ANPR Ltd lost contract with Preston Council

The following email has been forwarded to The Prankster from a concerned motorist.

Good morning Mr X,

Following on from our meeting yesterday , a decision has been taken to terminate our contract with ANPR Ltd. The Company has been served with notice in accordance with the contractual requirements and instructed not to undertake any further parking management on behalf of the Council.

Kind regards

Caron.

This will not affect previous charges - The Prankster understands that ANPR Ltd have started court action in regard to some of these. However, as the charges are for trespass, it is not apparent to The Prankster why ANPR Ltd have the standing to bring the case, or why the loss to the landowner is £100.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Is it PCM-UK who 'make up stuff all the time'? Watchdog exposes the deceitful appeals practices of one parking company!

Watchdog sent secret cameras into a Parking company top expose their dodgy practices. Their staff were heard to say 'we make up stuff all the time'.

But who were the parking company? The Prankster believes it was PCM-UK for the following reasons, all found around 40 minutes into the program.

1) What is this computer screen showing? Does anyone recognise this page?

2) The red stamp reads 'IMPORTANT PARKING INFORMATION ENCLOSED'. Have you received a stamp like this, on an envelope this size, from PCM-UK?

3) The green notice board reads Chobham Manor. Do you know who enforces parking there?

4) The picture in the top right looks suspiciously like a copy of PCM-UK's signage. For reference, here is what a typical sign looks like.

5) The staff refer to the height of the signage above ground. Although other operators also use high signage, PCM-UK are characterised by their habit of placing their signs very high up. As they have very small writing it is a common complaint that they are unreadable. Note the distortion which shows up in picture of the sign above - the photo was taken from below the sign which causes this.

6) PCM-UK was featured in the Watchdog program for ticketing a motorist when they parked in the bay allocated to shop customers, even though they were a shop customer.

7) The manager talked about court cases costing between £200 and £1000. PCM-UK do occasionally go to court, filing something under 5 cases in 2014.

So was this PCM-UK or another car parking company? If you have any more information please contact The Prankster

Of the other two parking companies featured in watchdog, one was ParkingEye and the other was managing Lusty Glaze in Cornwall, so was presumably one of the Cornish companies, such as Armtrac, who are notorious for issuing charges when the ticket falls to the floor.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ACE Security cancels baseless court claim

The Prankster had to choose between several possible titles for this blog entry, such as

• DVLA give out data to yet another parking company not in an ATA
• Solicitor of the Week, Thomas Browne, admits claim was without merit
• ACE Security cancels baseless court claim
• Beavis appeal result confirms parking charge is without merit

The case concerns a vehicle parked against the landowner's wishes nine times between 9/7/2013 and 22/2/2014. The driver, a young man, paid four charges but then did not pay the rest. They also rather foolishly pretended to be someone else and paid using a pre-signed cheque on somebody else's account. The driver at one point telephoned the parking company company which was recorded.

There is of course no doubt the driver is liable for some form of charge, and that the basis of the charge is trespass. The signage states "Failure to comply with the rules made by the landowner will mean your vehicle is trespassing and will result in the issue of a charge notice of £130"

The parking company, ACE Security Systems (also known as Pace Recovery and Storage Systems Ltd), contacted the person who the driver impersonated and started to badger them into paying the remaining five charges. This person explained they were not the driver. This was of course, patently obvious as they were a much older person and their voice did not match with the voice on the recording.

ACE Security then made one enquiry to the DVLA. The enquiry was made on 12/09/2014 for the parking event on 27/01/2014. ACE Security then started writing to the keeper to demand payment. The keeper was a woman and therefore could not have been the driver. The enquiry to the DVLA was made outside the timescales for keeper liability and so there was no keeper liability either. ACE Security therefore had no basis for contacting the keeper whatsoever, but this not stop them bulling and harassing her.

Luckily ACE Security do not belong to an ATA so there is no-one to stop them doing this, there is no independent appeals service which the motorist can appeal to and there is no control on the level of charges. The letters therefore continued.

ACE Security ask the DVLA to cough up data on the basis that the landowner has been trespassed against. Their website clearly claims they are acting as a car park management company.

The DVLA requires car park management companies to belong to an ATA. ACE Security do not, but this does not stop the DVLA from supplying keeper data anyway. When the keeper complained, the DVLA replied as follows.

Stating they had to supply data until the judicial revue is concluded is of course is a slight fib by the DVLA. The judge's order only required them to provide data to Proserve until the judicial review is over - not to any Tom Dick and Harry who asks for it. Additionally, the ACE Security request was made on 12/9/2014. The order that Proserve had to be supplied with data was only made on 17/12/2014.

The DVLA letter therefore gives no valid explanation as to why ACE Security was given data at that particular time, and it is apparent that the DVLA will give out data to anyone who asks for it without making proper checks.

Following a large amount of other letters, ACE Security finally filed a claim against the impersonated person. The claim was for trespass.

When a claim is made for trespass only someone who has an interest in the land can make the claim*, and additionally the charge must be for actual damage caused by the trespass. If no damages have occurred, a nominal amount of £1 is usually used. A 1.5 tonne vehicle parked on tarmac designed to hold a 1.5 tonne vehicle is not likely to cause any damage. The nominal sum of £1 would therefore apply.

So what we have here is a claim made against someone the claimant should reasonably have known was neither the driver nor the keeper, for trespass when the claimant had no no apparent interest in the land, and for an amount of £975 (£195 per charge) which had no relation to any possible trespass damage caused.

Despite this Thomas Brown of Bowles Solicitors filed a claim anyway.

Later on, Thomas Browne submitted an amendment to the claim to add in the keeper. This is despite knowing that the keeper could not possibly be the driver, (because she was a woman and the driver was a man), and that keeper liability could not possibly apply because the timescales of POFA 2012 were not complied with.

At this point The Prankster was contacted for advice. The Prankster could not see any apparent cause of action against either of the defendants so suggested that they write to the solicitors suggesting they drop the claim.

The solicitors responded by making an offer to settle for £500. The Prankster advised that this was a bluff and to reject the offer. 10 days later the solicitors wrote again notifying that they were discontinuing the claim. Bizarrely they cited the ParkingEye v Beavis appeal result as the reason for discontinuing.

That paragraph is as follows:

It is an oddity of the facts that the respondent appears not to make any money out of thecontract unless drivers do overstay, so enabling Mr Hossain to argue that, so far from suffering loss by a driver overstaying, the respondent only stands to gain by that breach of contract (though of course if the appellant is right and the parking charge is unenforceable, the operator does not stand to gain anything under any circumstances). The law would allow damages for trespass against the overstayer without regard to what the operator would have done but for the trespass: see for example Swordheath Properties v Tabet [1979] 1 WLR 285. Thus, the actual effect of the trespass on the car park operator's position is not relevant in any event. However, unless the defendant's occupation has been of particular value to him, the compensation would be limited to the market value of the occupation during the period of trespass. That would provide no disincentive against overstaying.

Of course, this is tried and tested trespass law. The Beavis case shed no special light on this and any person competent in the legal aspects of trespass should have known this. In the Prankster's opinion, the claim had no basis. It was filed against the wrong defendant, by the wrong claimant and for an amount not justified by any existing case law.

Now that ACE Securities legal representatives have admitted they have no basis for claiming their charge in this case, The Prankster can see no basis for them charging this amount in any other case. This means that any further application to the DVLA should be refused because there is no reasonable cause. This should only be changed once ACE Security have confirmed that their charge levels have been adjusted to the actual loss to the landowner.

The Prankster suggests that any person receiving a charge from ACE Security complains to the DVLA if the keeper data is released, and also appeals to ACE Security with a copy of the letter from their legal representatives which confirms their charge is not allowable.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

*this is an oversimplification

ANPR Ltd get keeper details using Credit Services Association backdoor

It seems there is not longer a need for parking companies to spend large amounts of money joining either the British Parking Association (BPA) or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC)

.

Parking companies can use the Credit Services Association as a convenient back door into the DVLA database, which means they are not troubled by bothersome requirements to provide an independent appeals service, keep their fees at a set level, or abide by a code of practice.

This thread on MSE confirms that an FoI to Preston Council came back with the response:

Further to your earlier email correspondence with my colleague Ms. Parmenter, I can advise you that ANPR Ltd have supplied a copy of their membership of The Credit Services association which is an ATA registered with DVLA.

ANPR Ltd joined the CSA on 1 April 2015, which co-incidentally was the date they left the BPA. It appears this was the 'contingency plan' hinted at on their news page.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye case stayed until Supreme Court hearing developments are known

The Prankster has been informed of the following case which has been stayed following the Beavis appeal result.

Aberystwyth Court, case no 3JD08308  ParkingEye v Davies 

The case is stayed initially until 31 July 2015 and is then to be reviewed by the Court in light of any developments.

The Prankster understands that Mr Beavis will file his appeal shortly, and so the situation should be clearer by 31 July.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Co-op confirm they have not cut a deal with DEAL

The Prankster contacted the Co-op to check if the reason they issued the recent 'authority to issue charges' letter was that they had made a deal so that CEL would drop all cases against Co-op employees. The Co-op have written back to confirm that this is not the case, that cases against Co-op employees are still active, and that the two test cases in Bristol are still going ahead.

The Prankster is happy to set the record straight but is still no wiser as to why the letter was issued, or why the Co-op would wish to throw its genuine customers to the wolves. Although Mr ones states the reason for parking contraol is to prevent people from parking there all day, practically all CEL victims who have contacted The Prankster were genuine customers who overstayed by a small amount and none were from people who had parked there all day.

CEL are using the letter to try and pressure motorists whose cases have already been struck out. This thread on MoneySavingExpert detail the case of a motorist whose case was struck out on April 1st.

Recently the motorist received a letter from CEL containing the co-op letter and stating that they must pay £250 or face costs of £530

Drafting of claim/witness statement £70

General file attendance £45

Hearing Fee £25

Preparation for hearing £65

Claimant attending court/travel £125

Total £330

To this total they have added the fees of £200 of their previous attempt at court which was struck out

Notwithstanding the fact that it is extremely unlikely that a judge would allow the case to be re-instated since CEL have no good reason why they did not pay the £25 hearing fee, the fees listed are also totally inappropriate.

Of these fees, only the hearing fee is a genuine cost which would be allowed in court if they won their case. The previous court fees are entirely their own fault for not paying the fee. Drafting of claim/witness statement, general file attendance and preparation for hearing are not fees which are allowed.  The claimant is not allowed fees for attending court because that is part of their job. They are allowed travel fees, but only fees which are actually incurred. if they send a solicitor on their behalf, travel would not usually be appropriate as a solicitor local to the court should be used. As they put exactly the same amount on each letter (£125) this has no basis in fact. In the rare events that CEL do send a representative it is usually Ashley Cohen. Ashley Cohen lives in Hendon, London, so would be able to claim reasonable travel expenses from there.

The letter is therefore a bullying bluff, and The Prankster questions whether CEL have even asked for the case to be re-instated, since this will cost them £155 in court fees.

In addition, The Prankster has received a number of witness statements signed by Ashley Cohen which are for all intents and purposes exactly the same. To claim £70 for drafting a witness statement may therefore be fraudulent on the part of Mr Cohen as the cost has not actually been incurred.

Civil Enforcement Limited are currently the subject of criminal proceedings in Aberdeen and The Prankster has been made aware that there is interest in these witness statements. If you have received a witness statement signed by Ashley Cohen, together with a letter claiming it cost £70 (or anything) to draft, and are willing for this to be used as evidence in any criminal case against CEL/DEAL, please forward copies of letter and statement to The Prankster together with a statement that these can be passed on along with your email address.

Ashley Cohen has a long history of having problems with witness statements, having signed them without apparent authority on behalf of many companies such as the Co-op, Scottish Widows, Fosters and may others.

The link between CEL and DEAL has also now been further confirmed and as well as Ashley Cohen's confession to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority there is also this thread on LegalBeagles. In one case where DEAL was asked to pay the motorist the cheque was actually signed by CEL.

Gary Wayne, Ashley Cohen and Simon Abraham are apparently the main business partners and controlling minds in Creative Parking Solutions, Creative Parking, StarPark, Civil Enforcement and DEAL. They use straw men as the directors filed with Companies House. According to one source they use different companies so that bad publicity does not overlap. Bemrose Mobile is another associated company.

The Prankster has been informed that Gary Wayne, Ashley Cohen and Simon Abraham are all multi-millionaires but has not been able to confirm this. Apparently this contrasts with most people based at their headquarters who are on minimum wage. They do however hold extravagant Christmas parties and it was very popular to bring potential clients to private members clubs.

According to the Royal Mail postcode finder, the address of their headquarters is 126 Colindale Avenue, North London. Although most of their correspondence lists their address as Manchester, this is a maildrop.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Liverpool Airport "CUSTOMER SERVICES – STANDARD RESPONSES"

This document was recently sent out by Liverpool Airport Customer Services

The Prankster notes the document was last edited in July 2014, and so does not think too much should be read into the fact that VCS's current contract terminates in 2015. 

VCS has already had their contract renewed once.That contract, which ended in June 2013, saw VCS pay a fee of £25,000 to be allowed to issue charges for stopping on the roadway. VCS then paid up to 35% of the charge in a further concession fee.

It is not known the current level of concession fee VCS pay. Liverpool Airport have stated it is no longer £25,000, but have not said whether it has been adjusted up or down.

Although the airport denies byelaws are in place, this document on Ryan Air's web site suggests they have selective memory failure.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster