Civil Enforcement Limited (wait for it, wait for it)...

...fail to turn up in court.

There were two cases listed. The first defendant got awarded £10 for travel and parking.

The second defendant, who was a little better prepared, was awarded £100. He pointed out that a litigant in person could claim for their time, and was awarded the maximum of £90. The judge would have awarded a further £25 in expenses if receipts had been provided.

The judge decided that the signage was not adequate and that there was no genuine pre-estimate of loss. It was fairly generous of her to decide the case anyway as CEL did not turn up.

See the defendant's you-tube report here. This has had over 80,000 views

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=390154581157369

and his full report here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEH8notIAqY&feature=youtu.be&a

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Independent Parking Committee assessor fails basic English test

A recent judgment shows that the assessors the Independent Parking Committee are using fail to have a basic grasp of English.

The sign shows the conditions of parking. One of these is that pre-authorised vehicles are allowed to park.

Here is the assessors decision:

There is no dispute that the Appellant holds the licence agreement and is authorised to use the parking space in question. However the Parking Charge Notice was issued because the vehicle was not clearly displaying a valid parking permit. Therefore any points raised as to whether the Appellant was an ‘authorised’ user are irrelevant.

Obviously, serious doubts as to the assessors competency arise if the assessor does not know the meaning of the common English word 'or'.

Just to make it clear to the assessor, here is the wording of the sign he should have considered.



This clearly states that authorised users can park, and that there is no requirement to display a ticket.

The POPLA IAS board recently highlighted the dangers of a 'race-to the bottom' if operators are allowed to choose to use competing appeals service.

In The Prankster's opinion, decisions of this quality highlight the fact the the appeals service offered by the IPC is not fit for purpose and should be replaced as soon as possible. The Prankster hopes that the 'barrister' the IPC used for this appeal is quietly retired and replaced by one who understands English.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UKCPM issue invalid POPLA codes

[Updated with advice from the BPA]

Parking companies have hit on a new wheeze to avoid POPLA fees - issuing invalid POPLA codes. UKCPM have now done this for at least two motorists and no doubt many more.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5100964&page=2
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5157880&page=2

In cases like this motorists should bring this to the attention of the British Parking Association's Gemma Ridgewell who handles POPLA related issues.

gemma.r@britishparking.co.uk

Email a copy of the rejection notice so she can confirm the POPLA code is invalid for the date on the rejection letter.

POPLA codes can be checked here
http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla-code-checker/


Update. The British Parking Association have replied with the following advice.

In essence the operator should have changed the 7^th digit of the POPLA code from a 4 to a 5 – the 7^th digit denotes the year of the issue of the Verification Code.

 We did send out reminders to all operators to do this but this operator must have missed it. I don’t think it’s deliberate, just an oversight. You could suggest to the people that you are in contact with to change the 7^th digit from a 4 to a 5 when they appeal to POPLA – this might be more expeditious for them. 

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Schwartz/Scwarts? Were you taken to court by Civil Enforcement Limited or Debt Enforcement and Action Limited?

The Prankster is investigating Mr Schwartz, who apparently works here now:
http://www.duncanlewis.co.uk/Michael-Schwartz-Crime-Solicitor-Harrow-Middlesex/

If you have a DEAL claim form where the solicitor is M Scwarts or a CEL claim form where the solicitor is M Schwartz, please get in touch with The Prankster this week, by Friday 30th Jan 2015.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye called to task in Stockport

ParkingEye were criticised in court today for failing to inform the court that the case they rely almost entirely on, ParkingEye v Beavis, is being appealed.

ParkingEye were represented by a barrister from LPC Law who met with the defendant before the hearing. At no point during the meeting or the hearing did the barrister mention that the Beavis case was being appealed. This is a serious breach of the solicitor's code of conduct, which requires that all relevant information, even if not helpful to the solicitor's side of the  case is brought to the attention of the court. This is especially relevant if the other side is not professionally represented.

The judge, believed to be DJ Lettall, gave the barrister short shrift in the hearing.  He asked why neither he, not ParkingEye, had mentioned that Beavis was being appealed in their evidential documents. The barrister tried to bluff this was not relevant but of course it is highly relevant.

The barrister then tried to lie that the defendant had failed to attend a mediation meeting. This was of course completely false, and in fact the defendant had made strenuous attempts at mediation, all of which ParkingEye ignored. The judge saw through this ruse and pointed out that mediation is done over the telephone and therefore his story was not possible.

The judge adjourned the hearing until after Beavis, and awarded the defendant costs for his attendance.

Prankster Note

DJ Lettall is fully aware that the Beavis case is being appealed as the last time The Prankster was in his court he asked if he could keep the Prankster's copy of HHJ Moloney's leave to appeal. In that case he also questioned why the claimant had not mentioned the Beavis case was going to appeal. The claimant, Excel, denied knowing the case was being appealed despite going to a British Parking Association meeting the week before to discuss the appeal.

Rachel Ledson, head of Legal at ParkingEye, and Patrick Le Bas, Head of Advocacy at LPC Law have both been warned that if they quote the Beavis case then they should bring to the courts attention that the case is being appealed.

It may therefore be time to report these two people to the Solicitor's Regulatory Authority for them to determine if any wrong doing has occurred.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Solicitor's Regulatory Authority continue investigation into Mswarts

The Prankster has been forwarded the following email from a number of different sources, and therefore believes it to be correct.

Dear sir / madam Please accept my apologies for the delay in providing feedback to you and also this format of doing so which is slightly unorthodox but is due to the large number of reports the Solicitors Regulation Authority has received about these circumstances. A number of individuals have received claim forms issued by Debt Enforcement & Action Ltd and signed by “M Shwarts, solicitor”. Upon making enquiries as to the identity of “M Shwarts”, you have been informed that there was not a solicitor on the Roll of England & Wales of this name. I can confirm that enquiries have been ongoing to establish whether the “M. SHWARTS” noted on the court application documents is a solicitor or not as there are several qualified solicitors of the name ‘M Schwartz’ (and other slight variations of spelling) that could be employed or instructed by Debt Enforcement & Action Ltd. In the first instance the enquiries were to establish if the spelling on the claim forms is the correct spelling of the solicitor’s name or whether it is a misspelling that has been repeated by the use of a template document. These enquiries were crucial as I needed to establish whether this matter should be dealt with under the Solicitors Code of Conduct (if the individual is a solicitor) or whether the matter should be treated as a criminal investigation under Solicitors Act 1974 ss. 20-21 and s.24 or s.14 Legal Services Act 2007. I can now confirm that I received a response from Civil Enforcement Ltd, the parent company of Debt Enforcement & Action Ltd, which confirmed that the solicitor in question is Michael SCHWARTZ, SRA id 118966. I can confirm that this person is a solicitor currently on the Roll of Solicitors of England & Wales and does hold a current Practising Certificate. Furthermore Civil Enforcement Ltd has informed me that they have written to the Court informing them that there was a spelling error on the claims documents issued by referring to the solicitor as “SHWARTS”. As such I will be today referring the reports that the SRA has received regarding these issued claim forms for consideration of any breaches of the SRA Code of Conduct.
I hope you find this update informative. Should you have any additional enquiries in relation to this matter, please do not hesitate to email report@sra.org.uk.

Prankster Note

It is interesting that Civil Enforcement Ltd have confirmed they are the parent company of  DEAL. This releationship was always suspected, but it is useful to have it confirmed.

The Prankster suggests that anyone with any further information for the SRA to investigate gets in touch at the email address supplied. The SRA might want to investigate

• whether Mr Schwartz actually invoiced DEAL £50 as claimed
• why Mr Schwartz is claiming any monies were owed to CEL when the contract with the Co-op is with Creative
• why the claim form states that the Co-op were aware that the debt had been reassigned to DEAL when the Co-op state they were not aware
• why Mr Schwartz is claiming the full charge is owed to DEAL when they were only assigned 87.5% of the debt
• why the claim as to the nature of the contract is not consistent with signage in place at the time of the event all the car parks car parks
• why Mr Schwartz has no idea if the charge is for trespass, breach of contract or contractual charge
• why Mr Schwartz is claiming the charge might be for trespass when CEL are not the landowner and therefore have no standing

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Is Chris Dawson's The Range operating a criminally based parking operation in Barrow with ParkingEye's help?

Chris Dawson owns CDS Superstores, who run the successful 'The Range' series of stores. One of these is in Barrow-in-Furness, and has a respectably sized car park adjacent, which is run on behalf of The Range by ParkingEye. Unfortunately no one bothered to apply for advertisement consent, under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended), for their signage in the car park. Regulation 30 indicates that this is a criminal offence.

The Local Planning Authority wrote to the Land owner back in March 2014 and nothing happened. The actual occupier is CDS (Superstores International) Limited trading as The Range. The planners then wrote to ParkingEye in August asking for a formal application for consent. Parking Eye showed their contempt for the law by just ignoring the request. Finally they wrote again in November 2014 spelling out their criminal conduct in no uncertain terms and threatening a prosecution.

Please be aware that anyone who displays an advertisement or knowingly permits someone else to do so, without the consent required, is acting illegally. It is then immediately open to the planning authority to bring prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court for an offence under section 224 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990.

It is trite law that if a crime has to be committed to create a contract then that contract is illegal and unenforceable. To create the contract they had to have the signage. Thus all parking contracts that ParkingEye have alleged they have had over the past two years have been unenforceable.

Under the contract between ParkingEye and The Range clause 3.5 indicates that it was the responsibility of The Range to obtain the necessary consent. Regardless, a prudent business should have checked that the consents were in place before they started to operate.

ParkingEye/The Range have known, from the planners, about this issue for 10 months during which it has continued to issue parking charge notices to motorists with whom it has entered into illegal contracts. There may be an issue here around fraud.

ParkingEye's standard contract (clause 3.11) shows they collect charges for breach of contract on behalf of the landowner. If this is in force with The Range then Chris Dawson's store will have trousered a lot of cash from parking charges illegally from his own customers in the last few years. The ParkingEye v Somerfield case established that each parking space is worth 0.4 parking charges per week. At £100 a charge, that is £4,000 a week per 100 spaces, and £208,000 a year.

The Prankster suggests that any motorist who paid a parking charge for The Range in Barrow in Furness applies to both ParkingEye and The Range to get their money back. This may also apply to motorists who have had court judgments against them. In this case the Tort of Deceit may apply which could mean the motorist can bring a fresh case. Motorists interested in this should take legal advice first.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster