Car Parking Enforcement rack up 58 sanction points

[updated 9am 27/10]

Car Parking Enforcement had their membership terminated from the BPA in September 2013. This rather bland press release announces the decision.


This freedom of information request explains why in more detail.

In all, Car Parking Enforcement built up an impressive total of 58 sanction points (only 12 are required for suspension).

Here is the list.

5 sanction points for failing to notify motorist about POPLA
3 sanction points for failing to respond to the BPA 3 times
3 sanction points for inadequate signage
5 sanction points for demanding payment during appeal
2 more sanction points failure to notify motorist about POPLA
10 sanction points for operating without landowner authorisation
4 more sanction points for failing to respond to the BPA 4 times
1 sanction point for not maintaining compliance documentation
10 sanction points for enforcement on sites with no signs
5 sanction points for signage problems
10 sanction points for repeated contravention of the code of practice

Phew!

They were suspended from the AOS on 21st June
Their BPA membership was terminated by a council meeting on 18th September. The meeting was described as 'interesting' by the BPA in an email to the DVLA.

[updated 9am 27/10]

The reason for a large number of these points was revealed in another Freedom of Information request to Bradford MDC.

Around March 2013, members of the public spoke to Council Wardens as they had received parking tickets on Grammar School Street and Vincent Street which had not been issued by the Council. Apparently, the company had put up signs indicating that they were operating in the area and that people would be fined for parking at these locations. In June 2013 we received further information from Council Wardens indicating that this company had been issuing again in Grammar School Street and at the Council car park on Tyson Street

The BPA were made aware of these activities by Bradford MDC in May 2013 and again in June 2013.

The BPA also investigated unauthorised activities between October and December 2012. It is not known when they became aware of these.

It is also unknown how many tickets were issued between the BPA first becoming aware of these activities and barring CPE on June 2013. The DVLA confirm that  99 keeper details were supplied between 1 Oct 2012 and 24 June 2013.

No information is available on whether any effort has been made by the DVLA or the BPA to contact motorists who have paid tickets which were issued without authorisation. Altogether the 99 requests which were made to the DVLA since POFA 2012 came into force on 1 Oct 2012 would allow CPE to trouser almost £10,000 at £100 a ticket.

Bradford MDC informed the police about these activities. It is unknown whether the DLA or the BPA also contacted police. Currently the status of any police investigation is also not known.

The Prankster will report back if new information is forthcoming.

[Update 2]
Here is my link to the July sanction points awarded

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/has-bpa-ltd-grown-teeth.html

As you can see there were 55 points awarded in that month.

There are some anomalies. These sanction points do not appear to show up

1 sanction point for not maintaining compliance documentation
5 sanction points for signage problems
10 sanction points for repeated contravention of the code of practice

These sanction points appear to be due to other operators.

ZZ33 10 No landowner authority
CC33 5 Demanding payment with appeal
QQ11 5 Demanding payment with appeal

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Aldi PR disaster continues. Now they need to employ more staff to cope with the complaints.

Aldi are recruiting another 'Parking Eye administrator' to cope with the deluge of complaints they receive.

The duties speak for themselves

This skills required include:

• The ability to display empathy whilst remaining firm on certain occasions

The Prankster considers that bearing in mind the reports on the skills and parking knowledge of the current staff, this bit won't be tested too thoroughly during the job interview.

Nuff said.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Fighting a private parking charge - how to obtain necessary information from the DVLA

[Update. The BPA sent an email on this matter to members in July 2013]

There is now an established two tier system of parking enforcement going on in the private parking sector - PoFA 2012 and non-PoFA. In the former, the registered keeper becomes liable for legitimate parking charges in some circumstances. In the latter, only the driver can be held liable.

Some Operators act wholly outside the PoFA 2012 regime and can therefore only pursue drivers. Other operators sometimes use PoFA and at other times do not. Usually, they send the same parking notices for both regimes.

As there is such a enormous difference between the potential liabilities it is difficult for any individual to know how best to conduct their defence in any particular case. The motoring consumer is therefore at a distinct disadvantage as it is now a guessing game, not only as to whether the charge is damages or a contractual sum, but also whether it is under PoFa or not. The motoring consumer is also at a disadvantage when the Operator states that the claim is made under PoFA 2012, but the timescales suggest this may not be the case. Neither of the two trade bodies, the BPA or the IPC, have issued guidelines to their members on this issue or raised this in their code of conduct. However, the BPA has sent out an email to its members around July 2013 informing them that both themselves and the DVLA expect all notices to clearly state whether PoFA 2012 applies or not.

One of the best places for consumers to seek clarification is from the DVLA, who hold this information. The DLVA have a duty of care to the motorist that their data was released lawfully and that it is subsequently only used for the purposes in which it was released. In building their case, every motorist should therefore seek clarification from the DVLA that they have behaved responsibly and correctly.

The ideal situation would be for the DVLA to automatically contact the registered keeper every time their details are requested. This would be cheap, convenient, and can be entirely funded from the £2.50 fee the DVLA charge the Operators.

A second option, slightly less consumer friendly, but cheaper in the long term, would be for the DVLA to create a portal so that registered keepers can automatically access data on all parties who have requested their details. This would require more initial development by the DVLA, but could again be entirely funded by the Operators.

In the mean-time, neither of these solutions currently exist.

The best way to request this information is therefore to email the DVLA at FOI@dvla.gsi.gov.uk and politely request it. To save money for the DVLA it would make sense if these emails followed a common format so that the DVLA can quickly and easily recognise them, and can process them as cost-effectively as possible. This will be to the benefit of all parties, and will help drive up standards in private parking.

The Prankster has seen a template format which he thinks is to the point and sufficient for purpose and would therefore like to endorse this.

Dear Sir,

I refer to the attached parking charge notice that I recently received through the post, presumably courtesy of the DVLA releasing my data. 

As your records will confirm I was the keeper at the date of the alleged parking contravention on private land.

I am currently in the process of preparing my challenge/appeal to this parking charge and wish to satisfy myself that the DVLA exercised its duty of care to me by acting both fairly and lawfully when the decision was taken to release my data.

I would be grateful therefore if you would address the following matters;

1) What was the specific purpose that the parking company applied for my data, was it for PoFA or non-PoFA purposes?

2) If it is was for PoFA does the attached Notice to Keeper fully comply with the statutory requirements of Sch 4.

3) What does the parking charge represent, is it damages for loss or a contractual sum? 

4) Which actual company requested my data.

5) When was that data request submitted to the DVLA

6) When was my data released by the DVLA

7) If this was a manual request please provide me with a copy of the V888/3 that was submitted.

8) If this was an electronic request please provide me with the following;

(i) A copy of the contract between the DVLA and the requestor which allows EDI access.

(ii) A record of all of the DVLA audits of the requesting company.

I simply wish you to address the points I have raised and do not therefore require the standard DVLA 'lines' about data protection.

I do not expect to have to pay for this information - please acknowledge receipt within three days and a substantive response within 14 days (as I have limited time within which to appeal)

Yours sincerely

The Prankster welcomes constructive feedback on the letter and email address to use from all interested parties, such as the DVLA and the BPA, and can be contacted at the usual address.

Currently the best email address to use does seem to be FOI@dvla.gsi.gov.uk. Some of the staff manning this email address may not be fully informed of the current situation and may try and charge for this information.This should be politely resisted, and the request repeated until the result is forthcoming.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye wonder-blunder legal team drop case under protest against wrong vehicle owner

Today The Parking Prankster heard that the blundering ParkingEye legal team have dropped yet another court case.

They will soon need to update their website which states they never vacate any hearing unless the defendant pays.

The Prankster has a large list of cases where this is not true, including this one.

The defendant in question sold her car some time ago, and heard nothing until out of the blue a court summons arrived for a parking charge dated after she sold he car. She obtained a letter from the DVLA confirming this and sent it to the court and ParkingEye, thinking this would be the end of the matter.

Unbelievably ParkingEye refused to drop the case, filing a reply to defence which blamed her for not informing them earlier...despite the fact she never received any letters from them. (ParkingEye letters often go astray and many defendants never receive letters which ParkingEye swear blind were sent out. ParkingEye's mail provider, IMail, has also in the past been known to fail to send ParkingEye letters out).

The fact that ParkingEye have no case if the defendant is neither the driver not the keeper seems to escaped the keen legal brains at ParkingEye Palace. They did however, make an offer to settle.

Although ParkingEye may have wished to boost their revenue in the light of their impending purchase by Capita, The Prankster considers that attempting to stiff innocent 3rd parties is not the way to do this, and the defendant suffered considerable stress as a result of ParkingEye's bullying tactics.

The Prankster also notes that the words 'firmly believes' in the above document are a ParkingEye secret code actually meaning 'does not believe'. The Prankster has seen these words in ParkingEye documents many times, and ParkingEye only use these when they do not actually believe the following statements.

At this point the defendant wrote to ParkingEye stating she considered this a vexatious case, that she had already incurred costs of £50 herself, and that she would waive these if ParkingEye dropped the case within 7 days. Otherwise, costs would escalate and she 'firmly believed' that the court would award all her costs. (In the defendants case, 'firmly believed is a secret code meaning 'firmly believed').

ParkingEye replied the next day, dropping the case.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye spanked in court

Claim no 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court was heard today, 23 October 2013.

ParkingEye paid a contract lawyer, Mr Larda, around £300 to turn up on their behalf. Apparently that was not enough money for him to bother to read the brief correctly; he thought he was representing Private Eye.

Possibly he wanted to quote the Private Eye Arkell v Pressdram case.

He was also a little behind on his paperwork, attempting to serve papers on the defendant 14 days after the time limit expired. Not unsurprisingly, the defendant's lay representative, 'Bargepole' rejected these. ParkingEye regularly think the rules of court do not apply to them, filing thousands of court claims without following the pre-action protocol, serving witness statements which contain conjecture, untruths, new evidence and new legal arguments, cherry-picking quotes from cases without providing transcripts, quoting from documents which have never been proved to exist, providing witness statements without giving the name and address of the witness, and withholding key documents from defendants until the filing deadline is imminent.

This time the judge was not impressed with their attitude. In a ruling that will send shivers down the backs of Parking company executives everywhere, and especially Capita who today bought ParkingEye for £57 million, District Judge Jenkins explained he was throwing the claim out because it was not brought in the name of the landowner. He said the landowner could bring the case in their own name if they wished.

Mr Larda explained to the judge that he was incorrect, and that a case held in 1870 showed otherwise. The Judge was having none of it. Mr Larda tried again, explaining that ParkingEye had won cases 'all over the land'. The judge asked for transcripts, which were not forthcoming.

The Judge then announced that, in his opinion, a contractual arrangement to manage parking does not give rise to a cause of action to claim for damages, and the lack of ownership of the land meant that the claimant had no standing to bring such an action in their own name.

Mr Larda asked for leave to appeal. The judge refused, on the basis there were little grounds for success.

Presumably ParkingEye are scurrying to bank the cheque from Capita before the news their whole business model has gone down the pan gets out.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye offloaded to Capita

Capita announced today they have acquired ParkingEye for £57.5 million

Presumably ParkingEye had not warned Capita they were buying a pig in a poke; no ParkingEye cases have been upheld at POPLA when pre-estimate of loss has been questioned which means that all a motorist needs to do to get a ParkingEye charge cancelled is to appeal to POPLA on this point.

Today's court case is also significant. ParkingEye were spanked by the judge who immediately struck out the claim because it was not being brought in the name of the landowner. This renders ParkingEye's other source of enforcement, the county court, also in question.

This means the cash cow Capita thought they were buying probably does not exist.

ParkingEye are also the subject of a number of outstanding complaints with the Solicitors regulation Authority,the British Parking Association and the DVLA. Presumably ParkingEye came clean about all of these too.

ParkingEye's expected profit of £8 million in 2014 should therefore be seriously in doubt if its contracts are unenforceable, if it loses all its appeals at POPLA, if it is the subject of numerous complaints with regulatory bodies and if word gets out to motorists that this is the case.

In addition, if the profit of £8 million includes the £1.6 million raised by Rachel Ledson's highly dubious 'solicitor fee' for court filings, this will also have a large impact on their real value. The solicitor fee has been thrown out several times in court because it does not actually represent the cost incurred.

This amount may therefore be disallowed in future. This represents 1/5 of their profits, which if this carries through to a valuation, will knock £11.5 million off their value. If ParkingEye did not fully explain all of this to Capita then they may well find themselves in a tricky situation.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Hitler Episode 3: Parking Attendant School

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px22WosZ9Ew

Episode 3 is now live.

Many thanks to the creator.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster