AS Parking Gladstoned again

C6GF0D56 AS Parking v Mr R, Truro 3/11/2016

Mr R parked outside of a marked bay and on a yellow hatched area by about 8 inches as a courtesy to the car next him, as otherwise the driver wouldn't have been able to get in his car.

The Judge questioned Gladstones competece; "Do they even know what they're doing.....?" and dismissed the claim, agreeing that Mr R had acted reasonably and courteously.

Prankster Note

An observer reported that Kevin McManus was spitting feathers!

Kevin McManus left the BPA to join the IPC. It is one thing to use the so called "Independent" Appeals Service to push through bogus parking charges. However Parking Companies are then encouraged by Gladstones, with their pitiful grasp of legal issues regarding parking, to file a claim. At that point they realise that Gladstones legal expertise is so much hot air.

Kevin McManus, you've been Gladstoned!

"Do they even know what they're doing?"

Apparently not. It is therefore incomprehensible that the government allows the two charlatans Will Hurley and John Davis to run a parking ATA without properly supervising them and making sure that someone who does understand the law regarding parking runs the "Independent" Appeals Service.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Excel ANPR flawed. Car was having MOT at the time. Costs awarded to defendant for unreasonableness under 27.14.2.g

C8DP13F2 Excel Parking v Ms S Manchester Court 3/11/2016

In this case Ms S drive through a car park on her way to an MOT, in order to avoid a blocked junction, then drove back again afterwards. Excel's ANPR being flawed, she was issued a parking charge for one long stay. This was disputed, but Excel refused to see sense and dismissed the appeal, then eventually filed a claim through BW Legal.

The Hearing

In the red corner, Mr Pickup of LPC Law; in the Blue corner, Mr Wilkie of PPA.

The claimant claimed, and was supported by both the witness statement and photograph evidence, that the car, driven by the Defendant, entered the Square, Chorlton-Cum-Hardy at 9.51 on 23 Feb 2015, and stayed for 351 minutes. The statement covers the usual issues of Contract, Signage and
Pay and Display terms, all of which were fully conceded by the defendant. There was no issue over who was driving, no denial that the car entered at the time stated, or left at the time stated.

The only problem is, the car park, which has two entrances and exits was being "cut through" to avoid a blocked junction, and the driver was taking her car to a garage for an MOT.

Despite this, Excel's ANPR didn't detect her first exit and second entrance, and so an NTK was raised for the full 351 minutes. The Defendant appealed, supplying a copy of the MOT, proving the car could not have been there at the time. This was, as is par for the course, rejected, and the Defendant elected not to ask Skippy the Bush Kangaroo and his joke "Independent" Appeals Service to give an opinion.

BW Legal sued on behalf of Excel. The Defence was the same as the appeal, and again supplied a copy of the MOT. In fact, the Defence and the MOT were the only documents supplied.

It was suggested by Mr Pickup that maybe the car was parked in the car park while it was being MOT'd half a mile away. The judge discounted this, stating that there was no evidence to rebut the timing on the certificate as being a time the car was present at the test centre.

The judge, in summing up, made the point that the Defendant's defence has been consistent throughout, and,given the status of an MOT certificate, this is compelling evidence that the Defendant's car was not present for the entire time.

The judge did point out that signage states the car park is not a right of way, but nothing in the terms deals with trespass and trespass was not pleaded. As such, since the claimant could not rebut the compelling evidence that the car was 1/2  mile away when they claim it was parked, the claim
failed.

Additionally, since the evidence of this had been provided long before proceedings were commenced, this meant the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The judge therefore found that the claimant had acted unreasonably, and so made an award of punitive costs against the claimant in the sum of £160.95 using CPR 27.14(2)g.

Prankster Note

Parking Companies have a duty to properly consider appeals. ParkingEye, a BPA member, claim that they allow about 60% of appeals, and have a further 45% cancelled at POPLA. Excel are IPC members, and as such do not have a fair and open appeals process. Simon Renshaw-Smith, Excel's main shareholder, stated that the main reason he moved to the IPC was so that he would not lose so many appeals.

It is clear this decision has come to bite him in the foot. There is really no justification for a parking company or an Associated Trade Association to run a sham appeals service.

Mr Pickup was reported to have stormed out following the hearing. The Prankster can sympathise as he had just lost 2 cases on consecutive days; however, he was handed hospital passes by both clients. Mr Pickup can take heart by remembering that his duty as an advocate is to help the courts reach the correct decision, which is not the same as ensuring his clients win. As the correct decision was reached both times, Mr Pickup can sleep soundly in his bed tonight.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Link Parking lose in Wrexham. Flat owner has every right to park in her own parking space

C7GF50J7 Link Parking v Ms P 2/11/2016 Wrexham

This case concerns a residential car park at Overstone Court Cardiff. The motorist in question has her own assigned parking space which she has successfully managed for several years by installing a post which can be raised and lowered. She has never had any problems with this system.

One day on arriving at the property she discovered a letter from the management company explaining that the car park was now managed by Link Parking. On returning to the car she discovered that a ticket had been issued.

She naturally appealed, expecting that any reasonable parking company would cancel the charge. Link Parking declined. As the motorist refused to pay, a claim was issued by Gladstones Solicitors.

The Hearing

The hearing took place in Wrexham Court No.3 in front of Judge Louise Metcalf.  Ms P was introduced to Mr. Pickup, an advocate from LPC, instructed by Gladstones and acting for Link parking. Mr Pickup was a pleasant young man who does a lot of parking case work and is based about 60 miles away in Bury. The hearing began at 10.00am in front of the Judge, who informed Ms P she had received no papers from her.  Mr Pickup confirmed he had received his copies. Both sets had been sent by Ms P on 17th October via Royal Mail Special Delivery (to arrive next day, deadline was 19th Oct)  Presumably the papers were lost somewhere in the Law Court building.  Ms P. then handed her copies to the Judge, who then sent the parties out, and heard another case.

The case resumed just after 11.00am; by this time the Judge had read the defendant's copy. After reading both submissions, she stated  Link's case was “fairly simple”.  She then asked both Ms P and Link’s rep questions. Finally she asked if Ms P. had any further questions, Ms P asked if she would be disadvantaged in any way because her documents had not found their way to the judge.  The judge assured Ms P it would not as she totally believed that she had sent them. She then sent both parties out and they were called back in just before noon, where they listened to the summing up. At first Ms P thought it was going in Link’s favour but then the judge read Ms P's submission regarding contracts. The judge also read the submissions regarding signage compared to the Beavis case.

The judge ruled that that for Link or CPML (the management company) to have any right to manage the parking on the Landowner's property, the deeds would have to be altered to state this for the whole site. She ruled that the Landowner could not be penalised for parking in her own space.

She dismissed the claim and asked if the defendant was claiming expenses, which was declined. It appeared the judge was influenced by the transcript of the similar case from Croydon court of PACE v Mr N, which is available on The Prankster's web site.

Prankster Note

If there is car park management at a residential site, this will be primarily to stop non-residents from parking. No reputable car parking company would target the residents and refuse to cancel a parking charge, issued to a resident, especially if they have only just been informed of parking restrictions. Sadly, Martin Gardner is far from reputable and the large number of failed court cases show he runs a rogue company with no regard to the law, proper parking management, or common decency.

Also sadly, Gladstones Solicitors seem to be encouraging him that this behaviour is acceptable and above board.

For this particular car park The Prankster is aware of one ticket being issued to the management company representative, a large number of tickets to residents, and none whatsoever to non-residents. This does not seem to be a useful service at all.

Martin Gardner of Link Parking, you've been Gladstoned!

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Link Parking lose in Wrexham. Flat owner has every right to park in her own parking space

C7GF50J7 Link Parking v Ms P 2/11/2016 Wrexham

This case concerns a residential car park. The motorist in question has her own assigned parking space which she has successfully managed for several years by installing a post which can be raised and lowered. She has never had any problems with this system.

One day on arriving at the property she discovered a letter from the management company explaining that the car park was now managed by Link Parking. On returning to the car she discovered that a ticket had been issued.

She naturally appealed, expecting that any reasonable parking company would cancel the charge. Link Parking declined. As the motorist refused to pay, a claim was issued by Gladstones Solicitors.

The Hearing

The hearing took place in Wrexham Court No.3 in front of Justice Louise Metcalf.  Ms P was introduced to Mr. Pickup, a barrister from LPC, instructed by Gladstones and acting for Gladstones. Mr Pickup was a pleasant young man who does a lot of parking case work and is based about 60 miles away in Bury. The hearing began at 10.00am in front of the Judge, who informed Ms P she had received no papers from her.  Mr Pickup confirmed he had received his copies. Both sets had been sent by Ms P on 17th October via Royal Mail Special Delivery (to arrive next day, deadline was 19th Oct)  Presumably the papers were lost somewhere in the Law Court building.  Ms P. then handed her copies to the Judge, who then sent the parties out, and heard another case.

The case resumed just after 11.00am; by this time the Judge had read the defendant's copy. After reading both submissions, she stated  Link's case was “fairly simple”.  She then asked both Ms P and Link’s rep questions. Finally she asked if Ms P. had any further questions, Ms P asked if she would be disadvantaged in any way because her documents had not found their way to the judge.  The judge assured Ms P it would not as she totally believed that she had sent them. She then sent both parties out and they were called back in just before noon, where they listened to the summing up. At first Ms P thought it was going in Link’s favour but then the judge read Ms P's submission regarding contracts. The judge also read the submissions regarding signage compared to the Beavis case.

The judge ruled that that for Link or CPML (the management company) to have any right to manage the parking on the Landowner's property, the deeds would have to be altered to state this for the whole site. She ruled that the Landowner could not be penalised for parking in her own space.

She dismissed the claim and asked if the defendant was claiming expenses, which was declined. It appeared the judge was influenced by the transcript of the similar case from Croydon court of PACE v Mr N, which is available on The Prankster's web site.

Prankster Note

If there is car park management at a residential site, this will be primarily to stop non-residents from parking. No reputable car parking company would target the residents and refuse to cancel a parking charge, issued to a resident, especially if they have only just been informed of parking restrictions. Sadly, Martin Gardner is far from reputable and the large number of failed court cases show he runs a rogue company with no regard to the law, proper parking management, or common decency.

Also sadly, Gladstones Solicitors seem to be encouraging him that this behaviour is acceptable and above board.

For this particular car park The Prankster is aware of one ticket being issued to the management company representative, a large number of tickets to residents, and none whatsoever to non-residents. This does not seem to be a useful service at all.

Martin Gardner of Link Parking, you've been Gladstoned!

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

The IAS fails ADR reporting requirements

The "Independent" Appeals Service is an Alternative Dispute Resolution entity, and as such has to abide by the requirements of The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes
(Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015. One of these is to produce an annual report.


Ongoing information obligations of an ADR entity

11(2) An ADR entity must, within a month of the first anniversary of the approval date and within
a month of each subsequent anniversary, publish on its website a report (“an annual activity
report”) relating to the preceding year which contains the information in Schedule 5.

SCHEDULE 5 Regulation 11(2)
Information to be included in an ADR entity’s annual activity report

a) the number of domestic disputes and cross-border disputes the ADR entity has received;
b) the types of complaints to which the domestic disputes and cross-border disputes relate;
c) a description of any systematic or significant problems that occur frequently and lead to
disputes between consumers and traders of which the ADR entity has become aware due
to its operations as an ADR entity;
d) any recommendations the ADR entity may have as to how the problems referred to in
paragraph (c) could be avoided or resolved in future, in order to raise traders’ standards
and to facilitate the exchange of information and best practices;
e) the number of disputes which the ADR entity has refused to deal with, and percentage
share of the grounds set out in paragraph 13 of Schedule 3 on which the ADR entity has
declined to consider such disputes;
f) the percentage of alternative dispute resolution procedures which were discontinued for
operational reasons and, if known, the reasons for the discontinuation;
g) the average time taken to resolve domestic disputes and cross-border disputes;
h) the rate of compliance, if known, with the outcomes of the alternative dispute resolution
procedures;
i) the co-operation, if any, of the ADR entity within any network of ADR entities which
facilitates the resolution of cross-border disputes.

The annual report was due on the IAS website on 1st November 2016. The Prankster has confirmed this with a request to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, the body who oversee ADR accreditation.

As of the 2nd November 2016, the report was not available on the IAS website.

The IAS is therefore in breach of its statutory requirements.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Smart Parking settle out of court for data protection contravention

Smart Parking have settled out of court for a data protection contravention.

The claim concerned a parking event at Fistral Beach. The motorist paid for a ticket and entered their registrations details correctly in the parking machine. Despite this, Smart Parking applied to the DVLA for keeper details and issued a parking ticket.

The motorist appealed and Smart Parking refused to cancel the charge. The motorist asked for contact details of a senior executive but was refused. After much time and effort he eventually found contact details at companies house and wrote to three top executives at which point the charge was finally cancelled.

As Smart Parking had obtained keeper details from the DVLA when no parking contravention had occurred, and had falsely insinuated a charge existed, they were misusing the personal data of the motorist and causing harassment and distress. The motorist therefore wrote asking to be reimbursed.
Smart Parking replied "Smart Parking Ltd are not liable for any costs incurred as a result of the motorist disputing or pursuing the charge".

The motorist therefore filed a claim in the small claims court for £250, plus £25 filing costs.

Compensation for distress and harassment
caused by Smart Parking's misuse of personal
information obtained from the DVLA contrary
to the principles of the Data Protection Act
(DPA) 1998. Specifically, Smart Parking's
surveillance equipment and procedures for
gathering and processing data collected are
not fit for purpose as required under the
DPA.

A short time later, Smart Parking sent a cheque for £275 to settle the claim

Prankster Note

Parking Companies issue charges like confetti. In the ParkingEye v Beavis case, ParkingEye admitted they cancel 65% of appealed tickets. POPLA statistics show another 45% of tickets appealed there are cancelled. Most charges are therefore not valid. Sadly, parking companies do not learn from their mistakes and continue to wrongly issue tickets without changing their processes.

When a ticket is issued but no contravention has occurred, the parking company may be causing a data protection violation by misusing personal data obtained from a DVLA to wrongly assert a charge is payable.

When this happens, Vidal-Hall v Google [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) establishes that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages that damages for a breach of the DPA could include non pecuniary damage.
http://www.5rb.com/case/vidal-hall-ors-v-google-inc/

The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.

Motorists have up to 6 years to file a claim.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Tenancy Agreement not overruled by Parking signage

Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0 16/09/2016 Croydon.

Mr N had the temerity to park outside his own home, in his own parking space, without displaying a permit. Pace Recovery and Storage (trading as ACE Security) issued him a parking charge, and when Mr N declined to pay it, took him to court.

In the hearing, Mr N produced his tenancy agreement, which showed he had the unrestricted right to park.

District Judge Coonan dismissed the claim and refused leave to appeal.

I have to deal with this on the evidence that is before me now. I have before me a tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that. It has got to be the other contracting party, Affinity Sutton, which amends the terms of the tenancy agreement to restrict the right to park on a place in circumstances in which a permit is displayed but that is not in this tenancy agreement and you as a third party cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.

The approved judgment which may be of use to other people in the same boat, is hosted on the Prankster's site here.

After the hearing, Mr Charman stated his regret that he had relied on the advice of solicitors.

 As you can see from this, we rely on solicitors, which maybe we should not really have done, but we have relied on solicitors who at this point have said, “No, there is not a need” and maybe if they had seen the lease

No doubt a lot of other Parking companies who have lost at the hands of Gladstones Solicitors will be thinking the same think.

Prankster Note

It is a well established legal doctrine that an existing contract cannot be unilaterally altered. Any solicitor, apart it seems from Gladstones Solicitors, could have told Mr Charman that.

In the case of residential parking, the existing contract would normally come into place when the tenancy agreement is signed.

Failing that, the contract next most probably comes into force at the time permits are supplied. If this does not explicitly state parking charges of £100 will be charged for non-display, then this term cannot be unilaterally introduced later.

It would be very unusual for the contract with a resident to be formed by the signage on site. The signage is there only to form a contract with non-residents.

Responsible parking companies will realise this. Spivs and chancers, who have no intention of providing a responsible parking management service and only want to gouge the residents, will have difficulty accepting this.

Paper permits are an outdated and inefficient way of managing a residential car park. They fail to take note of the needs of the residents, who may have to swap cars at short notice, or who may want someone else to use their space at short notice. They also have a habit of disappearing from view or expiring while the owner is on holiday.

Responsible parking companies will either use a modern system which does not need paper permits, or will cancel charges accidentally given to residents or their guests.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster