POPLA will rehear cases on procedural grounds

POPLA have now updated their website to clarify they will rehear cases on procedural grounds

http://popla.co.uk/faqs-and-advice

What if I am not happy with the assessor’s decision?

POPLA is a one stage process and there are only two possible outcomes for an appeal brought to our service: either the appeal is allowed or it is refused. We understand that it is disappointing and even frustrating when an appeal results in an outcome that you were not hoping for, however, our role as an impartial appeals service means that quite simply, we must base our decisions upon the factual evidence presented to us. If it is clear that a procedural error has been made during the assessment of your appeal, we might review the case and make changes where we deem necessary. 

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

MIL Collections discontinue cases...by the bucketload

MIL Collections are discontinuing cases where they know they cannot win. Here are a selection of recently discontinued cases.

MIL -v- Mrs S. D., Case No. C0QZ173C

MIL -v- Mr S. C., Case No. C8QZ540N

MIL -v- Mr S. H., Case No. C1QZ911D

MIL -v- Mr R. M, Case No. C3QZ569P

MIL -v- Mrs G. D., Case No. C7QZ8344

MIL -v- Mr P. V., Case No C8QZ707N

MIL -v- Mr M. O. Case No. B6QZ3H7A

MIL -v- C Ltd, Case No. B8QZ0K4T

MIL -v- Mr C. H., Case No. C6QZ220N

MIL -v- M M. A., Case No. C9QZ531N

MIL have started to realise that none of the claims they have filed are viable, and as judges have been increasing the amounts awarded against them on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour, have been limiting their losses by discontinuing claims. This saves them the £25 hearing fee, and more importantly, the £200 - £300 to get a solicitor to turn up on their behalf and try and argue a lost cause.

MIL have also been trying it on. It is common for them to try and squeeze out £50 from the claimant in a last ditch attempt before discontinuing. If you receive one of these letters, chances are that the next letter will be to discontinue.

If you have not received one of these letters then it is possible MIL think they might win in court because you have not filed a robust defence. The two main winning points have consistently been that there is no valid deed of assignment as the deed does not list the parking charge references purchased, and the claim smacks of champerty and maintenance as not debt exists; only the chance to sue for an amount which the parking company have made little attempt to validate and so which may or may not exist. More recently thew fact that MIL Collections have been filing witness statements in the name of a fictitious comic book lawyer has also been their downfall, but this at least can easily be corrected by them.

To change your defence usually requires you to file papers with the court and MIL, and costs around £50. The Prankster recommends you do update your defence, but give MIL the chance to fold first. To The Prankster's best knowledge, MIL have lost all contested hearings so there is no reason not to lay it on the line to them.

Dear MIL,

I am intending updating my defence to include the following points.

1) Your deed of assignment is not valid as it does not contain any reference to specific parking charges

2) The claim smacks of champerty and maintenance

(any other points you want to add)

I understand you have never won a contested hearing on these points and that it is publicly known you are widely discontinuing cases where these points are filed as a defence. Here is a selection of such cases:

MIL -v- Mrs S. D., Case No. C0QZ173C
MIL -v- Mr S. C., Case No. C8QZ540N
MIL -v- Mr S. H., Case No. C1QZ911D
MIL -v- Mr R. M, Case No. C3QZ569P
MIL -v- Mrs G. D., Case No. C7QZ8344
MIL -v- Mr P. V., Case No C8QZ707N
MIL -v- Mr M. O. Case No. B6QZ3H7A
MIL -v- C Ltd, Case No. B8QZ0K4T
MIL -v- Mr C. H., Case No. C6QZ220N
MIL -v- M M. A., Case No. C9QZ531N

In order to save both parties money, I suggest that you discontinue the claim. You have 14 days from the date of this letter to do this before I file my new defence points, which will increase your costs should I later prevail.

This offer is WITH PREJUDICE and I will include this in my evidence to the court.

If they don't respond within the 14 days, then file paperwork with the court and MIL, along with appropriate fee, to add the new defence points.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Alan Davies from MIL Collections flunks out of court

MIL v Ms X Warrington

MIL Collections appear to have finally realised that filing witness statements in the name of a fictitious comic book lawyer is not a winning strategy.

In this case, "Matt Murdoch" filed the initial witness statement, but following a challenge from the defendant, MIL asked for this witness statement to be discounted. Instead Alan Davies, the managing director of MIL Collections filed an almost identical witness statement.

Mr Wilkie represented the defendant and the claimant was represented by  a lawyer who was only handed the case papers the day before. Unusually in these cases she did not approach the defendant beforehand and the first communications was to inform them that the judge was ready to hear the case.

The judge was not happy with Alan Davies witness statement, which was filed late, and was also not impressed that Alan Davies had not bothered to turn up and had not informed the court he would be absent. The case was adjourned to be relisted on the first available date 14 days from today, so that Alan Davies could turn up and explain his actions. A time of 1.5 hours was allocated rather than the 30 minutes today. Costs were reserved.

Prankster Note

The Prankster has connections in Truro who inform him that the new-fangled inventions known as the 'motor car' and 'train' have made their way as far south as Cornwall. The Prankster therefore has no idea why Mr Davies could not be bothered to turn up, especially as he managed to get to Parkex last week.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

MIL buried in Bury

MIL v Mrs S at Bury. 15/06/2016

This was a Matt Murdoch/k case, with the fictitious blind lawyer preparing and signing the witness statement for MIL collections. This was always going to cause problems for MIL as comic book characters have difficulty in materialising in court in the real world. The defence was fully prepared by HO87, before handing the hot seat to to John Wilkie. The Defendant contacted MIL to point out the Murdoch/k issues as recently as 8 June, but they were adamant they were proceeding.

Given the recent successes with the Mr Murdoch/k issues, a Preliminary Application was prepared, together with a Costs Schedule, and these were sent to MIL at 3.45 on 14/06/2016 with copies for the judge on the day.

AS it happens, timed at 11.34, but received at 19.34, came a "notice of discontinuance" apparently signed by MIL Collections, and not served on the Defendant.

The judge looked at this, stated it wasn't valid, and as there was no attendance by MIL, this was unreasonable behaviour. He dismissed the claim with 27.14(2)(g) costs without the Defendant or her Representative having to
say a word. Costs of £50, to be paid within 14 days.

Short and sweet.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Michael Schwartz continues to send letters before claim for Civil Enforcement Limited despite practice restriction

Michael Schwartz is currently subject to practice restrictions as detailed on the SRA site.
http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/118966.article

Mr Schwartz shall act as a solicitor only in employment, the arrangements for which have been approved by the SRA.

Despite these restrictions, Michael Schwartz continues to work for the legal team of Civil Enforcement Limited, sending out dubious letters before claim. The Prankster questions whether this is or is not 'acting as a solicitor'.

If anyone receives such a letter before claim, or any other document wher eMichael Schwartz appears to be acting as a solicitor, The Prankster recommends you send a copy of your evidence to report@sra.org.uk so they can investigate.

Meanwhile, you should also treat the letter as a genuine letter before claim and respond accordingly.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye lose in court. Signage terms not clear

ParkingEye vs Mrs Janice Rowan. C4FC524M Banbury 21/06/2016

Facts of the case

The defendant was timed at 2 hours 10 minutes 48 seconds from entrance to exit at Peartree Services, Oxford, which included time spent at the petrol station. The actual time parked would have therefore been well within the British Parking Association grace periods, including the grace period at arrival and the mandatory 10 minute grace period on exit.

Judgment

The judgment found that the signage at Peartree services Oxford was not reasonable or transparent. The numerous signs stating "two hours free parking" would lead the reasonable person to assume it was time spent parking in the car park and that did not include time spent in the petrol station or associated services as ParkingEye were claiming.

Nobody from parking eye attended apart from a legal person externally employed.

Judgment was swift and contained criticism of the claimant's largely irrelevant automated bundle.

Prankster Note

The Prankster considers that cases like this should never make court. They bring the parking charges industry into disrepute, clog up the court system and cause stress and inconvenience to motorists. The time spent was well within the limits mandated by the code of practice and should have been picked up by ParkingEye's infamous '19 point checking system'. The ANPR cameras are clearly sited in the wrong place if they include time spent in the petrol station. Lastly ParkingEye's legal team should have picked this up once the defence was filed and should have dropped the claim at that point.

Happy Parking

New optical illusion sweeps internet. Bryn Holloway noticable by his abscence

In the past several optical illusions have puzzled web users. Is the dress black and blue or gold and white? Can you see the panda? Where is the hidden ipad? Now a new illusion is sweeping the globe. Where are the double red lines?

In a parking notice from Vehicle Control Services the parking company claim the vehicle is parked on double red lines. But where are they? Here are their CCTV images, reproduced at the original quality.

So far, only one person in the entire world has managed to see the double red lines; an assessor (who wishes to remain anonymous) who works for the "Independent" Appeals Service owned by Will Hurley and John Davies of the IPC, a trade association for the parking charges industry.

Here is the assessors verdict:

I am also shown evidence that ’No Stopping’ signs exist adjacent to the Appellant’s vehicle and that the vehicle is parked on double red lines.

Amazingly, not only can the assessor see the invisible double red lines, but they can also see an invisible sign 'adjacent to the Appellant's vehicle'. However, despite this description of the signs from Vehicle Control Services, The Prankster remains unable to see them. "To put the size of these signs into perspective, they are larger than a house door" On the other hand, perhaps English is not The Prankster's first language after all, and the sign which says 'Beware Pedestrian Crossing' actually reads 'No Stopping'

The Prankster understands the duties that disability legislation places on employers, but considers that employing blind people to examine photographs is not best practice. Perhaps the IPC are employing them for their clairvoyant capabilities?

Here is the Assessors verdict on a contract they have never seen:

The Appellant appears to suggest that the Operator has no legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers. This site has been audited by the IPC and a copy of the landowner’s authority has been provided to them as part of the audit process. In this appeal procedure the onus this is on the Appellant to prove their case on the balance of probabilities. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce Parking Charge Notices on this site.

The Assessor appears to be blissfully unaware of the dubious competence of the IPC audit process, and that large numbers of IPC companies have found this out to their cost in the courts, where real judges have ruled that the company does not have the right to issue charges after all. In several cases the IPC have been so incompetent they did not even realise the signage at the car park was in the name of a different operator altogether.

Amazingly, the Assessor's clairvoyant properties let them down later. In this case the registered keeper was at home cooking at the time of the incident, and produced witness statements both from herself and a vehicle passenger,  together with phone logs to prove this. As well as this, the operator identified the driver as male, whereas the keeper is female. Even with this overwhelming weight of evidence, the assessor choose to believe that the keeper was driving.

As the Appellant provides no documentary proof as to their whereabouts I am not satisfied that the Appellant has proved that they are not the Driver as appears to be claimed.

Finally, although the assessor claims to be either a barrister or solicitor, it is clear to The Prankster that one of the IAS's infamous baristas must have sneaked in and assessed the case instead.

In the case of Elliot v Loake (1982) the legal principle is established, that, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the Driver

Any competent legal professional would know that Elliot v Loake establishes nothing of the sort.

1. The case was concerned with the vehicle owner, not the keeper
2. Instead of ruling there was 'absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary' the magistrates actually ruled the other way and that there was overwhelming evidence that the defendant was the driver
3. In any case, any competent legal professional would know from reading the transcript that no legal principle is established. The case is simply a finding on the facts.

The motorist did complain to the Lead Assessor of the IAS , former judge Bryn Holloway. However they only received a generic reply refusing to investigate.

So, the IAS appears to be employing blind, incompetent assessors who are institutionally biased in that they believe operators statements without any supporting evidence, but disbelieve motorists statements even with overwhelming evidence, with a lead assessor notable only for his inability to take meaningful action in the many cases where miscarriages of justice have been reported to him.

The Prankster calls on the government to shut down the IPC until they provide a fair and impartial appeals service. Until this happens, The Prankster calls on Bryn Holloway to step up to the plate, do his job properly and ensure that the assessors are competent and impartial, rather than the disgraceful assessments he is allowing on his watch.

As for the assessor, no wonder they want to remain anonymous with a judgment like that. Where's Wally?

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster