Sign of the week - Tesco epic fail

[This article has been updated since initial publication. Please see the clarification below]

Sign of the week - Euro Car Parks Tesco epic fail.

"It's er, free for 30 minutes as long as you pay us £70 after 20 minutes."

[Update 14/05/2014]

The Prankster has been in contact with Euro Car Parks (ECP) who have clarified that this is not one of their authorised signs. Tesco have been producing their own signs with ECP branded details, but which are not authorised in any way by ECP. Tesco have been asked to stop this practice and agreed as far back as 2012, but there are still a few lingering sites where rogue signs remain. The store in question has now been asked to remove the sign, and ECP will be visiting the site this week for a visual inspection.

Tesco still is a client of ECP, so the signage at many stores is legitimate. This should therefore not lead to the assumption that all ECP signs at Tesco car parks are not authorised.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye model example of Patrick Troy's 'considerate' parking company. Take 89 year old veteran to court

[Update 17/05/2014. ParkingEye have now apologised and cancelled this charge, following pressure from this blog and others] 

In an interview with the BBC Patrick Troy is on record as saying parking companies are considerate.

"BPA chief executive Patrick Troy says private car parking companies are considerate."

Just how considerate can be judged by the actions of the British Parking Association Limited's biggest parking company, ParkingEye. No doubt they are the jewel in the crown of the BPA Ltd, and their behaviour is a model for all other parking companies to follow.

In this report on MoneySavingExpert, an 89 year old veteran of the 6th Airbourne division with a heart condition attended a cardiology walk in session. His condition was so serious he was whisked from reception by a passing doctor straight to a hospital bed where he was kept for a month. The parking system required blue badge visitors to notify reception. This may or may not have happened in the confusion, but it is certain the receptionist either failed to enter his registration number or chase up the possibility that he should have registered but did not.

ParkingEye issued letters which he never received due to his stay in hospital. Following that, they issued court proceedings. They refused mediation. Now, after apparently realising they should never have issued the charge, they refuse to cancel the claim unless the motorist hands over £50 from his pension.

This person did not work throughout his life so people like ParkingEye could grow fat from his pension. The Prankster wonders how ParkingEye's employees can sleep at night for refusing to cancel this charge.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye lose case. Judge decides ParkingEye's evidence is fabricated.

[This is a guest blog on behalf of Mr M. The Prankster has made a few changes but the substance is not changed.]

ParkingEye v Mr M. (17/04/2014) ParkingEye's evidence did not stack up and the claim was dismissed.

ParkingEye issued a charge to a motorist who had had a heart operation.  The charge was issued for overstaying, but Mr M was adamant that he did not overstay. The vehicle was not even at the location at the time stated on the parking charge. ParkingEye's own evidence was used to win the case.

On the 17/04/2014, Mr M went to court along with his cousin who was acting as a Mackenzie friend and interpreter. Mr M also brought along a witness.

The ParkingEye lawyer approached the interpreter and asked who was the defendant. He was advised it was Mr M. He then asked the interpreter who everybody else was. The lawyer was advised by the interpreter, that the interpreter was acting as a Mackenzie friend as well as interpreter and that the other person was a witness.

The ParkingEye lawyer claimed he was not aware of any witnesses and was not happy.

In the hearing, the lawyer told the judge that he was not aware that the defendant would be bringing any new evidence or the witness. He argued that he was not fully prepared with the new witness.

The Judge gave Mr M two options; either to adjourn the case for a new hearing, which would incur costs including the expenses for the lawyer; or to continue with the case and ignore the evidence as well as the witness.

Mr M advised the judge that he would rather deal with the case today and ignore the witness.  The judge read the evidence produce by ParkingEye including the response Mr M sent back.

In the evidence pack produced by PE it showed that there were two ANPR cameras both facing the same direction. One camera recorded the vehicle coming in and the other going out.

However the photos provided in the evidence pack only showed the front number plate for the vehicle, both in and out.  Mr M argued to the judge that the back number plate should be recorded. Because there was no photograph of the back number plate the evidence provided by ParkingEye was fabricated.

The judge read the response that Mr M had written prior to attending the court. He agreed with it and decided to dismiss the case.

[Prankster note. It seems this is a classic case of a double visit. ParkingEye's systems are fatally flawed and there have been many similar reported cases. In most cases this occurs when a numberplate is obscured by another vehicle or pedestrian. However recent cases have shown that ParkingEye's systems contain more deep-seated flaws. In one case, the charge was issued even though the motorist visited two different car parks. In this case, the charge was issued for two events recoded by the entry cameras, and no events recorded by the exit cameras. In court cases, ParkingEye claim to make up to 19 checks on their ANPR data. it is clear these checks are not comprehensive.]

The Prankster has decided to let Hill Dickinson have the last word

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

  

The Prankster replies to Hill Dickinson

[Edit. An earlier version of this post missed out page 4 of The Prankster's reply]

This is a continuation of the previous blog post

The Prankster replied to Hill Dickinson as follows.

The Prankster has never had a reply to this, or any other letter he has sent to Hill Dickinson, despite multiple attempts to contact them, and despite providing clear directions by which they may communicate with him.

The Prankster does not live or work in England, and is outside the jurisdiction of English courts. Nevertheless he has made every attempt to negotiate with Hill Dickinson.

It is clear that none of the letters Hill Dickinson send have any legal basis behind them, and are designed to bully and intimidate The Prankster in an attempt to stop him highlighting the murkier practices in the parking industry.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Hill Dickinson try and gag The Prankster

In view of the recent attack on MoneySavingExpert, The Prankster thinks it is in the public interest to publish recent correspondence between himself and Hill Dickinson, who have been briefed by ParkingEye to gag The Prankster.

It is clear that Hill Dickinson have been misinformed by ParkingEye. However, it does Hill Dickinson no credit that they have merely accepted ParkingEye's instructions without attempting any fact checking themselves.

For instance, Hill Dickinson imply that ParkingEye's letters before claim were never deficient. As ParkingEye have apologised to the courts several times that their letters before claim did not comply with Practice Directions, this is a clear case of Hill Dickinson failing to their homework properly. Frankly, it makes them look like idiots, when they write stuff like this, and they only have their clients, ParkingEye, to blame.

The following should therefore serve as a warning to current and potential clients of Hill Dickinson, as well as current and potential clients of ParkingEye.

The Prankster's reply is here.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Have ParkingEye set Hill Dickinson on MoneySavingExpert?

[Update - see updated message from the forum team below]

The Prankster has noticed a post by the forum team on the parking board of MoneySavingExpert. A small snippet is reproduced.

In recent months, we have again had to deal with complaints about this board. Here at MSE we fight your corner as a consumer so to some extent this comes with the territory. However, you need to understand you are anonymous usernames posting content on a public forum. To you, there is no cost and this is your board. 

We are a small team managing over 150 Forum boards, all requiring resource. In a perfect world we'd have more, but this is what we have and how we operate. So, when people constantly post names and use words like "scam", "cowboys", “rip-offs” etc. it becomes a legal problem and we may have to remove threads and posts to protect the site.

We can support your factual comments, we can’t support personal remarks about others

Although the post does not mention which parking company complained, a number of posts have been removed and all of these have been to do with ParkingEye. One forum member, spacey, has also apparently been banned from the forum.

It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that ParkingEye have set their defamation lawyers, Hill Dickinson, onto MoneySavingExpert - although of course they may have written themselves or chosen a new legal firm.

Although MoneySavingExpert apparently do not consider ParkingEye to be scammers, cowboys or rip-off merchants, The Prankster respectfully disagrees.

Only a cowboy outfit would issue a parking charge for parking in two different car parks

Only a scammer would pursue a parking charge through the court system when they knew the motorist was neither driver nor keeper of the vehicle in question, and therefore there was no legal basis whatsoever for the claim.

Only a rip-off merchant would state their genuine pre-estimate of loss was £100, when their own accounts show the maximum average cost per ticket issued is £17.

Should ParkingEye wish to disagree with this opinion and set Hill Dickinson onto The Prankster, he has provided ParkingEye with the address of his representative in England. The Prankster does not currently live or work in England and is not subject to English law. (He does fly in to do a spot as lay representative now and then).

The Prankster reminds Hill Dickinson that they have not replied to any of his communications and also reminds them that he has previously informed them he will publish on his blog at a time of his choosing any or all letters sent to him which he considers it is in the public interest to publish.

[UPDATE 9/5/2014 14:00]
Andrea modified the notice to reword two paragraphs:

Thank you for your responses everyone.

We've amended two paragraphs in the first post to make our point clearer:

In recent months, we have again had to deal with complaints about this board. Here at MSE we fight your corner as a consumer and we believe much of the private parking industry is a Wild West full of many cowboys ripping off honest motorists, as we’ve seen and heard too many stories to suggest otherwise (and some staff here have been on the end of unscrupulous tactics). However, some firms do also act fairly. 

The problem we face is when people make allegations without evidence against a specific company, calling them “scammers” or “criminals”. Without evidence, this becomes a legal problem and we may have to remove threads and posts to protect the site. We prefer to keep our resources focused on fighting hard for you to fight unfair tickets and keeping that debate unabashed than having to deal with a legal sideshow about ‘is the name-calling fair?’ – so please help us help you by moderating the language not to accuse of illegality.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Premier Parking win in court - a cautionary tale

Not all court hearings against private parking companies are won by the motorist, even with a strong defence.

The small claims track can be a lottery, with judges ruling differently from day to day and court to court. Even the Prankster has lost one case (although this is currently scheduled for an appeal hearing and so no more will be said at the present time).

The Prankster heard today of the sad tale of a lady who lost her case against Premier Parking for a £100 parking charge.

Even though the lady had a strong case the parking company won. They enlisted the help of a barrister which is a bit like rolling out the Brazilian football team against Chippenham Town FC.

What is inexplicable is that the judge (as well as the £100 charge) also awarded £355 costs against the defendant. In the small claims track costs are strictly limited, and normally would be capped at £50 solicitor filing fee, £25 court filing fee and £25 court hearing fee. Extra costs are normally not allowed unless the defendant acted unreasonably, so to add another £255 is unusual.

The Prankster has seen the lady's defence, which is strong, contains elements which have won in similar cases and references to those cases. At the present time it is therefore not clear why the judge thought the defendant acted unreasonably or why she allowed the extra costs.

The moral of the story is to try and nip parking charges in the bud by appealing to the parking company and then POPLA, where correctly worded appeals currently always win if the charge is for breach of contract. If the case goes to court follow practice directions as closely as you can to avoid being accused of acting unreasonably. Finally, do your research on your local court. Some courts regularly rule in favour of parking companies, while others rule against.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster