C6QZ775Z MIL v Mr S. 26/08/2016 Barnsley
Mr S. contacted the Prankster to inform him that he had used this blog to research MIL collections and help with his case,
MIL Collections had allegedly purchased a debt from Parking Awareness Blackpool for not parking fully within a marked bay.
Alan Davies (MIL's managing director) did not turn up, and sent a solicitor to represent him. His witness statement was therefore deemed inadmissible by the judge for non attendance.
The judge looked at the Parking Awareness signage and stated the parking fee had been paid and that the parking bays in car park were only big enough for a mini and concluded that parking in between the two solid white lines and paying the tariff was sufficent to adhere to the signage.
Mr S. was also ready with arguments regarding POFA2012, deeds/letters of assignment, champerty, etc.but these were not needed.
The claim was dismissed and Mr S. was awarded £100 costs.
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
Saturday, 27 August 2016
Mr W had paid to park a grey car and had parked a grey car. Gladstones give hospital pass to Mr Singh
C9GF003X Premier Parking Solutions v Mr W. 26/8/16 Oxford County Court. DJ Wakem.
Mr W had parked his car to take the train to work and used the RINGO service to pay. Unfortunately the RINGO service changed the usual order of cars it presented, which resulted in Mr W paying for a car he had sold some time ago.
Mr W appealed to PPS and to POPLA, both of which were rejected. It later transpired PPS had sent false evidence to POPLA, as the landowner witness statement they provided listed a different landowner to the contract they eventually produced in court.
Mr W tried to deal responsibly at all stages but was stonewalled by Gladstones with meaningless template replies which did not address any of the issues, and PPS proceeded at an unseemly pace to file a claim.
The Hearing
DJ Wakem was presiding with Mr W in the hot seat, and an assistant from the BMPA taking the role of McKenzie friend. Mr W is no stranger to the small claim court having won twice before so was happy to represent himself.
PPS will be an estimated £600 out of pocket as a result of this case. Had they won, they would still have been £400 down. There was no loss to them as Mr W paid for parking, and they could have cancelled the charge at zero cost to themselves. Contrary to their fatuous claim in their witness statement, cancelling the charge would not make parking management impossible; the only way to exploit the situation would be to park 2 cars every day and only pay for one, which is clearly not viable.
Gladstones are the only winner here. Perhaps the parking companies who use Gladstones should take a long hard look at the situation and ask what Will Hurley and John Davies motive really is.
Mr W had parked his car to take the train to work and used the RINGO service to pay. Unfortunately the RINGO service changed the usual order of cars it presented, which resulted in Mr W paying for a car he had sold some time ago.
Mr W appealed to PPS and to POPLA, both of which were rejected. It later transpired PPS had sent false evidence to POPLA, as the landowner witness statement they provided listed a different landowner to the contract they eventually produced in court.
Mr W tried to deal responsibly at all stages but was stonewalled by Gladstones with meaningless template replies which did not address any of the issues, and PPS proceeded at an unseemly pace to file a claim.
The Hearing
DJ Wakem was presiding with Mr W in the hot seat, and an assistant from the BMPA taking the role of McKenzie friend. Mr W is no stranger to the small claim court having won twice before so was happy to represent himself.
Mr Singh, fresh from losing in Cardiff the day before, appeared for the claimant. The judge was not best pleased that the claimant's witness Barrie Douglass was not attending and was further taken aback when Mr Singh complained about the presence of the McKenzie friend. She asked what the grounds were and Mr Singh was rather embarrassed to explain there were no actual grounds but that he had been asked by Gladstones to complain anyway.
The judge quizzed the BMPA representative on the expected behaviour of a McKenzie friend which was passed with flying colours and the hearing commenced.
Mr Singh stated he was there to put the claimant's case and refute the defendants counterclaim. The judge looked puzzled and after some searching of papers stated there was no counterclaim. Mr Singh agreed that in that case he would just put the claimant's case.
The majority of facts were not in issue (although the witness statement contained the usual bunch of incompetent inaccuracies from Gladstones), so Mr Singh stated that the claimant were claiming for breach of contract because the defendant had used RingGo and accidentally paid for the wrong car. The judge passed over to the defendant.
The claimant witness statement falsely stated that "when a driver pays for parking by RingGo the registration number is always repeated back to the driver for confirmation". Mr W stated he disagreed with this and wished to refer to a RingGo transcript, page 5 in his evidence pack. He played a recording to the court.
Press 1 to pay for your grey car (beep, Mr W presses 1)
Enter the number of days to park (beep, Mr W presses 1)
Press 1 to choose your credit card ending xxxx (beep Mr W presses 1)
Thank you for calling. You have paid for 1 days parking.
The court was therefore satisfied that the registration number was never mentioned.
Mr Singh started a rambling story about how he paid using RingGo once himself, but realised he was getting nowhere and tailed off.
The judge then referred to the defence which claimed the contract did not provide the necessary information for distance contracts according to The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, and was therefore not binding according to clause 13(1) of the regulations.
She asked Mr W to comment on Gladstones claim he was not a consumer as per regulation 4. He explained he was, as he was commuting to work and HMRC does not classify commuting as part of employment.
She asked Mr W to comment on Gladstones claim that this was not a distance contract as the contract was not concluded by means of distance confirmation. Mr W referred to the guidance on the legislation which showed that in (FAQ A) a contract concluded by phone was typically a distance contract.
She asked Mr W to comment on Gladstones claim this was not a distance contract because the site was visited from time to time by one of their operatives. Mr W explained that the definition of distance contracts in paragraph 5 was that there must be face to face contact at the time the contract was concluded, which did not occur. A parking operative on site at random times in the day was not part of concluding a contract.
She asked why the distance contract conditions were not complied with and Mr W reeled of a list of 11 points from Schedule 2 or the legislation.
The judge asked Mr Singh if he had any comments. To his credit Mr Singh looked extremely embarrassed at the hospital pass of a case Gladstone's had given him, and that he had been asked by Gladstones to argue that a telephone was not a method of distance communication. He composed himself and stated that he had nothing to add that was not in his client's witness statement.
The judge then explained that there were interesting legal issues involved with distance contracts but that in her opinion the case could be dealt with simply.
Mr W had paid to park a grey car and had parked a grey car. There was therefore no breach of contract and the claim was dismissed. It was unfortunate for the client who were using technology not up to the job of allowing them to manage the parking efficiently, but their technology failure was not the responsibility of the motorist.
Costs of £108 were awarded to the defendant.
The defendant asked if he could claim £50 for his time as the claimant had asked for a similar amount 'because they spent time of the case which could have been better spent elsewhere'. The judge smiled and said she would not allow that, but that if the claimant had won, she would not have allowed it for them either.
Prankster Note
The Prankster considers that Gladstones should not be attempting to win cases with lies, inaccuracies, half truths and dodgy legal arguments. That Will Hurley and John Davies believe a telephone is not a method of distance communication is not believable and frankly makes them appear like fools. The proper way to win a case is to present the truth, behave respectable and not try ambush tactics, and to let the judge decide on the facts.
If this is the kind of drivel Will Hurley and John Davies are telling the parking companies then this is not acceptable. A responsible ATA would be working with their customers to help them comply with legislation, and working to improve their signage. An ATA who tries to pull the wool over their clients eyes by pretending the signage complies with legislation and then makes money from their sister company by taking motorists to court has no place in society.
PPS will be an estimated £600 out of pocket as a result of this case. Had they won, they would still have been £400 down. There was no loss to them as Mr W paid for parking, and they could have cancelled the charge at zero cost to themselves. Contrary to their fatuous claim in their witness statement, cancelling the charge would not make parking management impossible; the only way to exploit the situation would be to park 2 cars every day and only pay for one, which is clearly not viable.
Gladstones are the only winner here. Perhaps the parking companies who use Gladstones should take a long hard look at the situation and ask what Will Hurley and John Davies motive really is.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Link Parking lose in court - poor signage
C9GF5875 Link Parking v Mr L. Cardiff Court. 25/8/2016
On the 5 October 2015 Mr L was working as a meter reader in the area of Lloyd George Avenue in Cardiff reading meters of the residents of the flats. There is a barrier controlling access for residents only parking and before that space for about 6 cars. He parked in one of the 6 spaces. The only visible signage regarding these 6 spaces was on the bin storage building and just states ‘CAR PARK’. There were no other terms and conditions listed. Mr L. has worked in this area for 5-6 years with no previous problems.
After reading the meters he returned to his vehicle and noticed his car had a charge from Link Parking. The Link Parking warden was still present and he pointed out a sign hidden at the back of the bin storage building where it would not be seen by any arriving vehicles. Additionally, the sign was as high up as possible, contained a tiny font and was not immediately obvious that it was concerning parking conditions
The warden agreed with Mr L that he was working there and was a legitimate visitor and asked him to ring Link Parking's owner to have the PCN cancelled. Mr L therefore immediately rang Link Parking while he was still at the site with the warden and spoke to the Link Parking owner Martin Gardner who agreed with the warden that the PCN should be cancelled. He stated Mr L would need to send a quick email to them with his details and appeal it. Sadly Mr Gardner is not a man of his word as the phone call turned out just to be a ruse to get Mr L.'s details and save the £5 DVLA fee.
Mr Gardner turned down the appeal.
Mr Garner then used a typical parking company trick of writing to the wrong address several times. Whether this is because he is incompetent or has no morals is not known, but this trick is very useful for parking companies. If they can get all the way to a CCJ then it is very difficult and expensive for the motorist to unwind a claim which has reached that stage.
Luckily for Mr L. the claim, (filed by Gladstones Solicitors) despite being incorrectly addressed, did reach him in time to file a defence, which he did with the assistance of the Prankster.
Amongst the paperwork was a fraudulent document from Mr Gardner claiming keeper liability existed. Mr L. contacted the DVLA who confirmed that the keeper details had never been requested, and therefore that there was no keeper liability. Mr L. complained to Link Parking they had sent a fraudulent document, but Link refused to accept they had done anything wrong. Mr L therefore escalated the complaint to the IPC. He pointed out that Gladstones and the IPC are owned by the same two people, Will Hurley and John Davies. He therefore stated that there was a clear conflict of interests and asked that in line with the IPC's complaints procedure that the complaint be dealt with by an external body.
Will Hurley and John Davies clearly have no more morals than Mr Gardner and are obviously happy for their customers to send out fraudulent documents as they refused to uphold the complaint. They also refused to let it be heard by an independent body. One wonders what needs to happen before they consider that a 'conflict of interest' has occurred.
Gladstones asked for the hearing to be held on paper as they felt the issues were trivial. Mr L. wrote to the court rejecting this, stating that he had not yet received any proper particulars for the case He pointed out that Gladstones were known to be incompetent and regularly file incorrect information in court, and also that they always abuse the court process by filing their entire case at the last minute so there was not time for any rebuttals. It was therefore necessary to have an oral hearing so that he could rebut any evidence. He also send in a list of cases where Gladstones had either deliberately lied to mislead the court, or in the best case were completely incompetent.
Shortly before the hearing Gladstones served a witness statement containing the usual pack of lies, misrepresentations of the truth, and dodgy legalese which are typical of the shoddy work Gladstones churn out.
The Hearing
Mr Gardner did not turn up to the hearing. This was possibly a wise move as deliberately lying in court is perjury. Perhaps also he did not want to be quizzed by Mr L as to why he had agreed over the phone to cancel the charge but this turned out to be false. Obviously in court once you have been shown to be a habitual liar, your chances of success are slim.
Instead they sent a solicitor, Mr Singh from Bristol. Mr Singh asked for a word beforehand but Mr L refused, stating that he was upset that Mr Gardener was not there as he wanted to see him face to face.
The hearing did not go well for Link Parking. Their evidence, as is typical of evidence prepared by Gladstones, was awful and was roundly criticised by the judge. The aerial views of the area were not labelled well enough to show where the signs were and the judge said that he did not know what the yellow blobs meant. Mr Singh had no idea either. The one photograph of signage on the date in question was blurred and unreadable, so all further photos or signage that either Mr L. or Link Parking supplied in evidence may have been different.
Contrary to Mr Gardner's lies in the witness statement, the judge found was no visible entrance signage. Mr Singh stated as he didn't know the site he could not help at all
Ironically, Gladstones sealed their clients fate by claiming that a contract existed by performance as per Vine v Waltham Forest (200)
Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park [...] will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge [...].
Mr L. also pointed out that the site was labelled as "visitor parking" in the Link Parking landowner contract supplied as evidence, and proved he was was a visitor with evidence supplied from his work and that he had a legal right to check meters there. Neither judge nor solicitor had seen this and they were shocked it was called visitor parking in the actual contract.
Mr Singh asked Mr L if he had a parking ticket in his car window. Mr L. explained that there is no pay and display machines anywhere on the site. Mr L Also I stated that he has friends living on the site and there is no such thing as a visitor permit. It was therefore impossible to have a permit. The judge then joked that he did not have a disabled badge either as he was not disabled.
The judge found that due to the lack of signage there was not contract with the motorist and the claim was dismissed.
Prankster Note
It is is disgrace that Link Parking are operating a visitor parking system where it is impossible for visitors to park.
It is a disgrace that Will Hurley and John Davies have approved a signage system where there is no entrance signage the only sign is hidden behind a building high up on the wall
It is a disgrace that Will Hurley and John Davies have filed a court claim to support a man who cannot seem to tell the truth when it matters
It is a disgrace that Will Hurley and John Davies have filed a witness statement filled with lies, inaccuracies, half truths and dodgy legalese.
The Prankster considers that as Will Hurley and John Davies clearly do not have a competent grasp of the legal issues surrounding parking they should not be offering their services to parking companies. In this respect they are no better than scammers. They have cost Link Parking many hundreds of pounds in taking this claim to court, and while The Prankster is not sympathetic to Link, he considers that Will Hurley and John Davies should not be lining their own pockets at the expense of their clients for cases which should clearly never go to court.
Sadly the Prankster realises that by publishing this information this is likely to increase Will Hurley and John Davies bank balances. This is because there appears to be no shortage of parking companies willing to use unethical methods in the race to the bottom, and therefore will be attracted to the kind of cheap, shoddy service Gladstones supply.
However, The Prankster believes that it is necessary to expose Gladstones practices so that motorists know what they will be up against should they decide to fight their corner.
As a final note The Prankster would like to ask Mr Gardner why he has resited the sign which the previous car park management company had on the front of the bin storage building, where it can be clearly seen, to the rear, where it cannot?
This streetview photo from 2008 shows the previous sign.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
On the 5 October 2015 Mr L was working as a meter reader in the area of Lloyd George Avenue in Cardiff reading meters of the residents of the flats. There is a barrier controlling access for residents only parking and before that space for about 6 cars. He parked in one of the 6 spaces. The only visible signage regarding these 6 spaces was on the bin storage building and just states ‘CAR PARK’. There were no other terms and conditions listed. Mr L. has worked in this area for 5-6 years with no previous problems.
After reading the meters he returned to his vehicle and noticed his car had a charge from Link Parking. The Link Parking warden was still present and he pointed out a sign hidden at the back of the bin storage building where it would not be seen by any arriving vehicles. Additionally, the sign was as high up as possible, contained a tiny font and was not immediately obvious that it was concerning parking conditions
The warden agreed with Mr L that he was working there and was a legitimate visitor and asked him to ring Link Parking's owner to have the PCN cancelled. Mr L therefore immediately rang Link Parking while he was still at the site with the warden and spoke to the Link Parking owner Martin Gardner who agreed with the warden that the PCN should be cancelled. He stated Mr L would need to send a quick email to them with his details and appeal it. Sadly Mr Gardner is not a man of his word as the phone call turned out just to be a ruse to get Mr L.'s details and save the £5 DVLA fee.
Mr Gardner turned down the appeal.
Mr Garner then used a typical parking company trick of writing to the wrong address several times. Whether this is because he is incompetent or has no morals is not known, but this trick is very useful for parking companies. If they can get all the way to a CCJ then it is very difficult and expensive for the motorist to unwind a claim which has reached that stage.
Luckily for Mr L. the claim, (filed by Gladstones Solicitors) despite being incorrectly addressed, did reach him in time to file a defence, which he did with the assistance of the Prankster.
Amongst the paperwork was a fraudulent document from Mr Gardner claiming keeper liability existed. Mr L. contacted the DVLA who confirmed that the keeper details had never been requested, and therefore that there was no keeper liability. Mr L. complained to Link Parking they had sent a fraudulent document, but Link refused to accept they had done anything wrong. Mr L therefore escalated the complaint to the IPC. He pointed out that Gladstones and the IPC are owned by the same two people, Will Hurley and John Davies. He therefore stated that there was a clear conflict of interests and asked that in line with the IPC's complaints procedure that the complaint be dealt with by an external body.
Will Hurley and John Davies clearly have no more morals than Mr Gardner and are obviously happy for their customers to send out fraudulent documents as they refused to uphold the complaint. They also refused to let it be heard by an independent body. One wonders what needs to happen before they consider that a 'conflict of interest' has occurred.
Gladstones asked for the hearing to be held on paper as they felt the issues were trivial. Mr L. wrote to the court rejecting this, stating that he had not yet received any proper particulars for the case He pointed out that Gladstones were known to be incompetent and regularly file incorrect information in court, and also that they always abuse the court process by filing their entire case at the last minute so there was not time for any rebuttals. It was therefore necessary to have an oral hearing so that he could rebut any evidence. He also send in a list of cases where Gladstones had either deliberately lied to mislead the court, or in the best case were completely incompetent.
Shortly before the hearing Gladstones served a witness statement containing the usual pack of lies, misrepresentations of the truth, and dodgy legalese which are typical of the shoddy work Gladstones churn out.
The Hearing
Mr Gardner did not turn up to the hearing. This was possibly a wise move as deliberately lying in court is perjury. Perhaps also he did not want to be quizzed by Mr L as to why he had agreed over the phone to cancel the charge but this turned out to be false. Obviously in court once you have been shown to be a habitual liar, your chances of success are slim.
Instead they sent a solicitor, Mr Singh from Bristol. Mr Singh asked for a word beforehand but Mr L refused, stating that he was upset that Mr Gardener was not there as he wanted to see him face to face.
The hearing did not go well for Link Parking. Their evidence, as is typical of evidence prepared by Gladstones, was awful and was roundly criticised by the judge. The aerial views of the area were not labelled well enough to show where the signs were and the judge said that he did not know what the yellow blobs meant. Mr Singh had no idea either. The one photograph of signage on the date in question was blurred and unreadable, so all further photos or signage that either Mr L. or Link Parking supplied in evidence may have been different.
Contrary to Mr Gardner's lies in the witness statement, the judge found was no visible entrance signage. Mr Singh stated as he didn't know the site he could not help at all
Ironically, Gladstones sealed their clients fate by claiming that a contract existed by performance as per Vine v Waltham Forest (200)
Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park [...] will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge [...].
Mr L. also pointed out that the site was labelled as "visitor parking" in the Link Parking landowner contract supplied as evidence, and proved he was was a visitor with evidence supplied from his work and that he had a legal right to check meters there. Neither judge nor solicitor had seen this and they were shocked it was called visitor parking in the actual contract.
Mr Singh asked Mr L if he had a parking ticket in his car window. Mr L. explained that there is no pay and display machines anywhere on the site. Mr L Also I stated that he has friends living on the site and there is no such thing as a visitor permit. It was therefore impossible to have a permit. The judge then joked that he did not have a disabled badge either as he was not disabled.
The judge found that due to the lack of signage there was not contract with the motorist and the claim was dismissed.
It is is disgrace that Link Parking are operating a visitor parking system where it is impossible for visitors to park.
It is a disgrace that Will Hurley and John Davies have approved a signage system where there is no entrance signage the only sign is hidden behind a building high up on the wall
It is a disgrace that Will Hurley and John Davies have filed a court claim to support a man who cannot seem to tell the truth when it matters
It is a disgrace that Will Hurley and John Davies have filed a witness statement filled with lies, inaccuracies, half truths and dodgy legalese.
The Prankster considers that as Will Hurley and John Davies clearly do not have a competent grasp of the legal issues surrounding parking they should not be offering their services to parking companies. In this respect they are no better than scammers. They have cost Link Parking many hundreds of pounds in taking this claim to court, and while The Prankster is not sympathetic to Link, he considers that Will Hurley and John Davies should not be lining their own pockets at the expense of their clients for cases which should clearly never go to court.
Sadly the Prankster realises that by publishing this information this is likely to increase Will Hurley and John Davies bank balances. This is because there appears to be no shortage of parking companies willing to use unethical methods in the race to the bottom, and therefore will be attracted to the kind of cheap, shoddy service Gladstones supply.
However, The Prankster believes that it is necessary to expose Gladstones practices so that motorists know what they will be up against should they decide to fight their corner.
As a final note The Prankster would like to ask Mr Gardner why he has resited the sign which the previous car park management company had on the front of the bin storage building, where it can be clearly seen, to the rear, where it cannot?
This streetview photo from 2008 shows the previous sign.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Why Will Hurley and John Davies are Incompetent Scammers
6/7/2016 Link v Mr X.
Incompetent scammers Will Hurley and John Davies have once again failed their clients Link Parking, financially benefiting their company Gladstones Solicitors while Link are well out of pocket.
The claim concerned an incident where a driver trespassed on land belonging to Merchant Estates Ltd of Jersey. Link Parking managed the site and Gladstones Solicitors filed a claim for £150 on their behalf.
The driver contacted the Prankster who informed him that the signage clearly showed the driver was trespassing and there was therefore a valid claim against him by the land occupier.
In cases of trespass the trespasser must make good any damage; if there is none the courts normally award a nominal £1. The Prankster therefore advised the driver to offer £1 to the land occupier, plus a reasonable administration fee, to settle the case. However, there was no liability to Link Parking as they were not the land occupier, and the amount sought bore no relation to the cost. This view was supported both by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis and by HHJ Moloney in the appeal hearing of Ransomes Park v Anderson.
No reply was received to the offer and a hearing duly took place. The Prankster supplied the driver with transcripts of two recent cases which supported this view, UKPC v Masterson and PCM(UK) v Bull/Lyndsay/Woolford to bring to the hearing. Link's witness Martin Gardner did not turn up and Gladstones send an independent advocate. The advocate called the driver into a room where the driver informed him the basis of the defence was the signage on site and handed him a bundle consisting of the defence and witness statement, plus the two transcripts and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The advocate was either a rogue or incompetent because he tried to tell the driver that the transcripts and Act could not be use as he had not presented them beforehand. Any proper lawyer who regularly attends court would of course have known this is not the case. In the Supreme Court hearing of ParkingEye v Beavis new transcripts were introduced even in the middle of the hearing to back up previously made arguments. The driver therefore stood his ground and was asked to leave the room so that the advocate could call Gladstones.
During the hearing the advocate complained to the judge who ruled that the transcripts did not have to be provided up front but asked the advocate if he wanted to request an adjournment. The advocate agreed to continue. He then argued that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 was not appropriate as it came in force in October 2015 and the parking event was September 2015. This of course was only a technical victory as the previous Act, the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 was in force and contained exactly the same consumer protection points.
The regulations provide that if there is a confusion in the terms of a contract, they should be interpreted to the benefit of the consumer. The driver argued that there were multiple signs on site with conflicting terms. The judge disagreed, stating that as all the signs stated 'NO PARKING' then no parking was allowed.
The Advocate then mentioned the Beavis case and said that all potential arguments had been killed with that case. This is of course an extremely irresponsible statement for a legally qualified person to make and The Prankster believes only a truly incompetent person would make that statement. Following the Beavis case defendants continue to win large numbers of parking related cases; perhaps in greater numbers than before, as parking companies have been encouraged by greedy solicitors to file dubious claims.
The Advocate also said that arguments were boiler plate arguments provided by the "Parking Prankster" who runs a website. The driver asked if it was not allowed to use websites for help and the judge said of course it is. The driver then asked the judge to look through the two transcripts as they had been heard since the Beavis case and will help explain how this one was different.
The first case was UKPC v Matterson and the judge disagreed this was relevant as the signage was completely different.
The second case was PCM(UK) v Bull et al and here the wording was exactly the same. The judge agreed; he read the entire judgment and said it was strikingly similar to the case in hand. The Advocate tried to argue the Beavis case was relevant, but the judge kindly explained to him it was not, as in the Beavis case there was the gift of two hours parking, but in this case there was no offer of parking at all.
The Advocate then tried to argue that it didn't really matter what the law said as the justification behind the signs was to stop people parking, and that if the driver had a permit he could park. The driver replied there was no offer to get a permit and no way to obtain one. The judge told the Advocate he may want to reword his justification. The Advocate asked for time to call Gladstones and was given 30 minutes.
On reconvening the Advocate asked the judge if he was aware of the Parking Prankster. The judge said he was not and the advocate falsely told the judge the Prankster acted as a lay representative in the Bull case, but that his client had a number of other cases where the same argument was used and had been unsuccessful. He then stated he had been ambushed and had changed his mind about continuing and wanted an adjournment. The judge agreed as he wanted to read the Beavis case in detail.
He ordered the driver to send a full bundle to Gladstones within 7 days, and Gladstones to then provide a new bundle within 14 days with their cases also included.
The Advocate requested costs as he had been 'ambushed' but the judge refused stating these would be awarded at the next hearing. He thanked the driver and said the case had been extremely interesting.
The Prankster then helped the driver prepare a new bundle for July 13th.
On July 27th Gladstones called to see if the driver wanted to make an offer to settle. The driver explained he had already made two offers so now it had been to court he will see it out.
20 minutes later Gladstones called to discontinue the case.
Why Will Hurley and John Davies are Incompetent Scammers
The Prankster believes Will Hurley and John Davies are either incompetent or scammers or both for the following reasons.
- Gladstones added an amount for debt collection which is not allowed by the solicitors code of practice and is not supported by the costs allowed in the small claims court.
- Gladstones filed a claim without doing proper due diligence. A solicitor has a duty of care to their client, and a trivial examination of the facts should have warned them of the problems in the case.
- Gladstones failed to engage in the proper pre-action protocol, failing to respond to the drivers request for information. This could have prevented the claim ever coming to court.
- Gladstones failed to file proper particulars of claim. This is a deliberate tactic to prevent motorists from being able to file a comprehensive defence. Gladstones then file the full particulars in the witness statement when it is too late to respond. This is a cynical abuse of court processes.
- Gladstones failed to respond to a request for further particulars, which would have enabled the driver to file a comprehensive defence at the time.
- In the witness statement which Gladstones prepared they then provided false information to the court stating they would have provided information if asked.
- Gladstones failed to inform the court of the potential problems with signage. The first duty of a solicitor is to the court, not their client, and the fact that a number of similar cases had been lost on this point should have been brought to the attention of the judge by Gladstones.
- Gladstones also failed to brief the Advocate on this point; had they done so he would also have had a duty to the court to bring this to the attention of the judge. It is telling that at the point in the case where all seemed lost for Gladstones, they suddenly remembered after all that they were well aware of this point.
It is therefore apparent to The Prankster that the average man in the street, faced with this facts, is likely to that conclude that Will Hurley and John Davies are spectacularly failing in their duties to both their client and the court, and that they are therefore incompetent or scammers or both.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Friday, 19 August 2016
UKPC lose in court - Notice to Keeper not compliant
C9QZ3509 UKPC v Ms E Manchester 19/08/2016
Mr Wilkie parachuted into a case in Manchester this morning - they seek him here, they seek him there - in order to act as a Lay Representative for a lady who was definitely, and provably not driving her car when it was parked in a hotel in Manchester, incurring £1120 worth of Parking Charges. The court documents were prepared by Bargepole, who argued that the claimant has no standing, and that there was no keeper liability.
SCS Law, on behalf of UKPC, submitted another Mr W, who is a charming and skilled advocate, but not a solicitor. As UKPC didn't turn up, or even send their witness, Mr Wilkie challenged the right of audience of the Advocate, and after a few minutes of argument, it was agreed that, notwithstanding any rights of audience issues, the Advocate could present the case.
Following this, Mr Wilkie asked the court to deal with the UKPC's history of false evidence, the lack of attendance of a witness and the harm this did to their case. The court was not with him on these points.
Next, the claimant argued Standing and Right to Litigate. A copy of part of a contract was produced, and together with the witness statement, this was accepted as proof of the contract on the balance of probabilities, and right to pursue charges.
As a result the case turned on one issue - Did the Notices to Keeper comply with Sch4, Section 8.2. After much to-ing and fro-ing, the Judge found as a finding of fact that the claimant had failed to put the "specified period of parking" on the Notices to Keeper and this therefore meant that the Keeper Liability conditions of the Protection of freedoms Act, Schedule 4 had not been met.
The conditions of POFA Sch 4 are fairly easy to comply with, but 4 years after the act it is surprising how many operators fail to meet the requirements.
The Prankster will continue to follow this case if/when it proceeds to appeal.
Mr Wilkie parachuted into a case in Manchester this morning - they seek him here, they seek him there - in order to act as a Lay Representative for a lady who was definitely, and provably not driving her car when it was parked in a hotel in Manchester, incurring £1120 worth of Parking Charges. The court documents were prepared by Bargepole, who argued that the claimant has no standing, and that there was no keeper liability.
SCS Law, on behalf of UKPC, submitted another Mr W, who is a charming and skilled advocate, but not a solicitor. As UKPC didn't turn up, or even send their witness, Mr Wilkie challenged the right of audience of the Advocate, and after a few minutes of argument, it was agreed that, notwithstanding any rights of audience issues, the Advocate could present the case.
Following this, Mr Wilkie asked the court to deal with the UKPC's history of false evidence, the lack of attendance of a witness and the harm this did to their case. The court was not with him on these points.
Next, the claimant argued Standing and Right to Litigate. A copy of part of a contract was produced, and together with the witness statement, this was accepted as proof of the contract on the balance of probabilities, and right to pursue charges.
As a result the case turned on one issue - Did the Notices to Keeper comply with Sch4, Section 8.2. After much to-ing and fro-ing, the Judge found as a finding of fact that the claimant had failed to put the "specified period of parking" on the Notices to Keeper and this therefore meant that the Keeper Liability conditions of the Protection of freedoms Act, Schedule 4 had not been met.
As the defendant was not the driver, there was therefore no liability. Costs of £75 were awarded to the defendant.
UKPC sought leave to appeal, which was granted to the Circuit Judge.
UKPC sought leave to appeal, which was granted to the Circuit Judge.
Prankster Note
The conditions of POFA Sch 4 are fairly easy to comply with, but 4 years after the act it is surprising how many operators fail to meet the requirements.
UKPC has recently changed both the design of its Notices to Driver and Keeper to include the information which it is now appealing about. However, on this occasion, this is a good win for Mr Wilkie, as it proves that he and Private Parking Appeals are "raising standards in Private Parking" - exactly as the BPA intends, as opposed to the IPC race to the bottom.
The Prankster will continue to follow this case if/when it proceeds to appeal.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Smart Parking kicked out from Marshall's Yard
Smart Parking have been kicked out of Marshall's yard after just over two months, as this facebook post shows.
The Prankster congratulates the Marshall's Yard management team for their swift and decisive action, and also their decision that all parking charges should be cancelled.
The comments on the facebook page show that motorists also welcome this decision and motorists who have stayed away will now start to return to the shopping centre.
Litha Bacon commented that she had been told Smart Parking was paying Marshall's Yard to run the car park. In the Prankster's opinion paying for the right to issue parking charges never results in proper parking management, and just results in parking companies creating hard to follow parking conditions so that they can generate as many parking charges as possible.
Smart Parking's attitude exemplifies this, as the reports of their feeding frenzy when the started 'managing' the car park show. When new parking conditions come into force this is effectively Christmas for parking companies who get to issue tickets like confetti. The British Parking Association code of practice recommends that extra signs are erected when conditions change, but The Prankster has found most parking companies decide not to follow the code, preferring instead to maximise income and issue as many charges as possible.
The Prankster believes is is possible to manage car parks fairly. As an example, Total Parking Solutions operate a car park at Bristol eye Hospital where it is almost impossible to pay the incorrect amount for parking, or enter an incorrect registration, as the machines show you how long your car has been parked for and how much to pay. Freedom of Information requests show that hardly any parking charges have been issued there - less than one per month.
It is important therefore for landowners to choose their car park operators wisely. Marshall's yard have not commented on how much, if any, they had to pay Smart parking to cancel the contract. However Somerfield had to pay ParkingEye £300,000 and B&Q had to pay ParkingEye a reported £400,000, so making the wrong choice can be an expensive mistake.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
The Prankster congratulates the Marshall's Yard management team for their swift and decisive action, and also their decision that all parking charges should be cancelled.
The comments on the facebook page show that motorists also welcome this decision and motorists who have stayed away will now start to return to the shopping centre.
Litha Bacon commented that she had been told Smart Parking was paying Marshall's Yard to run the car park. In the Prankster's opinion paying for the right to issue parking charges never results in proper parking management, and just results in parking companies creating hard to follow parking conditions so that they can generate as many parking charges as possible.
Smart Parking's attitude exemplifies this, as the reports of their feeding frenzy when the started 'managing' the car park show. When new parking conditions come into force this is effectively Christmas for parking companies who get to issue tickets like confetti. The British Parking Association code of practice recommends that extra signs are erected when conditions change, but The Prankster has found most parking companies decide not to follow the code, preferring instead to maximise income and issue as many charges as possible.
The Prankster believes is is possible to manage car parks fairly. As an example, Total Parking Solutions operate a car park at Bristol eye Hospital where it is almost impossible to pay the incorrect amount for parking, or enter an incorrect registration, as the machines show you how long your car has been parked for and how much to pay. Freedom of Information requests show that hardly any parking charges have been issued there - less than one per month.
It is important therefore for landowners to choose their car park operators wisely. Marshall's yard have not commented on how much, if any, they had to pay Smart parking to cancel the contract. However Somerfield had to pay ParkingEye £300,000 and B&Q had to pay ParkingEye a reported £400,000, so making the wrong choice can be an expensive mistake.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Sunday, 7 August 2016
Failed Debt Collectors MIL Collections lie to Parking News to drum up business
The July edition of Parking News (a BPA members-only publication) contains an article from Alan Davies, managing director of MIL collections.
The Prankster would like to take this opportunity to correct a few of the lies Alan Davies told the publication. This may be useful to defendants. Following the revelations that MIL's 'legal eagle' Matt Muroch/k does not exist apart from in comic books, MIL's witness statements are now signed by Alan Davies. As Alan Davies never turns up in court, evidence that he is a habitual liar may be useful to get his witness statement thrown out as unreliable.
Porky #1 MIL always send an advocate to hearings
'Nuff said.
Porky #2 MIL treat consumers fairly and with respect
MIL's modus operanti is to issue a claim as soon as possible. Their first letter is a letter before action, and a claim follows barely 14 days later.
As MIL have won no known cases which have gone to hearings, it appears they are trying to rattle consumers into paying up by using the courts as a scare tactic. By now it must be plainly apparent to MIL that they have no valid claim in their parking cases.
MIL have also discontinued large numbers of claims where a robust defence is filed.
MIL have also lied to the court repeatedly, presenting witness statements signed by 'Matt Murdoch/k' when no such person has been shown to exist.
Additionally, The Prankster has had a number of reports where MIL are rude, aggressive and unhelpful on the phone.
This is hardly treating consumers fairly.
Outrageous claim #1 Parking companies benefit from MIL's court record
As anyone with Google can easily find out, MIL's court record for parking cases is less than stellar. As of the date of writing, no cases of wins at hearings have been recorded. Any operator with a record of selling to MIL is therefore not likely to gain a benefit from this.
ParkingEye are well known to be one of the most unsuccessful parking operators of all time, with a reputation of being unable to manage car parks properly. Their number of parking charges issued increases year on year. they are also the most litigious, issuing over 30,000 claims a year.
The claim that issuing charges results in an improvement in compliance is therefore laughable. Better compliance comes through better management, not selling off the charges you cannot enforce.
True but irrelevant claim #1 Charges must be processed in line with FCA guidelines
The DVLA have been asked multiple times if MIL are complying with the KADOE requirements, but have failed to answer. MIL themselves are clearly in violation of many of the FCA guidelines they refer to.
True but irrelevant claim #2 Reasonable Justification
A Google search finds no reports of contested hearing which MIL have won. This claim therefore appears to be MIL arguing that they should be shut down by the FCA.
The Prankster therefore wonders at what point the FCA will step in to end this sorry debacle.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
The Prankster would like to take this opportunity to correct a few of the lies Alan Davies told the publication. This may be useful to defendants. Following the revelations that MIL's 'legal eagle' Matt Muroch/k does not exist apart from in comic books, MIL's witness statements are now signed by Alan Davies. As Alan Davies never turns up in court, evidence that he is a habitual liar may be useful to get his witness statement thrown out as unreliable.
Porky #1 MIL always send an advocate to hearings
Porky #2 MIL treat consumers fairly and with respect
MIL's modus operanti is to issue a claim as soon as possible. Their first letter is a letter before action, and a claim follows barely 14 days later.
As MIL have won no known cases which have gone to hearings, it appears they are trying to rattle consumers into paying up by using the courts as a scare tactic. By now it must be plainly apparent to MIL that they have no valid claim in their parking cases.
MIL have also discontinued large numbers of claims where a robust defence is filed.
MIL have also lied to the court repeatedly, presenting witness statements signed by 'Matt Murdoch/k' when no such person has been shown to exist.
Additionally, The Prankster has had a number of reports where MIL are rude, aggressive and unhelpful on the phone.
This is hardly treating consumers fairly.
Outrageous claim #1 Parking companies benefit from MIL's court record
As anyone with Google can easily find out, MIL's court record for parking cases is less than stellar. As of the date of writing, no cases of wins at hearings have been recorded. Any operator with a record of selling to MIL is therefore not likely to gain a benefit from this.
ParkingEye are well known to be one of the most unsuccessful parking operators of all time, with a reputation of being unable to manage car parks properly. Their number of parking charges issued increases year on year. they are also the most litigious, issuing over 30,000 claims a year.
The claim that issuing charges results in an improvement in compliance is therefore laughable. Better compliance comes through better management, not selling off the charges you cannot enforce.
True but irrelevant claim #1 Charges must be processed in line with FCA guidelines
The DVLA have been asked multiple times if MIL are complying with the KADOE requirements, but have failed to answer. MIL themselves are clearly in violation of many of the FCA guidelines they refer to.
True but irrelevant claim #2 Reasonable Justification
A Google search finds no reports of contested hearing which MIL have won. This claim therefore appears to be MIL arguing that they should be shut down by the FCA.
The Prankster therefore wonders at what point the FCA will step in to end this sorry debacle.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)