon as possible, however if there are reasons why you did not, such as you only found out you could when you read this blog, then this can be considered as a mitigating circumstance.

Here are the crucial admissions from the FoI request;

The client will receive 10% commission of all revenue received from PCN's issued.

For a charge of £60, this will mean £6 going to the hospital as commission. This is not an actual cost, and therefore not allowed.

The £30 payment covers UKPC administration and office costs (if the parking charge is paid within 14 days of it been issued). The increase to £60 covers additional administration to recover payment.

Administration and office costs are also not allowed as costs, because the business will pay these out anyway, whether or not a Parking Charge notice is issued. Only actual costs directly attributable to the Parking Charge are allowed.

Step 1 is to write a letter before action to both UKPC and Bucks Healthcare Trust


Finance Director
UKPC
Unit 29, 1-2 Denham Parade,
Oxford Road,
Uxbridge,
Middlesex UB9 4DZ

Finance Director
[Amersham HospitalWhielden Street
Amersham, Bucks
HP7 0JD]

or

[Stoke Mandeville HospitalMandeville Road
Aylesbury, Bucks
HP21 8AL]

Letter before action

To Finance Directors, Bucks Healthcare Trust, UKPC

Dear Sirs,

I paid a parking charge to you of [x] on [y-y-yyyy]. I have since found out that you have addmitted that you pre-estimate of liquidated damages for £60 was incorrect and includes charges which are not allowed. I refer you to these admissions in the Freedom of Information disclosure published here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/contract_with_uk_parking_control#incoming-393359

"The client will receive 10% commission of all revenue received from PCN's issued."

and

The £30 payment covers UKPC administration and office costs (if the parking charge is paid within 14 days of it been issued). The increase to £60 covers additional administration to recover payment.

I regard this as invalidating the parking charge notice. I require you to refund me the full amount of [x] by [14 days time]. If this is not done, then I reserve the right to name both parties as defendants in a county court claim.

This should do the trick. If not, then in a later post The Parking Prankster will explain how for a simple £15 you can file a county court claim for your money back.

Don't worry about this costing the NHS money. UKPC have indemnified Bucks healthcare Trust against all costs in section 3 of the contact:

"On the said land, the contractor shall indemnify and keep indemnified the Client from any claim arising against either party."

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

The Parking Prankster would like to thank G. Bozzino for bringing this FoI request and Philter at  pepipoo for bringing it to his attention.

UKPC claim dismissed. Misleading signage does not create a contract.

UKPC Vs Kapasi C6HW2J0P Slough 23/2/2-17

UKPC were claiming against Mr Kapasi for 3 tickets.

1. Parked on a double yellow line in an industrial estate.
2 and 3. Parked in a parking place without displaying a valid permit.

Number 1 was a genuine 'mistake' because the parking notice was covered by a trailer who was unloading in the same line.

Charges 2 and 3 Mr Kapasi believed he was parked correctly. There were two car parks on the same piece of land with no distinction between them.

UKPC disagreed and issued a claim through SCS Law.

The hearing

Mr Kapasi reported the hearing was pretty gruelling. He felt very intimidated and out of his depth. Nevertheless he prevailed and all charges were dismissed.

The judge asked Mr Kapasi to accept or deny he was the driver. He accepted, and therefore PoFA keeper liability was not relevant.

The judge went against the Beavis ruling with regard to the BPA code of practice not being followed - the entrance signs to the parking site were missing. He said this only a guideline and does not have legal standing, KADOE contract breaches were between UKPC and DVLA and do not give me a legal standing. The photographs do not need a start and end time. The Beavis case was mentioned in reference to the size of the charge.

The judge ruled that parking on double yellow lines on private land does not create a PCN contract unless sufficient signs are in place and visible. Charge 1 was dismissed.

The multiple misleading signs - one not allowing parking and the other allowing parking, in a bigger typefont and lower in height than the UKPC sign meant charges 2 and 3 were dismissed. Additionally the The contract between UKPC and landowner had an area map which was very illegible. It turned out Mr Kapasi was not parked within the 'marker pen' boundaries.Charges 2 and 3 were additionally dismissed for that reason.

Mr Kapasi asked for costs. Loss of earnings was capped at 95 pounds per day.

Prankster Notes

It is interesting that parking companies claim and judges rule that their charge are valid because they are within the range of their code of practice.

But then they also claim and judges rule that they don't have to obey any other aspect of the code.

The Supreme Court disagreed and stated that obeying the Code of Practice is an essential part of getting keeper data from the DVLA.

Data Protection

As the charges were not valid, UKPC will have committed a number of data protection breaches pursuing charges which were not fair or lawful. Mr Kapasi was put under extreme stress by the process. Although a minimum claim of £250 per parking charge would seem to be in order, in this case Mr Kapasi may be able to claim a higher sum due to the level of distress caused.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UKPC lose in court

UKPC v B. 8/2/2017. B2QZ1J4J. Clerkenwell and Shoreditch. DJ Cross

This post on moneysavingexpert details yet another UKPC claim lost.

The driver parked in a way UKPC did not like, and the keeper was issued 3 charges.

As the driver was parked with permission of the resident, the keeper considered no charges were due. UKPC disagreed and filed a claim.

First Hearing

The defendant represented themself.
UKPC used a gun-for-hire solicitor

The judge began with a summary of what documents he had received thus far and in the process made the following remarks:

He noted that the particulars of claim from the claimant were very brief
He noted that the defendant had sent at part 18 request and in their response they refused to produce a contract (he was not impressed)
He also noted that the defendant had submitted a defense & witness statement

The judge then asked if the claimant responded to the defense to which they said they hadn't - this seemed to displease the judge.

He then asked to see the contract to ensure that the claimant had the right to bring the claim. The solicitor tried his hardest to persuade the judge that the contract wasn't needed and that the witness statement from UKPC was enough. He cited 'commercial sensitivity' but the judge wasn't having any of it and demanded that it be shown to both himself and the defendant. Reluctantly it was then produced (unredacted) with the terms and conditions and the judge and defendant started to read.

The defendant wasn't sure where to start and the judge could see that - the solicitor tried to direct them to a particular clause but judge declined his offer and said he wanted to go through it all.

The judge asked him who the contract was with - it was the managing agent.
The contract had no end date to which the judge asked how he could be sure if it was still in place.
He also asked who the landowner was and if in fact the contracting party was the managing agent - the solicitor said he didn't know to which the defendant said they knew it wasn't as they had completed a land registry check that could be found in their bundle.

Within their contract with the managing agent, there was a clause that said they could bring court proceedings to recover money but at their own expense. The solicitor referred to POFA 2012 and said that the managing agent would be the 'occupier' of the land and therefore this allows UKPC to bring the claim in their own name. The defendant argued that this related to a contract and how anyone know if the managing agent had the authority to to this and that the only way we could be sure was to see evidence of the landowner giving authority to them to do so. The judge looked like he thought this was a valid point.

The judge then had enough and said that he had a number of issues and there were a lot of points to go through and it could not possibly be done in the two hour allocation. He said he had hoped to resolve at least one of the discrepancies but could see that he couldn't (possibly referring to UKPC's right to bring the claim).

Their representative asked if we could at least go through some of the issues but the judge refused and said he wanted it done all at the same time and not 'piece meal'

The judge then went on to say that it was wholly unacceptable that the claimant only produced the contract on the day of the hearing. He could see no reason why they couldn't have produced it sooner. He said it was not fair and obstructive to the defendant as they were unrepresented and could not possibly be expected to review it on the spot.

He then gave the following directions

1) The claimant has to serve a response to my defense together with a copy of the contract awarding parking services to the claimant as well as the terms and conditions that were applicable to the contract. He then granted permission for them to redact any commercially sensitive information (after asking if I was ok with that)

2)The claimant has to serve a trial bundle and the hearing be relisted for an allocation of 1 whole day!

The solicitor tried again and said he thought half a day would be sufficient but the judge said no, we need a full day.

Hearing 2

UKPC sent a different solicitor from the last hearing. The judge was also a different judge.

Their solicitor and the defendant spoke briefly, he was very keen to confirm whether the defendant denied that they were driving the car (as it wasn't addressed in the witness statement).

The defendant reiterated that I was defending the claim as registered keeper and had not driven the vehicle to that location nor had reason to believe that anyone else had. He seemed happy enough and commented that he didn't think the case law provided would be too relevant (due to their age) and that the arguments would be down to other issues raised such as authority. He also asked if the defendant had received the new trial bundle and the defendant informed him that they hadn't.

The judge seemed to have been clued up with the history of the case which was good. He highlighted that UKPC had changed their evidence (updated terms and conditions of contract) despite pleading in the witness statement that the old ones were current. He highlighted that Ms Ndure and their Witness completely contradicted themselves. He also was amused at the 1 day allocation but said it was nice that things didn't have to be rushed for a change

He then allowed the other side to go through their witness statement. The judges views were that the statement seemed to have more opinion in it than fact and kept referring to it as hearsay. He asked why the witness was not present to be cross examined. The solicitor's response was that he did not know... so could not say.

The witness statement contained sentences like 'the car was recorded being parked in stitu'; 'Notices to keeper were posted to the defendant' - The judge didn't feel that this was detailed enough and kept saying things like 'how?' and 'recorded how?'

The judge then went through their evidence and and picked up on a number of discrepancies, raising issues such as no entrance signage and the amount of charge for the individual PCN's.

The defendant was then given the opportunity to speak.

They told the judge that they were not the driver nor did they have any knowledge of anyone driving.The judge asked if the car in the photo was theirs and the defendant said that it looked like theirs and had the same number plate. He asked if the defendant lived alone and they responded that they didn't and that there were other drivers in the household.

The defendant was then given the chance to raise issues so they started with the contract:

- The contract is with the managing agent not the landowner (this got a reaction from the judge because by his own admission he didn't notice that.
- They were breaching the BPA code of practice clause 7.1. Their contract didn't meet 7.2 (a, d & f) The solicitor did argue that this was just a guide but the defendant pointed out that it was one of the key terms of the contract to keep to the code of practice.
- The 'Parking charges' section on the contact differed from what was on the PCN and the signs submitted as part of their evidence.
- The contract referred to the an attached site plan - BUT there was no attached site plan
- I did however get a copy of a site plan as part of my part 18 request and looked like it indicated that there were 6 signs (less than the 'more than 9' stated previously) The judge actually referred to that in his summary.
-There was no proof that the contract was still in force after its initial period (they tried to argue that the signs still being present and updated shows that there is still an agreement in place). The judge didn't buy it.
- The biggest point was that the managing agent had signed the contract stating that they were the landowner as detailed in previous posts - The judge hated that.
- Photos were all of poor quality and only one showed where the car was situated in relation to the signs. The other isolated photos of the signs were just that so were not really taken into consideration.
- All x3 PCNs were allegedly issued in the very early hours of morning when it would still be dark. The close up photo of one of the signs in the dark really hurt them because it showed that they were not illuminated in anyway whatsoever!
- Only a premium rate number was being displayed on the signs (contrary to BPA CoP, 18.7)
- The charge was disproportionate. The judge and the solicitor went back and forth as to the relevance of the Beavis case judgement.
- Only 1 NTK was received and the other two were never sent. They were not sent in response to my part 18 request and only appeared in the evidence in a complete different format to the one I received.
The excuse given was that they had changed their system and they were reconstituted versions. I refuted this and used it as an excuse to remind the judge that this was a very dishonest company and had been caught out before.

The Judgment

1) No locus standi
- Original contract was pleaded and should have been produced at the hearing but it wasn't despite being told this by the first judge.
- In their response to my part 18 request UKPC originally said that they had a contract with the landowner
- Contract duration not addressed in witness statement

This alone disposes all 3 parking charges.

2) Signage not sufficient/prominent
- Despite not knowing who the driver was, looking at the evidence the signage was inadequate
- Location, size and view of signs 'utterly' inadequate
- NOt obvious where car was parked in relation to signs in all pcns
- No entrance signs
- Not obvious enough for driver to assume that it was not a public road (like a shopping mall car park would be)

3) Charge is disproportionate
- No evidence provided as to why it is appropriate.

4) NTK do not comply with POFA 2012
- Clause (6) (8) c & h
- Judge stated that he believed the defendant to be an honest individual and believes that they did not receive the x2 NTK's as they had always maintained.

The defendant spoke with their solicitor solicitor during the break and he said that he thought they would get the judgement. He admitted the evidence was poor and even went as far as to say that the claimant do not do things properly unlike some other companies.

The original claim was for £470 + COSTS - UKPC ended up paying £111 for loss of earnings and travel.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UKPC cancel £1500 of residential charges

UKPC have cancelled a court claim and a number outstanding parking charges totaling £1500 against a resident, Mr L for parking in his designated parking bay.

This follows a long running battle to get the charges cancelled. The resident pointed out his tenancy agreement lease allowed him to park without restriction. SCS Law, acting for UKPC, demanded to see it. Mr L obliged. SCS Law responded 'There would be an additional clause for the management agency to state you need a permit pass'. This appeared to be either wishful thinking or the ability to read invisible ink. Mr L, unable to read invisible ink, could see no such clause.

Mr L. pointed out that the Management Agency had directed UKPC to cancel the charges. SCS Law refused as it was 'the legal stage'. Mr L pointed out the Management Agency had requested this before the claim was filed.

Eventually Mr L. sent a Letter Before Action to the Management Agency demonstrating they could be held liable as UKPC work on their behalf. The claim was magically cancelled.

Prankster Note

The only reason SCS Law don't cancel at the legal stage is so they can trouser more money from their client. In reality, courts expect parties to settle right up to the courtroom door.

Mr L now has a potential claim against UKPC for breach of the Data Protection Act for pursuing charges when none were lawful. He has 6 years to make his decision.

Mr L. has passed on the information and knowledge gained from this experience to other residents. The Prankster wonders how long UKPC will decide to remain once residents start suing in droves.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UKPC jump on LPC Law bandwagon

A post on pepipoo suggests that UKPC are considering following ParkingEye's lead and issue court claims in bulk.

This is an extremely profitable activity for parking companies because many people are scared by the mere threat of court and so pay up straight away. The parking company can add fictitious amounts onto the claim, vastly improving their profit margin. Most people are unaware that companies such as ParkingEye will actually settle the claim for much less than the numbers on the court claim form, because otherwise they lose vast amounts of money if the claim progresses to a hearing; money they cannot reclaim because the small claims court limits costs.

This is early days yet, so we still have to see what exactly will happen. The current situation is that UKPC have assigned debt collectors Debt Recover Plus to chase up old debts (from 2012) by writing threatening letters; they say the case will be passed to LPC Law to take further action on behalf of UKPC.

The Prankster wonders how this will turn out for UKPC - a couple of letters from LPC Law will soon see their charges swallowed up.

So, what should people who receive these letters do?

The Prankster does not know at this time.

If UKPC are bluffing then the letters could be ignored.

If UKPC really will do court, then they should send a Letter Before Claim first. However, as we have seen from ParkingEye, many of the letters they claim to send are never received.

The Prankster, in this situation, would take the initiative, write to the debt collector stating that any debt is denied, and write to the operator, appealing the charge and asking for a POPLA code; meanwhile also stating that any legal action should be preceded by a letter before claim complying with practice directions.

However, everybody will have to make their own choice until we see how things pan out.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UKPC announce new bonus scheme

This video explains UKPC's new bonus scheme.

Bonuses based on quantity of tickets issued are banned by the BPA.

9.4 Effective from 1st October 2015, the practice of offering financial incentives to AOS parking attendants/wardens which relate to the quantity of PCNs issued by them, should be prohibited within all new employee contracts

UKPC appear to be trying to get round that restriction by basing the bonus on the number of tickets issued, less the costs of incorrectly issued tickets. UKPC also appear to be trying to get round the regulations by referring to the scheme as profit related pay, rather than number of tickets issued.

Of course, the main and only real way a warden can influence profit is by issuing as many tickets as possible. In the video, UKPC explain how a warden can do this by using head office statistics to find the car parks and times when they can issue the most tickets. They also explain how to maximise tickets issued by minimising journey time between sites.

The new bonuses scheme allows wardens to increase their salary by paying a percentage of the revenue generated, minus costs. Of course, the only way to increase revenue, is to issue more tickets.

As long as tickets are correctly issued, costs are almost completely out of control of the warden. Each warden is their own profit centre, with costs of appeals and POPLA and legal action against UKPC deducted. Expenses are also deducted. Other costs are wages, wallets and printer rolls, sending paperwork, and DVLA enquiries. For correctly issued tickets, these are out of control of the warden.

No other way of increasing the bonuses other than maximising tickets issued is discussed, and it is therefore clear to the Prankster that the new scheme falls foul of the BPA code of practice as it is based primarily on relating to the quantity of PCNs issued.

The scheme is described as the "biggest shift in the history of UKPC".

Wardens can increase salary from £14,950, to £19,940.

The Prankster notes a clever psychological trick is used when these figures are shown to wardens. The £19k figure is displayed as £19,940.44. Because the number has more digits, this make it look like a much larger figure than the previous one.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UKPC lose in court - Notice to Keeper not compliant

C9QZ3509 UKPC v Ms E Manchester 19/08/2016

Mr Wilkie parachuted into a case in Manchester this morning - they seek him here, they seek him there - in order to act as a Lay Representative for a lady who was definitely, and provably not driving her car when it was parked in a hotel in Manchester, incurring £1120 worth of Parking Charges. The court documents were prepared by Bargepole, who argued that the claimant has no standing, and that there was no keeper liability.

SCS Law, on behalf of UKPC, submitted another Mr W, who is a charming and skilled advocate, but not a solicitor. As UKPC didn't turn up, or even send their witness, Mr Wilkie challenged the right of audience of the Advocate, and after a few minutes of argument, it was agreed that, notwithstanding any rights of audience issues, the Advocate could present the case.

Following this, Mr Wilkie asked the court to deal with the UKPC's history of false evidence, the lack of attendance of a witness and the harm this did to their case. The court was not with him on these points.

Next, the claimant argued Standing and Right to Litigate. A copy of part of a contract was produced, and together with the witness statement, this was accepted as proof of the contract on the balance of probabilities, and right to pursue charges.

As a result the case turned on one issue - Did the Notices to Keeper comply with Sch4, Section 8.2.  After much to-ing and fro-ing, the Judge found as a finding of fact that the claimant had failed to put the "specified period of parking" on the Notices to Keeper and this therefore meant that the Keeper Liability conditions of the Protection of freedoms Act, Schedule 4 had not been met.

As the defendant was not the driver, there was therefore no liability. Costs of £75 were awarded to the defendant.

UKPC sought leave to appeal, which was granted to the Circuit Judge. 

Prankster Note

The conditions of POFA Sch 4 are fairly easy to comply with, but 4 years after the act it is surprising how many operators fail to meet the requirements.

UKPC has recently changed both the design of its Notices to Driver and Keeper to include the information which it is now appealing about. However, on this occasion, this is a good win for Mr Wilkie, as it proves that he and Private Parking Appeals are "raising standards in Private Parking" - exactly as the BPA intends, as opposed to the IPC race to the bottom.

The Prankster will continue to follow this case if/when it proceeds to appeal.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Company not liable for driver's personal actions. SCS Law humiliated in court

UK Parking Control v XYZ Ltd. Basildon 04/10/2017. D5HW078T DJ Monlieaux

UKPC represented by a solicitor from SCS Law
XYZ ltd represented by Mr D, an employee

The Prankster was asked for help by a small company.

In March 2017 they had received a worrying county court claim from a law company called SCS Law (a trading name of LPC Law), alleging that one of their vans had been parked on several occasions on the estate which their client  UKPC managed the parking for. This was the first they had heard of this, so they requested more information, which was duly emailed to them.

The van was a company van which had been parked at the house of an employee at night. SCS Law alleged that no commercial vehicles were allowed on the estate between something like 19:00-07:00 and UKPC had “charged” the member of staff with this offence at various times in the middle of the night – midnight etc. The employee had no recollection of this happening, and did not receive any windscreen tickets. UKPC had sent everything to the previous address of the company, who did not receive any of it, even though redirection was in place. Unfortunately there were two buildings on the site with very similar addresses and the same postcode, and a large amount of post had gone missing.

The employee made enquiries and found out that UKPC do operate the parking there. New signs had been fitted around his estate, but these were done in late December – all of the charges were from October and November 2016.

The Hearing

The judge was not impressed by SCS Law's bundle. She ruled that the company had no keeper liability; although they were the registered keeper of the van, they were not the keeper for the purposes of POFA 2012, which defines keeper in a different way. The staff member who used the van was the keeper.

The driver was also not acting as agent of the company, because this was private use after the working day had finished.

No contract was formed with the driver because the signs were poor and not visible at night when the tickets were issued.

The paperwork had also not been received within the mandatory time period, and was therefore out of time to establish keeper liability.

The claim was dismissed.

Prankster Notes

There were a number of other flaws with the case, any of which could also have rendered the charges invalid. The signage was forbidding, which would make any contravention a trespass, and the charges invalid as per the rulings in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The UKPC contract appeared to be with a company which was dormant. It was not apparent why UKPC thought they could override the rights of the home owner to park on his own drive.

The operation appeared to be a self-ticketing one, with part of the income from each ticket going to the management company. This would appear to contradict their claim they were dormant.
 which it was decided not to use were not explored.

SCS Law

The claim was handled by Andrew Morgan.

The claim was so flawed that The Prankster questions the judgment of Andrew Morgan for his handling of the case. SCS Law claim to be experts in parking law, but on this showing The Prankster can only conclude that they are completely incompetent.

The buck has to stop somewhere, so the Prankster holds director Len Crowder to account.

If Len is not ensuring Andrew is trained properly, and apparently failing to ensure he has basic knowledge of the law surrounding parking, then this is partly Len's fault too. In the Prankster's opinion Len is failing his duty to his client by filing no-hope claims and taking his client's money without apparently fully appraising them of the risks involved.

Really, if you are holding yourself up to be experts in some area of law, you should at least have basic knowledge of the issues.

http://www.scs-law.co.uk/parking-litigation/

We are a firm that specialises in litigation on behalf of private parking companies.

We have issued over 5000 legal proceedings to date in relation to parking tickets and attended over 4000 hearings representing parking companies at court

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UKPC lose shared car park claim. Landowner letter conflicts with signage

C5HW6D0P – UKPC v Miss D, Romford County Court, 03/02/2017, before District Judge Dodsworth.

Guest Report

UKPC represented by Mr Gibson (Solicitor’s agent), Defendant represented by Bargepole (as Lay Representative).

Facts

Miss D was employed by a company in London E5, which had a shared car park with other companies on the small estate. She was instructed by her employer that she could use any free bay in that car park, and did so for the first three years. In 2015, the landowner brought in UKPC, and sent letters to the companies on the estate, stating that their employees must not park on yellow lines, or in hatched areas. The UKPC signage made reference to parking permits, but none were issued by her employer, whose Director maintained that employees could still freely park in bays.

Miss D was subsequently issued with four PCNs, and eventually a Claim for a total of £770 was issued by SCS Law on behalf of UKPC. For each of the PCNs, the Claimant’s photos showed that her car was parked in a bay, and not on any yellow lines or hatched areas.

Points of Defence

The defence and witness statement set out the main points as follows:

1/ The Claimant is suing the wrong Defendant. Miss D’s employer instructed her to park as she did, and this became an implied term of her contract of employment. She relies on that contract as having primacy over any purported contract conveyed by the Claimant’s signage. If the Claimant wishes to pursue the charges, they should have sued the employer citing vicarious liability.

2/ The Claimant’s signage also states ‘Wheel Clamping In Operation’. This is a threat to commit a criminal act contrary to s8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, and renders any contractual terms void under the ex turpi causa rule.

3/ The Claimant’s signage is deficient in that it omits at least four of the mandatory pieces of information required by the CCR 2013, and therefore the Defendant cannot be held liable under the contract.

4/ In any event, the additional sums of £240 would not be recoverable by the Claimant as it exceeds the British Parking Association (BPA) maximum.

The Hearing

Although the Judge had a very full list for the day, this case was called in first at 10:10, for which everyone was grateful.

Mr Gibson had first dibs, and argued that the Defendant was liable under the contract created by the signage, as this had to be viewed as a consequential extension of the letter from the landowner. He stated that the sign suggesting vehicles could be clamped was not one put up by the Claimant, although he did concede that the UKPC signage was placed directly underneath it. He argued that, under the CCR 2013, it was not a distance contract, because the car park in question was a place of business of the Claimant for the purposes of parking enforcement, and therefore Schedule 1, which is less onerous than Schedule 2, should apply. Finally, he said that the additional £60 per ticket was recoverable, as it was stated on the signage and therefore contractual.

The Defence arguments were then advanced, and it was asserted that Miss D relied on her contract with her employer, together with the copy of the landowner’s letter to her, and did not breach any of those terms, so the Claimant’s signage had no effect. The signage was clearly tainted by illegality, and Miss D was asked to show on her mobile the meta-data of the picture, which proved it had been taken in 2016. The CCR 2013 defined a distance contract, which this clearly was, as there was no simultaneous physical presence of both trader and consumer, and also as indicated by the EU Guidance. Finally, the extra £60 per ticket was outside the BPA Code Of Practice, which the Beavis judgment had stated was highly relevant.

The Judgment

The Judge stated that the facts were not in dispute, Miss D’s car had been parked in the car park without a permit on the four dates given.

He disagreed that Miss D was the wrong defendant; any claim by UKPC against her employer could only be in tort, and would be difficult to make out on the facts.

However, he did agree with the Defence submission that the warning about clamping was in breach of POFA 2012, and therefore the illegality defence was made out.

He also said, even if he was wrong on the illegality point, that because the terms expressed in the landowner’s letter were substantially different from those on the signage, there was uncertainty of terms, and the claim would be dismissed for that reason.

On the CCR 2013 point, he expressed no opinion as to whether or not it was a distance contract, other than to say that the EU guidance, which talks about rental of a parking space, was probably intended to apply to a space allocated to a property under a lease or tenancy agreement. It had been hoped that this might be the first case to get a favourable judicial ruling on the Regulations, but the issue was effectively avoided.

On costs, because Miss D is on maternity leave, no loss of earnings was applicable, so she just got £7.70 to cover travel and parking.

Prankster Notes

This judgment is also applicable to residential parking cases. If the lease/tenancy does not give primacy of contract for parking, then the actual contract is probably entered into when the landowner sends out letters with parking permits. The signage is not relevant to residents and is there to create contracts with non-residents, or to warn off trespassers.

As this paperwork usually either conflicts with the eventual signage signage or does not clearly state the parking charge, then the case law in Beavis provides that the charge is an unenforceable penalty or unfair consumer charge.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster