Several parking companies are currently being taken to court by motorists trying to recoup costs involved with fighting tickets which have had no validity. Although parking companies are keen to issue charges of £100 and upwards for minor transgressions such as being 1 minute late or parking slightly over a white line, they are not so keen to pay motorists when the parking company has been found to be in the wrong.
Some cases have now completed and it is clear the courts will award the motorist their costs in the right circumstances.
Here is a poem submitted to The Prankster regarding one such case completed recently.
Ssshh someone took a PPC to court
Because the PPC weren't being a sport
The PPC declined an appeal that had the right line
They tried to make out that it was a just fine
So the keeper reached out to rap their hand
He tried to make them understand
That what they were playing was a crime
And by continuing they were wasting his time
So he presented a PCN - a Personal Cost Notification
Of course a 50% off before the Popla negation
No word was heard and Popla appeal accepted
A full PCN was thus sent as expected
But the PPC continued to ignore
Until an MCOL for 1000 hit their floor
They were going to fight the claim
Of course the keeper had to play the game
One wrong step and all would be undone
After all they thought he could be outdone
5 months later at the 11th hour
....The keeper ready to devour
And to put forth a legal precedence
That would kill off any future PPC offense
...The PPC fully settled the claim!
Lesson: Do not allow bullies to continue their current behaviour!
If you want to claim money from the parking company, The Prankster suggests the following;
In your initial appeal, warn the parking company you will charge them if they do not cancel your ticket and force you to spend time and effort appealing to POPLA. Warn them that you will charge them if you win your POPLA appeal.
Tell them that your charge will be a contractual charge, and that they will be deemed to have accepted the contract by performance if they fail to cancel the charge.
Although in this case the parking companies had to fork out £1,000, The Prankster suggest a figure of £100 will have most chance of success in court.
The Prankster also warns that court action is always risky, and the chance of success will depend on you following court procedures correctly and getting the right judge. Success is not guaranteed - there have also been cases where the judge has ruled in favour of the parking company.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Putting the fun back into parking
Click for guide to fighting ParkingEye court claims
Click for help with low-cost appeals and court defences
Sunday, 9 November 2014
Saturday, 8 November 2014
ParkingEye target man whose daughter had to go to hospital in beach incident
This report on moneysavingexpert describes how ParkingEye refused to cancel their charge despite a serious medical incident occurring on Fistral Beach.
The parking event occurred in Tower Road car park in Newquay. During the stay the motorist's daughter had to be evacuated from Fistral Beach by RNLI lifeguards. This meant the motorist had to return all the beach gear to the car himself taking several trips, and then rendezvous with the lifeguards to take her to hospital, where he spent 5 hours.
The motorist offered to pay for the overstay at the car park, and to add on a reasonable administrative charge. However, this was rejected by ParkingEye, who are now threatening to take him to court.
Sadly the motorist did not appeal to POPLA because the listed appeal reasons did not seem to apply, even though he correctly identified that the parking charge bore no relation to the costs to ParkingEye of issuing it. This will be seen as a success by the British Parking Association, who have constantly refused to update POPLA's site to inform motorists they can appeal if the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
ParkingEye previously have refused to cancel charges when a walker was injured on Snowden, and when motorists could not leave the car park due to breaking down.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
The parking event occurred in Tower Road car park in Newquay. During the stay the motorist's daughter had to be evacuated from Fistral Beach by RNLI lifeguards. This meant the motorist had to return all the beach gear to the car himself taking several trips, and then rendezvous with the lifeguards to take her to hospital, where he spent 5 hours.
The motorist offered to pay for the overstay at the car park, and to add on a reasonable administrative charge. However, this was rejected by ParkingEye, who are now threatening to take him to court.
Sadly the motorist did not appeal to POPLA because the listed appeal reasons did not seem to apply, even though he correctly identified that the parking charge bore no relation to the costs to ParkingEye of issuing it. This will be seen as a success by the British Parking Association, who have constantly refused to update POPLA's site to inform motorists they can appeal if the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
ParkingEye previously have refused to cancel charges when a walker was injured on Snowden, and when motorists could not leave the car park due to breaking down.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
BPA write to London Councils
Patrick Troy of the BPA Ltd has written to all the London Councils, begging them to vote to retrospectively agree to the provision of the POPLA service.
To analyse this report it is first necessary to understand that the Chief Executive of the BPA, Patrick Troy is not the most truthful of people and he and the organisation he presides over have been known in the past to lie to further his own ends and those of the BPA.
When the Government were consulting regarding the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the BPA explained that considerable savings could be made for the Ministry of Justice as the number of court claims would come down from 36000/90,000. As it turned out, this was an outrageous piece of flannel and the number of court claims was only 845 in 2011 of which 49 ended up with a hearing. Since then, they have risen significantly, not fallen. With ParkingEye sometimes filing almost 2,000 claims a week it is entirely possible they will soon hit the previously fictitious number of 90,000 claims a year all by themselves.
Patrick Troy also told the BBC that POPLA was free to motorists, when actually ParkingEye were passing on POPLA costs.
With this background, it is time to analyse the BPA's latest missive to see if it is truthful or not. The most interesting statement is the following;
This statement is an outrageous bluff by Patrick Troy. The Prankster has information that the BPA is in no doubt that the legality of the contract is very much in dispute. There are several potential problems, including that the localism act might not be appropriate if used retrospectively, and also that the localism act might not be applicable if other legislation is more binding.
The auditor of London councils will of course be aware of this as well. In such circumstances it would be typical for the auditor to get independent legal advice and to warn the councils that if the legal advice warrants it, then if they continue along this path the auditors could fail to sign off the accounts and could even recommend prosecution.
For Patrick Troy to mislead council members that there is no legal danger to them is therefore very irresponsible.
The Prankster therefore recommends that the councils get their own legal advice, rather than listen to a proven liar with a history of misleading people. Failing that, it would be prudent to wait for the auditor's report on the legality or otherwise of the contract.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
When the Government were consulting regarding the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the BPA explained that considerable savings could be made for the Ministry of Justice as the number of court claims would come down from 36000/90,000. As it turned out, this was an outrageous piece of flannel and the number of court claims was only 845 in 2011 of which 49 ended up with a hearing. Since then, they have risen significantly, not fallen. With ParkingEye sometimes filing almost 2,000 claims a week it is entirely possible they will soon hit the previously fictitious number of 90,000 claims a year all by themselves.
Patrick Troy also told the BBC that POPLA was free to motorists, when actually ParkingEye were passing on POPLA costs.
With this background, it is time to analyse the BPA's latest missive to see if it is truthful or not. The most interesting statement is the following;
'the legality of the contract is not in dispute'
This statement is an outrageous bluff by Patrick Troy. The Prankster has information that the BPA is in no doubt that the legality of the contract is very much in dispute. There are several potential problems, including that the localism act might not be appropriate if used retrospectively, and also that the localism act might not be applicable if other legislation is more binding.
The auditor of London councils will of course be aware of this as well. In such circumstances it would be typical for the auditor to get independent legal advice and to warn the councils that if the legal advice warrants it, then if they continue along this path the auditors could fail to sign off the accounts and could even recommend prosecution.
For Patrick Troy to mislead council members that there is no legal danger to them is therefore very irresponsible.
The Prankster therefore recommends that the councils get their own legal advice, rather than listen to a proven liar with a history of misleading people. Failing that, it would be prudent to wait for the auditor's report on the legality or otherwise of the contract.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
UK Parking Control drops cases in Scotland
As reported in the Dundee Courier, UK Parking Control has dropped 3 cases in Scotland involving parking at Gallagher Retail Park.
The laws in Scotland differ significantly from the laws in the rest of the UK. There is no offence of trespass; there is no concept of keeper liability; parking companies are not required to offer an independent appeals service.
What this means is that apart from all other hurdles, any parking company would need to prove the identity of the driver to the satisfaction of the Sheriff hearing the case. In at least one of the test cases, they would have also had to prove the signage was sufficiently visible in the dark and rain to form a contract, that the wording was clear and unambiguous and that as parking was free for 2 hours, a breach of contract had occurred by staying for 10 minutes. All these would have been quite high hurdles to cross. Add in that in one case they were up against a company with a legally qualified representative arguing the defence, one theory is that UK Parking Control crept away with their tail between their legs. Having a body of case law against them would not be a good start to their campaign.
However, The Prankster believes this is not the case and that UK Parking Control are secretly laughing up their sleeves. The Prankster believes that they are running a far more devious campaign than previously outlined. To explain this reasoning, it is necessary to look at campaigns run by other parking companies. Figures released by the Ministry of Justice show that while ParkingEye issue over 1,000 claims a week, only around 10% or less get to a hearing. As ParkingEye very rarely drop cases, this means that the majority of motorists simply pay up to avoid the hassle of going to court. UK Parking Control will be very aware of this, and if the figures repeat themselves in Scotland, they can expect to have trousered cash from 27 motorists who paid up, for the minor expense of having to drop 3 cases. This would leave them with around £3,000 profit from the paid up motorists, while forking out a few hundred pounds on the dropped cases.
This tactic is also employed by Civil Enforcement Limited, who file large numbers of claims, but either drop them at the last minute of fail to attend hearing in most cases. By keeping the pressure up right to the last minute with letters threatening an escalation of costs, CEL successfully bluff large numbers of motorists into paying up. UK Parking Control will also be aware of this, and may be trying to emulate this strategy in Scotland.
In Scotland the process is that there is a first hearing, which is rather like a mitigation hearing, followed by the real hearing. UKPC stayed firm during the mitigation hearing, dropping their request from £160 to £152. They then dropped out before the real hearing.
Like CEL, they may be trying to pick and choose the few cases which make it to court, making sure they only proceed if a weak defence has been filed and it is clear the motorist does not understand the legal issues. This will then allow them to gradually build a body of case law which can be used to present a one sided picture; a strategy very successfully used by ParkingEye over the last two years.
UKPC stated they dropped the case because 'it was in the wrong pile'. This may well be true, and they only meant to carry on with weak defendants, not ones who had filed a strong defence.
Using these strategies and others it is possible to abuse the legal system and use it as a cheap debt collection service with very little chance of a comeback. Judges in England and Wales have so far taken no action against this abuse of the system. It remains to be seen whether Sheriffs in Scotland will be far cannier and will get a grasp of the situation more quickly.
Meanwhile The Prankster will sit back and wait to see what action UK Parking Control will take next. No doubt they will be totting up their spreadsheets with actual numbers of motorists who folded against the 3 who refused, to see if their strategy is viable or needs changing. While he is waiting he will also keep an eye on Vehicle Control Systems, who have also filed several claims in Scotland.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
The laws in Scotland differ significantly from the laws in the rest of the UK. There is no offence of trespass; there is no concept of keeper liability; parking companies are not required to offer an independent appeals service.
What this means is that apart from all other hurdles, any parking company would need to prove the identity of the driver to the satisfaction of the Sheriff hearing the case. In at least one of the test cases, they would have also had to prove the signage was sufficiently visible in the dark and rain to form a contract, that the wording was clear and unambiguous and that as parking was free for 2 hours, a breach of contract had occurred by staying for 10 minutes. All these would have been quite high hurdles to cross. Add in that in one case they were up against a company with a legally qualified representative arguing the defence, one theory is that UK Parking Control crept away with their tail between their legs. Having a body of case law against them would not be a good start to their campaign.
However, The Prankster believes this is not the case and that UK Parking Control are secretly laughing up their sleeves. The Prankster believes that they are running a far more devious campaign than previously outlined. To explain this reasoning, it is necessary to look at campaigns run by other parking companies. Figures released by the Ministry of Justice show that while ParkingEye issue over 1,000 claims a week, only around 10% or less get to a hearing. As ParkingEye very rarely drop cases, this means that the majority of motorists simply pay up to avoid the hassle of going to court. UK Parking Control will be very aware of this, and if the figures repeat themselves in Scotland, they can expect to have trousered cash from 27 motorists who paid up, for the minor expense of having to drop 3 cases. This would leave them with around £3,000 profit from the paid up motorists, while forking out a few hundred pounds on the dropped cases.
This tactic is also employed by Civil Enforcement Limited, who file large numbers of claims, but either drop them at the last minute of fail to attend hearing in most cases. By keeping the pressure up right to the last minute with letters threatening an escalation of costs, CEL successfully bluff large numbers of motorists into paying up. UK Parking Control will also be aware of this, and may be trying to emulate this strategy in Scotland.
In Scotland the process is that there is a first hearing, which is rather like a mitigation hearing, followed by the real hearing. UKPC stayed firm during the mitigation hearing, dropping their request from £160 to £152. They then dropped out before the real hearing.
Like CEL, they may be trying to pick and choose the few cases which make it to court, making sure they only proceed if a weak defence has been filed and it is clear the motorist does not understand the legal issues. This will then allow them to gradually build a body of case law which can be used to present a one sided picture; a strategy very successfully used by ParkingEye over the last two years.
UKPC stated they dropped the case because 'it was in the wrong pile'. This may well be true, and they only meant to carry on with weak defendants, not ones who had filed a strong defence.
Using these strategies and others it is possible to abuse the legal system and use it as a cheap debt collection service with very little chance of a comeback. Judges in England and Wales have so far taken no action against this abuse of the system. It remains to be seen whether Sheriffs in Scotland will be far cannier and will get a grasp of the situation more quickly.
Meanwhile The Prankster will sit back and wait to see what action UK Parking Control will take next. No doubt they will be totting up their spreadsheets with actual numbers of motorists who folded against the 3 who refused, to see if their strategy is viable or needs changing. While he is waiting he will also keep an eye on Vehicle Control Systems, who have also filed several claims in Scotland.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Thursday, 6 November 2014
Stephen Duff of Proserve admits claiming £420 was due to his incompetence
Stephen Duff has now admitted that claiming £420 instead of £80 was due to his incompetence. The initial invoice submitted by the transcription company was an estimate before they had done the work. Once it was complete a new invoice was submitted and the overpayment reclaimable.
The Prankster has purchased several transcripts himself and can confirm this is the way transcription companies work. Stephen Duff has also purchased transcriptions in the past and therefore should also be aware of the process.
There is therefore no plausible excuse for him not realising the first invoice is always an estimate; that the estimate of £420 was clearly wrong; and that the overpayment had been repaid.
According to pepipoo Mr Duff is now threatening the transcription company with legal action due to his embarrassment in appearing in The Prankster's blog. For some reason he appears to believe they are responsible for his own incompetence. He is also claiming never to have received the second invoice.
The Prankster also questions the fact that the invoice is made out to Duff, and not to the claimant, Ransomes Park Ltd. Firstly if Ransomes have not paid for the transcription then why should the defendant reimburse them for a cost which has not been incurred. Secondly why would Ransomes reimburse Duff anyway when their contract with him makes him responsible for all costs. They should therefore mitigate costs by refusing to pay Duff for the cost of the transcript.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
The Prankster has purchased several transcripts himself and can confirm this is the way transcription companies work. Stephen Duff has also purchased transcriptions in the past and therefore should also be aware of the process.
There is therefore no plausible excuse for him not realising the first invoice is always an estimate; that the estimate of £420 was clearly wrong; and that the overpayment had been repaid.
According to pepipoo Mr Duff is now threatening the transcription company with legal action due to his embarrassment in appearing in The Prankster's blog. For some reason he appears to believe they are responsible for his own incompetence. He is also claiming never to have received the second invoice.
The Prankster also questions the fact that the invoice is made out to Duff, and not to the claimant, Ransomes Park Ltd. Firstly if Ransomes have not paid for the transcription then why should the defendant reimburse them for a cost which has not been incurred. Secondly why would Ransomes reimburse Duff anyway when their contract with him makes him responsible for all costs. They should therefore mitigate costs by refusing to pay Duff for the cost of the transcript.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Wednesday, 5 November 2014
Merriveen v Proserve
Merriveen is a small haulage firm working from Felixstowe. On 21/10/2013 one of Merriveen's vehicles was parked for 3 minutes while the driver got delivery paperwork. Proserve issued a ticket for £180. In Proserve v Hamblion Mr Duff of Proserve stated under oath that he always has a word with drivers first and asks them to move. However, it appears he lied under oath because this did not happen in this case (or indeed many others), and thus he consistently fails to mitigate any losses due under trespass laws.
The charge was then increased to £300 'under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012'. Merriveen then supplied the name and address of the driver to Proserve. This discharges their liability as vehicle keeper but Stephen Duff emailed back to say they did not have the option to name the driver. This is of course a misuse of the data supplied to Proserve by the DVLA. If Proserve state they are pursuing a keeper under POFA 2012, then the keeper's liability is discharged by providing the driver's details.
Merriveen was then banned from Felixstowe by Proserve and the managing agents, Bidwells, but they just ignored the ban and continued about their business much to the annoyance of the managing agent Mr Hart from Bidwells.
Mr Hart therefore wrote a malicious email to all Merriveen's clients telling them the owner had been arrested for attempted murder and must therefore be banned from the empty container off-hire yards. This rendered Merriveen's business inactive, so Merriveen had no option but to call in the police.
The police were most helpful. Damien Richer of Suffolk police is familiar with Mr Duff and his tactics. He made Mr Hart write a retraction email, but this was on the understanding that Merriveen paid the ticket in full, and recovered it in court. The ticket had now increased for undisclosed reasons from £180 to £2035. As The Prankster's readers will know from previous blogs. Mr Duff has a creative approach to invoices and does not appear to believe that the amount on any invoice should be fixed for eternity, but is a fluid figure which can move upward without reason at any time.
Merriveen took Proserve to court and won on the basis that Mr Duff did not sign his defence and it was therefore inadmissible. Mr Duff made it clear outside the courtroom that he would not be paying, and the day after the case restarted the hate campaign, once again trying to get Merriveen banned from the yards.
Mr Duff's court bluster turned out to be bluff, and he has now paid the judgment in full, following pressure from a firm in Liverpool experienced in these matters.
Meanwhile, the signage, rubbished by HHJ Moloney in a recent case, is still present all round Trinity Distribution park Felixstowe and Ransomes Europark Ipswich. Stephen Duff has not been seen in Felixstowe recently. This may be coincidence or may be due to his recent Facebook campaign to find the home addresses of various people, including The Prankster.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
The charge was then increased to £300 'under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012'. Merriveen then supplied the name and address of the driver to Proserve. This discharges their liability as vehicle keeper but Stephen Duff emailed back to say they did not have the option to name the driver. This is of course a misuse of the data supplied to Proserve by the DVLA. If Proserve state they are pursuing a keeper under POFA 2012, then the keeper's liability is discharged by providing the driver's details.
Merriveen was then banned from Felixstowe by Proserve and the managing agents, Bidwells, but they just ignored the ban and continued about their business much to the annoyance of the managing agent Mr Hart from Bidwells.
Mr Hart therefore wrote a malicious email to all Merriveen's clients telling them the owner had been arrested for attempted murder and must therefore be banned from the empty container off-hire yards. This rendered Merriveen's business inactive, so Merriveen had no option but to call in the police.
The police were most helpful. Damien Richer of Suffolk police is familiar with Mr Duff and his tactics. He made Mr Hart write a retraction email, but this was on the understanding that Merriveen paid the ticket in full, and recovered it in court. The ticket had now increased for undisclosed reasons from £180 to £2035. As The Prankster's readers will know from previous blogs. Mr Duff has a creative approach to invoices and does not appear to believe that the amount on any invoice should be fixed for eternity, but is a fluid figure which can move upward without reason at any time.
Merriveen took Proserve to court and won on the basis that Mr Duff did not sign his defence and it was therefore inadmissible. Mr Duff made it clear outside the courtroom that he would not be paying, and the day after the case restarted the hate campaign, once again trying to get Merriveen banned from the yards.
Mr Duff's court bluster turned out to be bluff, and he has now paid the judgment in full, following pressure from a firm in Liverpool experienced in these matters.
Meanwhile, the signage, rubbished by HHJ Moloney in a recent case, is still present all round Trinity Distribution park Felixstowe and Ransomes Europark Ipswich. Stephen Duff has not been seen in Felixstowe recently. This may be coincidence or may be due to his recent Facebook campaign to find the home addresses of various people, including The Prankster.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Tuesday, 4 November 2014
Why did Ransomes Park Ltd tell HHJ Moloney the transcript fee was £420?
In the appeal hearing of Ransomes Park Ltd v Anderson, counsel for Ransomes asked that Mr Anderson pay Ransomes cost for obtaining a transcript of the original court hearing.
He produced an invoice stating that the cost of obtaining the transcript was £420.
The cost of the transcript raised eyebrows, as the comments on The Prankster's earlier blog showed. In the directions hearing for the case, attended by Bargepole amongst others, the Judge clearly stated that the only documents required for the appeal were the skeletons, and a transcript of the original Judgment.
The only transcript provided to the court and Mr Anderson was the transcript of the judgment. No transcript of the full hearing was provided. We can therefore be certain that the invoice was for the judgment, and not the full hearing, as this was neither required not provided.
However transcription companies are only allowed to charge a fixed rate for transcribing. The judgment is 3345 words long, and the transcription agency charges £1.75 per folio (72 words), making the actual cost around £80, not £450.
A quick check with the transcription company was therefore the order of the day. At this point the mystery deepened. The transcription company was adamant that invoice 491 047 was only for £82.25.
It did emerge that they had billed Mr Duff £420, but this was for a different invoice and for a different set of transcripts for other cases.
No doubt there will be a completely innocent explanation for all this. Perhaps Mr Duff, feverishly burning the midnight oil while poring over the finer details of the case, fell asleep; when he woke up, his face was on the keyboard and photoshop was open. Completely unaware he had accidentally transposed the details of one invoice onto another due to random keypresses, he then submitted the altered invoice as evidence.
The Prankster has faith that HHJ Moloney will be able to get to the bottom of the matter if the issue is raised with him. If not, then the Suffolk police may be able to resolve things.
Happy Parking
*The Prankster may be giving away his age here
He produced an invoice stating that the cost of obtaining the transcript was £420.
The cost of the transcript raised eyebrows, as the comments on The Prankster's earlier blog showed. In the directions hearing for the case, attended by Bargepole amongst others, the Judge clearly stated that the only documents required for the appeal were the skeletons, and a transcript of the original Judgment.
The only transcript provided to the court and Mr Anderson was the transcript of the judgment. No transcript of the full hearing was provided. We can therefore be certain that the invoice was for the judgment, and not the full hearing, as this was neither required not provided.
However transcription companies are only allowed to charge a fixed rate for transcribing. The judgment is 3345 words long, and the transcription agency charges £1.75 per folio (72 words), making the actual cost around £80, not £450.
A quick check with the transcription company was therefore the order of the day. At this point the mystery deepened. The transcription company was adamant that invoice 491 047 was only for £82.25.
It did emerge that they had billed Mr Duff £420, but this was for a different invoice and for a different set of transcripts for other cases.
No doubt there will be a completely innocent explanation for all this. Perhaps Mr Duff, feverishly burning the midnight oil while poring over the finer details of the case, fell asleep; when he woke up, his face was on the keyboard and photoshop was open. Completely unaware he had accidentally transposed the details of one invoice onto another due to random keypresses, he then submitted the altered invoice as evidence.
The Prankster has faith that HHJ Moloney will be able to get to the bottom of the matter if the issue is raised with him. If not, then the Suffolk police may be able to resolve things.
Happy Parking
*The Prankster may be giving away his age here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)