Parking Eye Wave The White Flag - Chicken Out Of Court Hearing​

Case No. 3JD01136 ParkingEye v Shaw Gallen

Back in February 2013, Mr Gallen parked in Glyn Square, Wolverton, and overstayed the free period stated on PE's signage. After refusing to pay their totally baseless 'parking charge', he eventually received a County Court claim in June.

He applied himself assiduously to thoroughly researching all the legal issues and case law, and put together an excellent defence document which required only very minor tweaking by Bargepole.

Following the usual blizzard of paperwork from PE, a hearing date was set for November. It had been agreed between PE and the defendant that the case would be heard on the papers only, with no appearance by either side, but in the event, the Judge decided not to examine the case, and instead directed Mr Gallen to respond to PE's late submission of further 'evidence' (a complete farrago of misleading statements and untruths), and a hearing was set for March 27th at Milton Keynes County Court.

Mr Gallen put together, again with minimal assistance from Bargepole, a comprehensive rebuttal of all PE's arguments, together with a long list of all their POPLA and County Court defeats. He also informed the Court that Bargepole would be appearing as his Lay Representative at the hearing.

With just days to go, a letter arrived from the Court, stating that the Claimant, PE, had discontinued the claim, and there would be no need to attend Court. It is not known whether PE decided to drop this hot potato due to the high quality of Mr Gallen's submissions, or because they didn't fancy the prospect of yet another of their LPC Law stooges being duffed up by Bargepole; but in any event it now means they can no longer claim that they 'never discontinue cases'.

This is not, however, the end of the matter. Mr Gallen, a Management Consultant, has so far spent several hours working on the case, has receipts for over £50 worth of postage, and has had to photocopy over 1,000 pages at 5p a time. He is applying to the Court for a costs-only hearing, and will seek reimbursement from PE of around £400 to cover all of this. Further updates when available.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Waiting for a space is not Parking. ParkingEye lose in court. Beware of snakes at Fistral Beach

3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014). Fistral Beach. The defendant spent 31 minutes waiting for a car park space during the crowded holiday season. The ANPR evidence was therefore not relevant as it showed the time in the car park, not the time parked. The judge ruled this was not against the terms and conditions of the signage. The judge also stated that in any case £100 was not likely to be a true pre-estimate of loss.
In an important case, the judge ruled that the 31 minutes the defendant spent driving round the crowded car park in Whit week did not classify as 'parking'. The ANPR evidence only showed the time of entry and exit to the car park, and not the true time parked. The signage only required payment for times parked, and therefore there was no contravention of the terms and conditions.

In any case, the judge thought he would probably be minded to rule that £100 was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. However, this point did not need in-depth examination.

This occurred at Fistral Beach, which often experiences crowding, but this ruling is also relevant for motorists stuck in a queue trying to leave a car park, as often happens at Christmas, or when nearby sporting events are on.

ParkingEye lost the chance to suck money from this motorist, who was extremely nervous about going to court, when they failed to drop the price during mediation. The motorist would have settled for ParkingEye's known settlement figure of £50, but for some reason ParkingEye did not offer that figure on the day.

During mediation, the motorist started at £3.50 and ParkingEye at £171. ParkingEye dropped to £100 and the motorist went up to £15 but the mediator cut the session short at that time. The mediator was reported as not being that impartial. Neither mediator nor ParkingEye appeared interested in the legal issues involved, and were more excited about the number of letters had written and the number of signs in the car park. When the defendant mentioned the contract, ParkingEye made heavy reliance on clause 3.7.1.1, which was redacted on the defendant's copy and also the copy eventually sent to the judge.

ParkingEye sent two signage plans into court, both of which were incorrect. Several signs were placed outside in the car park, in the dunes. Signage warned holidaymakers against venturing into the dunes because of snakes. ParkingEye were indignant the the defendant was more worried about getting bitten by snakes than they were about finding the car park terms and conditions.

All credit must go to this motorist for sticking to her guns and going to court even though she did not want to.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Nick Lester admits NoToMob did not assault him. Accuses them of being child killers instead.

According to this report Nick Lester has accused the NoToMob of being child killers.

Nick Lester is corporate director of services at London Councils, president of the European Parking Association and a director of the British Parking Association Ltd (BPA Ltd). He is also the current holder of the Nick Lester award for being Nick Lester. When he received the award, it was reported that he accused the NoToMob of assaulting him. 

The NoToMob therefore sought out Nick Lester to find if this was true.

The NoToMob managed to meet with Nick Lester, who admitted there was no physical assault, but only a verbal assault when apparently at least two members of the NoToMob accused him of lying.

No independent verification of these apparent verbal assaults have been forthcoming.

Apparently Mr Lester had denied coaching BPA members regarding evidence to be presented to POPLA. It is strange that Mr Lester has apparently denied this.

If Mr Lester has denied coaching BPA members regarding evidence to be presented to POPLA, then The Parking Prankster would like to verbally assault Mr Lester too, and also accuse him of lying. The Prankster, and the NoToMob, and no doubt large numbers of other people, have copies of emails Nick Lester sent to the BPA coaching them by helpfully editing for them a sample 'witness statement.'

Mr Lester then accused the NoToMob of wasting taxpayers money by holding public servants to account.

Finally Mr Lester said that if the NoToMob succeeded in their campaign in scrapping CCTV cameras for parking enforcement, they would be responsible for the deaths of many children.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

42 year old man arrested for malicious phone call

A parking company employee has apparently reported that an arrest has been made regarding the small claims court hearing that had to be adjourned because of a malicious phone call.

See this thread for breaking news.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

This post has been temporarily removed

This post has been temporarily removed

ParkingEye make 'Hearing of the Week' on Rollonfriday

Read the full report here

http://www.rollonfriday.com/TheNews/EuropeNews/tabid/58/Id/3207/fromTab/58/currentIndex/4/Default.aspx

Rollonfriday is a satirical legal news site. The now-famous ParkingEye v Collins-Daniel transcript was brought to their attention by someone who apparently preferred to remain anonymous, going by the initials PP, and sometimes being referred to as 'Pranky'. ParkingEye's top experts are on the case, and expect to be able to track this person down in a few weeks.

Mr Gopal will now have to go through the rest of his career known as 'Ah, you're that Mr Gopal', a potential hazard for lawyers taking on ParkingEye cases.

For other transcripts relevant to ParkingEye court cases, click here.

For a list of cases ParkingEye lost, click here.

To see typical untruths, misleading statements , unsubstantiated allegations, statements not backed up with any sources and new legal arguments introduced in the guise of a witness statement click here to read about a typical witness statement submitted by Jonathan Langham, ParkingEye claims handler.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Burton Hospital continue to penalise patients

http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Burtons-Queens-Hospital-car-park-fiasco-and-outrage-from-visitors-forces-bosses-to-make-a-parking-U-turn-20140315080000.htm

Sadly Helen Ashley has failed to make the necessary changes at Burton Hospital. The major problems with the system are; patients have to guess how long they stayed; patients are penalised if they enter an incorrect registration.

Both are problems which can be solved with technology. ANPR systems can be configured to only accept registration numbers for vehicles which are present, and to inform motorists of the exact amount owed.

Systems such as the one Burton Hospital use are fundamentally flawed and are not fit for purpose.

Helen Ashley has made token changes to the system which do not address the real problems.

There are of course much more suitable systems on the market which solve the problem, but it does not appear that these were considered.

The hospital has explained that:

Anyone who has appealed to Parking Eye and is unhappy with the response should call us on 01283 511511 extension 5359

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster