Napier Parking issue ticket for 12 second stay. James De Savary and Mr Nicholas De Savary must take action

[Update 7-9-2014. Mr James de Savary has replied regarding this incident which should be read together with this blog]

[Update 25-9-2014 Napier cancelled the ticket]

This post on Pepipoo details how a motorist got a ticket even though they decided not to use the car park.

The motorist needed to shop quickly for one item, so on arriving at Jengers Mead Car Park, Billingshurst, he immediately checked the signs for the terms and conditions. The car park was operated by Napier Parking. This was his first visit as he was unfamiliar to the area. He decided the car park was too expensive for a short stay so returned to his car to find that a ticket was already being issued.

He explained to the attendant that he had decided not to park there but the attendant said the ticket was already issued and walked off.

The driver's own watch read 15:08 on entry to the car park - he checked it because he was worried he was late for an appointment. The ticket was issued at 15:09:19 and the attendant first observed the car 15:09:07 - a stay of 13 seconds.

This is clearly against the BPA Ltd code of practice.

13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.

13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still
allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.

The Prankster therefore suggests the motorist contacts the BPA and his MP to complain, as well as appealing to Napier once he gets his Notice to Keeper. The BPA can be contacted on aos@britishparking.co.uk.

Jengers Mead Car Park, Billingshurst is owned by owned by Jengers Mead Car Parking LLP, which is owned by Mr James Nicholas John De Savary and Mr Nicholas Charles De Savary. The owners of Napier Parking are also Mr James De Savary and Mr Nicholas De Savary.

The Prankster has no idea who these two gentlemen are, but if their idea of running a legitimate car parking operation is to allow a grace period of 18 seconds then they are obviously disreputable shysters up to no good. It seems they have form for allowing their parking attendants to ignore the BPA code of practice. In August 2013 one ticket was issued after 9 seconds and the driver was banned from further use of the car park after disputing the ticket. Another driver thought the attendant must have been hiding behind a hedge. A disabled driver was issued a ticket having left the car for 3 minutes - not enough time to buy a ticket and return.

This local shopkeeper is well aware of the car park's reputation.

Mr James De Savary and Mr Nicholas De Savary will therefore be well aware of the predatory practices of their attendants - or if they are not, should be. The Prankster therefore eagerly awaits the news that the attendant and all people involved in issuing these tickets and deciding appeals will be disciplined.

If not, then the Prankster questions whether they are fit and proper people to own and run a car parking company. We could for instance, compare them to the likes of David Taylor, who used to own ParkingEye, Simon Renshaw-Smith of Excel Parking or Kevin MacManus of AS Parking.

Oh wait...it looks like they have all the right qualifications after all.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

More Hospital woes. John Simpson from University Hospital of North Staffordshire insults disabled patients

The Parking Prankster has seen this report from the Stoke Sentinel.

One criteria for qualifying Blue Badge is that walking more than 50 yards causes pain. The disabled parking bays at University Hospital of North Staffordshire are indeed less than 50 yards from the hospital entrance...but there are no ticket machines near the disabled bays. Motorists are then faced with a walk of over 100 yards to get a ticket and return to the car. One motorist reports so many machines are out of action he often has to walk half a mile. This obviously cases great problems for disabled drivers.

When asked to comment on the problem Director of Corporate Services, John Simpson made this fatuous remark;

We now allow blue-badge holders to park for an extra 30 minutes free of charge to allow for increased journey times to and from hospital buildings and there are an additional 23 disabled car parking spaces.

We have to balance the needs of patients, visitors and staff – and 20 per cent of our public spaces are dedicated to blue-badge holders.

A particular blight in this country is the increasing numbers of bureaucrats and politicians who think they can get away with pre-canned remarks which have nothing to do with the question asked or problem posed. Allowing Blue-badge holders extra time does nothing to alleviate the problem. Nor does allocating more spaces. The problem is (stated in words as short as possible for John Simpson's benefit); the hospital is making disabled drivers walk too far. (Sorry about 'hospital' and 'disabled' John; I couldn't find suitable shorter words). The Prankster regards John Simpson's remarks as an insult to the intelligence of his customers; the patients.

If John Simpson is worthy of his job (The Prankster does not want to judge him on one ill-considered remark) then he will doubtless do something about the actual problem rather than spouting meaningless hot air.

The Prankster suggests one or more of the following:

1) Suspend all charges on disabled motorists until the problem is solved

2) Or, actually comply with the new government guidelines and provide free parking for disabled motorists

3) Supply new pay machines sited at the disabled bay

4) Or move the existing pay machines to the disabled bay

5) Provide park-by-phone and/or park-by-app at no extra cost so that disabled motorists with phones/smartphones can pay without leaving the car. Put the signage at the disabled bays at a low height.

6) Provide pay-by-pc at no extra cost so that disabled motorists with computers and internet access can pre/post-register and pay at home either before or after parking. Put the signage at the disabled bays at a low height.

However, the Prankster notes the whole scheme seems to be pay-and-display which is wholly inappropriate for hospitals anyway.

So...

7) Scrap pay and display and move to a pay on exit model.

As it seems STAND are gearing up to sue the hospital, John Simpson could save a great deal of money by implementing one or more of these steps.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Burton Hospital FoI cock-up. They want to make it clear ParkingEye is gouging patients at £420,000 a year

This rather panicky email went out from Burton Hospital, probably as a result of the Prankster's previous blog and the resulting media attention.

Further to our response to your FoI request regarding a list of suppliers whose total invoices totalled more than £25,000 in any one month of 2014, it has come to our attention that we released the wrong information in our response.  After reviewing all the information, we can now confirm that our parking contractor's invoices amount to less than £7,000 a month.   We apologise for the error and any inconvenience caused.

The revised figures pan out as follows

£7,000 a month leads to the motorist being gouged for £35,000 a month, or £420,000 a year.

This of course is still a sizable chunk of money, and does not change any of the underlying premises. Had the Prankster stated that initially that motorists were being gouged for £420,000 a year, the problem would still remain. The Prankster is therefore happy to repeat the concerns:

The government has stated it does not want hospitals to use Parking operators who provide their services for 'free' and this hospital shows why. Vulnerable motorists are being gouged at an alarming rate.

Burton hospital signage has been described as especially confusing. These figures show why. It is of course an advantage for ParkingEye to confuse motorists because this means they can issue more parking charges. It is perfectly possible to run a hospital car park without confusing motorists but this would generate little or no revenue for ParkingEye. Bristol Eye Hospital is a perfect example of this where an FoI request showed no tickets were issued for overstays in a three month period. ParkingEye would go bankrupt if were constrained to operate in a fair manner as exemplified by this hospital.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye make over £1.5 million a year from patient misery at Burton Hospitals

[Update 05/09/2014 Burton Hospital's admit to cock-up when they released FoI figures]

A FoI request has revealed that ParkingEye are invoicing Burton Hospitals at a rate of over £25,000 a month. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. The FoI request also states this is a VAT only invoice, which means that ParkingEye are issuing invoices to motorists at the rate of over £125,000 a month or £1.5 million a year. As the FoI only states the invoices are over £25,000 a month the true figure could be even higher.

The government has stated it does not want hospitals to use Parking operators who provide their services for 'free' and this hospital shows why. Vulnerable motorists are being gouged at an alarming rate.

Burton hospital signage has been described as especially confusing. These figures show why. It is of course an advantage for ParkingEye to confuse motorists because this means they can issue more parking charges. It is perfectly possible to run a hospital car park without confusing motorists but this would generate little or no revenue for ParkingEye. Bristol Eye Hospital is a perfect example of this where an FoI request showed no tickets were issued for overstays in a three month period. ParkingEye would go bankrupt if were constrained to operate in a fair manner as exemplified by this hospital.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Picture of the Week - opportunity for entrepreneur

Parking spaces are at a premium at Chorley Towers, headquarters of notorious firm ParkingEye as well as other companies. Cars are all over the place, on the pavements, in disabled bays without blue badges and double parked. The landowners have missed a trick by failing to employ ParkingEye to clean up the mess.

No doubt a budding entrepreneur can cash in on the situation. They could probably make a few grand a week just from issuing tickets to cars parked in disabled bays. The Prankster is of the opinion that blue badges are not valid on private land and that the Equalities Act 2010 also applies to people without blue badges. However, POPLA does not seem to agree with him so a few well-placed signs stating only blue badge drivers can park in disabled bays should start the ball rolling.

Interested opportunists should contact pinkus.co.uk to place their bids.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Normal Service Will be Resumed

The Prankster is away for a while helping to improve animal accommodation at the Ham and Miao shelter. (Ham is equivalent to 'woof' and has nothing to do with pigs!)

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Romanian-Rescue-Dogs-Support-Scotland/1380540758884810

Internet access may be slow and flaky so emails may take a while to respond to - normal service will be resumed as soon as possible!

Donations for building materials will no doubt be gratefully received by the organisation (paypal Romaniandogsscotland@outlook.com) although The Prankster has no great talent for building, having once unwittingly created a fountain in his living room,and will probably be consigned to the more menial tasks.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Gordon and Noble impersonate Sheriff's Officers

Gordon and Noble are a firm of debt collectors based in Scotland. They are also Sherrif's Officers, which is the equivalent of bailiff in England.

What they are not allowed to do, however, is mix the two up, and say they are acting as Sherrif's Officers or bailiffs while they are merely debt collecting.

This series of transcripts shows they are flagrantly misinforming people while acting as debt collectors.

Message 1

This is a message for XXX. My name is XXX from Gordon & Noble Sheriff’s officers based in Glasgow. It is quite important you give me a call back as soon as you can please on XXXXX. There is a reference number XXXX

Message 2 

 I don’t know if there’s something wrong with your phone somehow I keep getting cut off. This is a message for XXX. My name is XXX I phoning from Gordon & Noble Sheriff’s Officers based in Glasgow. It’s quite simple we’ve got a parking problem that you’ve got and I need it resolved as soon as possible or we will take legal action. If we take legal action it will just add additional cost to a bill that is obviously difficult as it is. The reference XXXX. It is important you call me back as soon as you can on XXXX. Either cutting me off or hanging up the phone on me is not going to make this go away. A proper conversation in a courteous manner will reconcile the problem. Failing that, we will sue.

Message 3

This is an urgent message for XXXX. My name is XXXX I’m from a company called Gordon & Noble it’s a Sheriffs officer business. The reference number for the case is XXX. It is important you contact us cause this is not going to go away. The next process is to process a writ for court. The phone number is XXXX. If you speak to me we can prevent that from happening. My name is XXX

Message 4

This is an urgent message for XXX. My name is XXX, I’m calling you from a company called Gordon & Noble they’re Sheriff’s Officers based in Glasgow. It’s important somebody contacts me immediately on XXXX. I called a couple of times yesterday and it appeared the phone was getting hung up. I don’t understand this discourtesy at all. So you call me as a matter of urgency on XXXX to try to resolve a serious problem

Message 5

I don’t know if you’re hanging up or whether there’s something wrong with your phone but this is pretty serious. You should even have the courtesy to find out what it’s about. This is a message for XXX. I’m calling from a Sheriff’s officers business based in Glasgow. You know what a Sheriff’s officer is? There is a legal case paper reference XXX. My name is XXX, my phone number is XXX. I’m trying to resolve a problem that you have without taking legal action but it’s no going to go away. Putting the phone down, how discourteous, it’s silly quite frankly, Now I’m here till after 12 o’clock and I strongly suggest you call me and try and sort this out in a reasonable manner cause its certainly not going to go away

Message 6

This is a serious message for XXX. I’ve phoned you half a dozen times and all you ever keep doing is hanging the phone up. I find that ludicrous based upon the fact that (pause) you know (pause) being serious, what do you think happens next? We’ve been asked to contact you in regards to a serious matter that’s not going to go away and we’d really prefer to speak to you and reconcile over the telephone but failing that quite simply we’ll have other recourse to other processes that will only gonna add outstanding money to an already outstanding position. So you know with the greatest of respect putting the phone down, no speaking, no replying, no replying to messages I find that really quite silly on your part. We are trying to help you to reconcile the problem. Failing that..….really ….. I’m quite sure you’re aware what happens next. So if you want to try and call before close of business today. Failing that don’t bother calling….we’ll be in touch. It’s (Phone number) Glasgow. My name is XXX

Message 7

I’m phoning to see when the time will suit you for Sheriff’s officers to come out and see you. My number is XXX. You call me when you have a suitable time and place, thanks

Message 8
 This is a message for XXXX. This is XXX from Gordon & Noble Sheriff’s officers. Why don’t you give us a call please to let us know when you can accept service of a summons erm regarding this eh problem we have? (phone number) as soon as you can please cause I don’t want to send someone out when you’re not in.

Quite simply, the person is pretending to be acting with the authority of a Sherrif's officer while actually acting as a debt collector. As a debt collector, they have no powers to take legal action for an alleged civil debt. That power would lie with the car parking company, UKPC, or the landowner, depending on the contract UKPC has with the landowner.

Sheriff's Officers would also have no interest in 'coming out to see' anyone unless the debt was already proven through the court system, and the threat that a summons has already been issued which now needs to be served is also baffling.

The Prankster therefore advises the following.

As the keeper lives in Scotland, they should robustly remind Gordon & Noble that there is no keeper liability in Scotland.

First Floor
133 Finnieston Street
GLASGOW
G3 8HB

Dear Gordon & Noble,

I am writing to you as registered keeper of the vehicle. The debt is denied; please refer back to the principal, reminding them that the keeper cannot be held liable for private parking charges in Scotland.

They should also contact the Gordon & Noble board. The Prankster suggests writing to the company secretary, Mrs Lorraine Gordon.

Dear Mrs Gordon,

I enclose the following transcripts which show that one of your employees is impersonating a sherrif's officer while actually acting as a debt collector. I assume you will treat this matter as seriously as I have, and will arrange for corrective action. If I am not satisfied with your reply I will report you to the CSA for breaches of the code of practice (y, aa) .

To report to the Credit Services Association, use the forms at http://www.csa-uk.com/#contact

The keeper should also report UKPC to the British Parking Association at aos@britishparking.co.uk

Dear BPA,

Please investigate UKPC for breaches of the Code of Practice. They are using a debt collection agency which is contacting me impersonating a sherrif's officer. I enclose transcripts of various calls made.

It would also be worth registering the information with the police to see if any offences have been caused.

Finally, the Sherrif's Court may well also be interested, and if this is regular occurrence will no doubt be re-evaluating Gordon and Noble's suitability to remain Sherrif's Officers.

Sheriff Clerk's Office,
PO Box 23,
1 Carlton Place,
Glasgow,
G5 9DA

To the Sheriff Clerk.

I enclose transcripts showing that Gordon and Noble employees are impersonating Sheriff's Officers while engaged in debt collecting. Please investigate as appropriate.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster