MIL Collections fail on home turf

MIL Collections Ltd v Peter Brocklehurst, Truro County Court, 23 Dec 2015 

MIL Collections took Mr Brocklehurst to court after having bought an alleged parking debt from Llawnroc Parking Services. The case was heard at Truro, where MIL are based.

MIL sent two representatives and Mr Brocklehurst defended himself. The Judge threw out the case before Mr Brocklehurst had presented any points on the grounds of the pictures signage MIL submitted was obviously not from where the alleged offence took place.

Case dismissed.

Prankster Note

The Judge was obviously well aware of the nature of the Llawnroc operation.

Expelliarmus, CP Plus

The Prankster was recently contacted by the bursar of a well known school. One of the staff had used a pool car, and being tired, had stopped off at a motorway service station to sleep. There were no signs visible from the car, so the driver was unaware that sleeping for longer than 2 hours was a chargeable event, costing £12. The school duly got a parking charge from CP Plus. However, this was not for £12, it was for £100.

The Prankster informed the bursar that the school was not liable, but that as good citizens they should offer to pay the £12 parking fee, plus reasonable administration costs of CP Plus. The bursar therefore appealed.

Dear CP Plus,

Re charge xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reg YYYYYYY

Hogwarts School of Wizardry wish to appeal this ticket as vehicle keeper. Hogwarts School of Wizardry cannot be the driver of the vehicle and so for the ticket to be enforceable keeper liability must apply. As your notice does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we cannot be liable.

In addition, the landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a parking charge will only be valid where signage is clear and the driver therefore able to be fully aware of any charges. We refer to the copy of the sign you have reproduced on the parking charge. It does not state that a charge of £100 applies and so the charge is invalid. As the Beavis case is binding on lower courts, we understand that you have no reasonable chance of pursuing this claim.

Should you disagree, please issue a POPLA code.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE TO COSTS

We understand that a parking fee of  approximately £12 is payable for a stay of between 2 and 24 hours. On behalf of the driver we therefore offer to pay this, plus a reasonable administration fee of £5 to cover your £2.50 DVLA costs and postage of the notice as full and final settlement of this matter. This offer is open for 14 days from the date of this email.

If you choose to accept this offer, then do not issue a POPLA code at this point in time. Issuing a POPLA code will be deemed that the offer is rejected, whatever other correspondence states.

The Bursar

CP Plus contemplated the appeal for a while, and then decided to reject the appeal. This email was sent at 9:58

 Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence concerning your Charge Notice. We are unable to accept payment for parking after the past event has occurred.

The PCN was issued and the signage is displayed in compliance with The British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice and all relevant laws and regulations. The fact that you were unaware of the restrictions that are in place is not considered a mitigating circumstance for appeal. Clear signs point out there is a fee for any vehicle that remains on this site for over 2 hours, which you failed to pay in this case.

Your representations have been carefully considered but in light of the above, on this occasion, your appeal has been refused.
We can confirm that we will hold the charge at the current rate for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence, after which the full amount will be due.
Although we have now rejected your appeal, you may still have recourse to appeal to Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA), an independent appeals service. An appeal to POPLA must be made within 28 days of the date of this letter.  POPLA will only consider cases on the grounds that the Parking Charge exceeded the appropriate amount, that the vehicle was not improperly parked or had been stolen, or that you were otherwise not liable for the Parking Charge.  To appeal to POPLA, please go to their website http://www.popla.co.uk and follow the instructions. If you would rather deal with this matter by post, please contact our Appeals Office and we will send you the necessary paperwork.

Your POPLA reference code is: WIZARD002
Please note that if your appeal does not conform to the above criteria or is rejected by POPLA for any reason, you may be requested to pay the full amount of the charge and you will no longer qualify for payment at the reduced rate.
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal.  However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.  As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
                                                                                                                                                 
Yours faithfully,
CP Plus Limited

CP Plus management must have then panicked, realising that this was not Pirates v Ninjas, but in fact was Wizards v Muggles, and that they were therefore outclassed. At 10.00 a second email was sent, raising the white flag.

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please disregard previous correspondence as this was sent in error.

Further to your representations, we have investigated your claims and can confirm that your notice has subsequently been cancelled in full.

Please accept our sincere apologies for any inconvenience caused in relation to this matter.

Prankster Note

The appeal can be used to CP Plus by any business in the UK - it does not have to be Scotland - as long as the business is the keeper of the car. CP Plus do not use the keeper liability provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act, and as a business by definition cannot be the driver, the business cannot be liable.

The Prankster leaves it up to the business as to whether they offer to pay the unpaid parking fee of £12 or not.

The CP Plus notice states:

Following the landmark Supreme Court ruling of Parking Eye v Beavis, it has now been established that a Parking Charge Notice issued on Private Land is enforceable.

This is clearly a misunderstanding by CP Plus. Parking charges were always enforceable. But only if they comply with all relevant legislation. Case law is also neutral, and each case would be heard on the facts. In this particular instance, as the signage was poor, then the Beavis case would favour the motorist, and not the operator.

Comparing the ParkingEye sign with the sign CP Plus submitted as evidence on their notice to keeper, the ParkingEye sign clearly states the charge is £85 in a huge font. In the CP Plus case, the charge of £100 is not even mentioned and therefore is not enforceable.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Update on Michael Schwartz (now of Civil Enforcement Limited)

The Prankster has received a number of emails from people who complained to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority about Michael Schwartz.

The SRA were also investigating Mr Schwartz about another matter, and practicing certificate conditions were imposed on Mr Schwartz. This decision is available here

• Mr Schwartz shall act as a solicitor only in employment, the arrangements for which have been approved by the SRA.
• Mr Schwartz is not to be a recognised sole practitioner, manager or owner of an authorised body.
• Mr Schwartz shall not hold, receive or have access to client money, or act as a signatory to any client or office account, or have the power to authorise payments in or out of any client or office account or any transfers from any client or office account.
• Mr Schwartz shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for them.

This is presumably why he is now signing particulars of claim as a Civil Enforcement Limited employee. It's obviously quite amusing the SRA think CEL is a fit and proper employer, considering the way they conduct litigation.

Mr Schwartz is still under investigation for other matters which are being considered by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Any decision will eventually be published on the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal website here.

Despite this, Mr Schwartz is still ignoring practice directions. His company is sending out wholly deficient letters before claim which give the defendant no idea what the claim is about.

The Prankster has receive a large number of identical draft particulars. The badly mailmerged documents only contain two pieces of individual information - the name of the defendant and the name of the car park. The covering letter also contains a supposed PCN number.

The defendant therefore has no idea what the claim is about - what the date of the parking event was, what the vehicle was, why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, or in short, anything useful at all.

This is in clear violation of the pre-action protocol

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct

3.  Before commencing proceedings, the court will expect the parties to have exchanged sufficient information to—
(a) understand each other’s position;
(b) make decisions about how to proceed;
(c) try to settle the issues without proceedings;
(d) consider a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to assist with settlement;
(e) support the efficient management of those proceedings; and
(f) reduce the costs of resolving the dispute.

Mr Schwartz's company CEL then ignore any attempt by the defendant to find out what the charge is about, and go on to file a claim. This time, the actual particulars filed arrive within 14 days, and are slightly more revealing. They are again identical to all other claims, but this time the badly mailmerged new particulars do reveal the date, vehicle and carefully selected words from the supposed signage.

This is of course, yet another signature to add to the Michael Schwartz collection.

Any defendant who has received wholly deficient letters before action and particulars of claim like this can refer the matter to the Solicitors Regulator Authority for consideration in the upcoming tribunal. Any other matters concerning Mr Schwartz can also be raised.

If you think this is how solicitors and parking companies should conduct litigation then please ignore this blog. Otherwise, please ask the government to investigate by signing Barry Beavis's petition.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

MIL Collections lose in court

MIL Collections v Mrs C, Manchester County Court 28/01/2016

MIL didn't turn up. Again. Quelle Surprise. Mrs C was accompanied by her lay representative, John Wilkie (16-2) from the BMPA and a witness.

MIL's bundle did arrive and they asked for the matter to be considered without their attendance, which was not objected to, because it was fatal to their case.

This was a Keeper Liability case, where MIL were pursuing the keeper for a ticket issued by CPMS/CPMS Ltd. However, the keeper was not the driver, and MIL's own evidence clearly showed that the driver had been named in August 2014, long before MIL got involved.

As there was no keeper liability, there was no case to answer. The claim was dismissed with Witness and Client loss of earnings for the day.

Mr Wilkie also asked for a Civil Restraining order. On this point the judge wasn't satisfied on Unreasonableness so declined to answer.

Mr Wilkie (now 17-2) has no losses representing motorists against MIL, but does have losses against ParkingEye and UKPC.

Prankster Note

Many parking companies, debt collection companies and trade associations incorrectly believe that the keeper only has 28 days to name the driver once a valid Notice to Keeper has been served. This is not correct. The keeper can name the driver at any time up until proceedings start. The relevant paragraphs of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, are 5(1)(b) and 5(2)

5 (1) The first condition is that the creditor—
(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b) is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver

(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is
given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking
charges from the keeper.

MIL only began proceedings in 2015, wheras the driver was named in 2014, and therefore keeper liability did not apply


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Stayed POPLA cases to be fully reheard

The British Parking Association have has a rethink and have agreed to fully re-hear all stayed POPLA cases. Both parties will also be allowed to submit further representations.

The Prankster would like to thank everyone at IPSA for taking the stand they did, everyone who supplied evidence to IPSA..and of course the BPA for changing their mind once the true picture emerged.

The Prankster understands that the BPA letter confirming their decision will be made available on the BPA website in due course.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye spanked in court - DDJ Woods dismisses vexatious claim

A6FC009J ParkingEye v E&D Scaffolding before DDJ Woods, Central London County Court 26/01/2016

The company are a scaffolding and roofing contractor, who are a sub-contractor to the main contractor carrying out building work at the Royal Free Hospital.

They had a number of vans coming and going which were recorded as contractors’ vehicles, but PE tried to claim that only a maximum of 4 of their vehicles could be put on the ‘white list’.

Here is the court report from the man on the spot...

What a very interesting day E&D Scaffolding (EDS) had in court with Parking Eye (PE). Deputy District Judge Woods (DDJW) was not impressed with PE's stance on this matter or PE’s representative, Mr Gibson one little bit.

The nub of PE's claim was that EDS were not permitted to enter the Royal free Hospital (RFH) for free. PE were relying on the signs that a driver passes and or reads when entering the Royal Free Hospital as being the contract; ie when you drive into the Royal Free car park area the sign stipulates the terms and conditions of entering the Royal Free and this is the contract; PE claimed that E&D Scaffolding broke the contract.

DDJW asked the PE representative on numerous occasions during the hearing that “had they put forward all their details of claim and had no further points to add to their claim?”  The PE representative replied they had put forward all their points and they had no further points to add.

The EDS defence was that they were contracted as a sub contractor to supply and fit/dismantle scaffolding for the NHS Royal Free Hospital maintenance main contractor so were allowed to enter the Royal Free Hospital to do contractual works.

The Judge was very accepting that PE were very difficult to get hold of due to no e-mail contact address or telephone number and this made it very difficult to contact PE to try to advise PE of all EDS registration numbers so EDS could be exempt. The registrations had been given to the main contractor to forward on.

DDJ Woods dismissed the Barry Beavis Judgement as irrelevant and said that it would play no part in the hearing due to its complete irrelevance to the current claim.

In his judgement he found that Parking Eye had no grounds for any claim against EDS and that they were most vexatious and unreasonable in their pursuit of EDS for the fines. This was especially so because a Charge Notice that PE had issued EDS on the very same day as the Charge Notice that PE were claiming for at the hearing had been cancelled by PE in November 2014.

DDJ Wood found that a contract had been made between EDS and the main contractor and intern with the Royal Free Hospital/landlord/owner of the land prior to entering the FRH to supply and erect/dismantle scaffolding for maintenance works at the Hospital; and this contract was in place before the alleged contract that PE were claiming was made when EDS entered the Hospital and passed the PE signs. Therefore the alleged ParkingEye contract was superseded.

DDJ Woods was not happy with ParkingEye in any shape or form for bring the claim against E&D Scaffolding Contractors Limited.

The judgement was a slam dunker against Parking Eye.

The judge dismissed the claim as ‘utter nonsense’ and laid into Mr Gibson, the LPC rep, for wasting court time with what was clearly a vexatious claim.

Prankster Note

This is an important judgment because it shows that if you have a valid prior contract or authority to park, then the parking company cannot override this. This might occur in several situations. For instance if you are a resident and have authority from a managment agent to park at your residence; or if you made a contract with a company such as Bargain Parking to park at one of their sites.

Meanwhile, if ParkingEye need a bigger database which can accommodate more than 4 entries, The Prankster will be more than happy to recommend some modern platforms which can cope with this type of stress. In return, all that would be required for this service, would be a watch.

If you think it's wrong for ParkingEye to attempt to penalise legitimate contractors working at a hospital just because their system capacity is pathetic, then please consider signing Barry Beavis's petition to get the government to look at the private parking industry.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Are ParkingEye's systems reliable?

The Prankster gets regular mail from motorists who say they purchased a ticket from a ParkingEye car park...then a few days later get charged for not buying a ticket. The trouble is, by that time they have lost or discarded the ticket. No matter what they say to ParkingEye, their pleas fall on stony hearts; ParkingEye refuse to believe a ticket has been purchased. If the motorist does nothing then ParkingEye carry on to court, charging them all told £200 or more for allegedly failing to buy a ticket.

But are ParkingEye's systems reliable? And if not, how many motorists are being charged hundreds of pounds due to ParkingEye's shoddy systems?

Here is one example. The motorist parked in Swiss Cottage London, which offers £10 all day parking.

The motorist purchased a ticket for £10 within 3 minutes of arriving, and entered their correct registration number.

ParkingEye, for reasons only known to them, issued a parking charge.

This motorist was lucky and kept a copy of their ticket. They were also lucky ParkingEye wrote to the correct address. ParkingEye have been known to write repeatedly to the wrong address, file a claim at court and get a CCJ. This motorist could well have found themselves unable to get a mortgage or run a business due to errors in ParkingEye's systems.

The big question of course is, how broken are ParkingEye's systems and how often do errors like this occur?

It seems there is a continuing problem at this location

Booked through Park Here and yes its very convenient for Central College etc, followed the instructions and then two weeks later i get a demand for £100 from the well known scammers Parking Eye with a photo of my reg entering the car park. Contacted Park here by phone ( don't bother emailing) and was asked to scan in the demand. They seemed a bit upset that i called parking Eye scammers so I got suspicious about the two working the scam together - i emailed them the demand as requested but heard nothing so can only assume they work together to scam motorists - the demands have gon in the bin as they have no legal basis anyway - dont use this car park please

Be very wary of using this car park. We just pulled into car park slip road see what they charge and decided not to park, but have now been issued with a fine notice for £120

Here is another example.

In this case the motorist stayed 2 hours in a car park free for 3 hours...and still got a ticket from ParkingEye.

Prankster Note

If you purchased a correct ticket and ParkingEye are taking you to court, feel free to file the above evidence to show how unreliable ParkingEye's systems are.

If you think that parking companies should only issue charges when there is a reason, and should not issue bogus charges whenever they feel like it, sign Barry Beavis's petition asking the government to take action.

Alternatively, if you are happy to get a CCJ when you have done nothing wrong, please ignore this.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster