ES Parking Enforcement v Mr I 10/2/2017. C0GF2C1K Oldham.
Mr I had an upcoming court hearing relating to a parking event in Spinningfields, Manchester. HE contacted The Prankster for information regarding previous Spinningfield cases
Armed with this information Mr I, a trainee solicitor, created a skeleton argument and filed the same on Monday 6th February 2017 with the court and Gladstones Solicitors.
The hearing took place on Friday 10th February 2017. Prior to the hearing, I did not hear anything from Gladstones so was expecting Brian Hargreaves to turn up. However, there was no sight of him.
On entering the hearing room the judge asked "Oh, do you not know - the case has been discontinued?" Mr I replied stating "No, I have not been aware and this is a ploy Gladstones always use in which they run the case to trial and discontinue at the very last minute" - He also made reference to how rubbish their conduct is.
As it transpired, Gladstones filed their Notice of Discontinuance on Thursday evening at 5:13pm with the court. Mr I received their notice of discontinuance in the post on Saturday 11th Feb 2017.
The judge asked if it cost anything to attend the hearing; Mr I informed him he had to book a day off work, parking and fuel costs. The judge awarded £5 for fuel costs and parking and £60 for holiday that I took.
Prankster Note
5pm to 5:15 seems to be the busy time in the Gladstones office. This is when they churn out the notices of discontinuance for tomorrows hearings.
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
Friday, 3 March 2017
Parking and Property Management Ltd - you've been Gladstoned
Parking and Property Management Ltd v Mr M. 17/02/2017. Southampton [Claim reference withheld on request]
PPM issued Mr M a ticket for parking in his own space. Despite Mr M telling them this, they carried on regardless. Gladstones egged them on to court, but on the appointed day of the hearing no-one showed up.
The judge struck the claim out because of the non-attendance of PPM, but also confirmed he would have struck it out anyway because Mr M had a lease which includes the use of the parking space. The judge said it was very straightforward.
Gladstones were incompetent throughout the process. Firstly they failed to submit their statement and papers to the court on time. (They only submitted them following judges orders). Secondly, they failed to give the required 7 days' notice that they weren't going to attend. Thirdly, they carried on with this case when anyone with the slightest modicum of understanding of contract law would know that they couldn't succeed.
Prankster Note
The deluded heads of Will Hurley and John Davies continue to promote the fiction that the mere presence of signage automatically creates an enforceable contract. Sadly they have convinced many parking companies this is true and to take out court claims on the back of this.
As any proper lawyer knows, this is not the case and there are other hurdles to cross, such as having the ability to perform the contract and to actually offer some form of consideration to the motorist. And of course, in many cases, the little matter of the signage being prominent and readable.
Happy Parking
THe Parking Prankster
Thursday, 2 March 2017
Video of Private Parking Solutions London Ltd apparently issuing ghost tickets
Ghost ticketing occurs when a parking warden issues a parking charge, sticks the ticket on the window, photographs it, then removes the ticket.
This leaves the driver unaware that the ticket has been issued until the notice to keeper arrives 4-8 weeks later..
There are several benefits to the parking company
1) The driver is unaware that a ticket has been issued, so the parking company can rack up a number of charges in the 8 week window before the driver realises they are doing something wrong
2) The driver loses the chance to gather supporting evidence at the time. For instance, the parking company may claim there was no ticket visible even though there was one on the dashboard. The driver therefore loses the chance to take their own photos proving a ticket was displayed, and may have even disposed of the ticket by the time the NTK arrives.
3) The keeper cannot appeal, because the appeal window has already closed by the time they receive the NTK
4) The discount is lost so the charge must be paid at the higher amount
Here is an example of ghost ticketing apparently at work. The video shows Private Parking Solutions London Ltd wardens issuing ghost tickets at the Ashford Antiques Centre, Ashford, Slough,
When questioned, the warden disputes the fact that a ghost ticket has just been issued and instead states the ticket has been cancelled. However, if that was the case, The Prankster questions why all the photographs were taken. It appears more likely that the story was only invented once the wardens realised they had been been videod.
The Prankster believes ghost ticketing is a predatory practice which should not be condoned by any car park operator.
If any keeper feels they have been the victim of ghost ticketing at Ashford Antiques Centre, Ashford, Slough, The Prankster suggests they either get in touch with him, or report it to the Bristish Parking Association at aos@britishparking.co.uk
This leaves the driver unaware that the ticket has been issued until the notice to keeper arrives 4-8 weeks later..
There are several benefits to the parking company
1) The driver is unaware that a ticket has been issued, so the parking company can rack up a number of charges in the 8 week window before the driver realises they are doing something wrong
2) The driver loses the chance to gather supporting evidence at the time. For instance, the parking company may claim there was no ticket visible even though there was one on the dashboard. The driver therefore loses the chance to take their own photos proving a ticket was displayed, and may have even disposed of the ticket by the time the NTK arrives.
3) The keeper cannot appeal, because the appeal window has already closed by the time they receive the NTK
4) The discount is lost so the charge must be paid at the higher amount
Here is an example of ghost ticketing apparently at work. The video shows Private Parking Solutions London Ltd wardens issuing ghost tickets at the Ashford Antiques Centre, Ashford, Slough,
When questioned, the warden disputes the fact that a ghost ticket has just been issued and instead states the ticket has been cancelled. However, if that was the case, The Prankster questions why all the photographs were taken. It appears more likely that the story was only invented once the wardens realised they had been been videod.
The warden in the car is Hristo Todorov. Here is his facebook page.
The Prankster believes ghost ticketing is a predatory practice which should not be condoned by any car park operator.
If any keeper feels they have been the victim of ghost ticketing at Ashford Antiques Centre, Ashford, Slough, The Prankster suggests they either get in touch with him, or report it to the Bristish Parking Association at aos@britishparking.co.uk
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
DVLA to remove motorist protection from dodgy debt collectors
The DVLA currently make a nod to protecting motorists from dodgy debt collectors. Their KADOE contract with parking operators contains a clause which regulates debt collector behaviour.
Previously they required them to obey the Office Of Fair Trading guidelines.
However, following a recent complaint to the ICO, clarification was obtained from the FCA that they do not regulate parking related debt collection practices – they only regulate consumer credit (mortgages, loans, credit cards etc) related debt collection.
As a result the DVLA have decided to remove this protection from the KADOE contract. Here is their statement on the matter.
The Prankster also does not believe this clause is not enforceable. The DVLA could either enforce it themselves, or they could require the ATAs to enforce it, by adding it to their code of practice.
Perhaps the real reason for pretending the DVLA cannot take action is that given the wide scale abuse by debt collectors at the moment, it would be too expensive to enforce, as practically all communications are currently breaking the FSA code.
A further alternative would be to require debt collectors to sign up to the Credit Services Association and to abide by their code of practice. The CSA does enforce its code, and the Prankster has had a number of dealings with David Lee form the CSA.
Either way, the passing of the OFT has left a big enforcement hole which unscrupulous debt collectors will be only too willing to exploit.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Previously they required them to obey the Office Of Fair Trading guidelines.
C3.1. The Customer shall abide by the OFT Debt Collection Guidance whenever it seeks to recover payment of unpaid Parking Charges from any person.However, the Office of Fair Trading no longer exists. The clause now states they should abide by the Financial Conduct Authority guidance
C3.1 The Customer shall abide by the FCA Debt Collection Guidance whenever it seeks to recover payment of unpaid Parking Charges from any person
However, following a recent complaint to the ICO, clarification was obtained from the FCA that they do not regulate parking related debt collection practices – they only regulate consumer credit (mortgages, loans, credit cards etc) related debt collection.
As a result the DVLA have decided to remove this protection from the KADOE contract. Here is their statement on the matter.
When C3.1 was included in the KADOE contract, DVLA acted in good faith, and were of the understanding that this clause was enforceable. It has since been identified that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), do not regulate parking related debt practices. Therefore, this clause cannot be enforced by DVLA or a court of Law, even though it is included in the contract.The Prankster believes this is a retrograde step and that valuable protection has been removed. Motorists only need to look at the dodgy practices of debt collectors like MIL Collections and BW Legal to realise protection is essential.
‘In accordance with the change control elements of the contract under H.1 – Variations, DVLA will issue a variation to the contract to remedy this inaccuracy, and remove clause C3.1 from the KADOE contract in due course.
The Prankster also does not believe this clause is not enforceable. The DVLA could either enforce it themselves, or they could require the ATAs to enforce it, by adding it to their code of practice.
Perhaps the real reason for pretending the DVLA cannot take action is that given the wide scale abuse by debt collectors at the moment, it would be too expensive to enforce, as practically all communications are currently breaking the FSA code.
A further alternative would be to require debt collectors to sign up to the Credit Services Association and to abide by their code of practice. The CSA does enforce its code, and the Prankster has had a number of dealings with David Lee form the CSA.
Either way, the passing of the OFT has left a big enforcement hole which unscrupulous debt collectors will be only too willing to exploit.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
UKPC manipulating photographs again
A clever UKPC parking warden has found a way to manipulate photographs to make it seem an offence has occurred when it has not.
The warden is operating in the pay and display Gateway car park in Trowbridge above Argos and Next. Here is the warden's photographs of the signage.
The warden is operating in the pay and display Gateway car park in Trowbridge above Argos and Next. Here is the warden's photographs of the signage.
Here is a truer picture of the situation.
The actual situation is that some companies have reserved parking in the car park, but only from Monday to Friday. On the weekend their spaces are available to all motorists. The warden is ticketing motorists on the weekend and staging photographs to miss out the full parking terms and conditions.
The Prankster calls on all motorists in that car park to be wary and watch out for this and other UKPC rogue ticketing practices.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Wednesday, 1 March 2017
MIL lose set-aside hearing
MIL Collections v Ms B C8QZ44G7 set-aside hearing in front of DJ Smith. 28/2/2017 Carlisle
Ms B contacted the Prankster because she discovered a CCJ had been lodged against her at a previous address. She had not lived there since February 2015. The claim did not provide much to go on. Ms B contacted MIL and spoke to an arrogant representative who told her that MIL Collections had purchased a disputed parking charge from North West Parking Enforcement from 2014, the CCJ was now with the bailiffs and that they were in the process of taking her to court for another ticket. He informed her that she had to pay £100 to stop the new court hearing, but refused to provide any details of what the charge was for.
This obviously worried Ms B who contacted The Prankster
The Prankster assisted her to advise of the process for requesting a set-aside of the judgement. MIL stated they would not contest the set-aside, as long as Ms B paid them all the money they wanted, and did not claim against them for the set-aside fee of £255. The Prankster pointed out that this did not appear to be a particularly good bargain, seeing as MIL had lost all reported cases. Ms B decided not to accept the offer and so MIL contested the set-aside. The Prankster provided a witness statement detailing the known problems with MIL's purported deed of assignment, the fact that these issues had been substantially dealt with by a judge in the same court, and the fact that MIL appeared to be recycling the same undated deed of assignment in multiple cases, claiming it had been assigned on different dates each time.
The Hearing
MIL Collections sent an advocate to the hearing. Ms B made contact and described him as a lovely old man. The hearing was an hour behind schedule and there was a previous MIL case. Ms B was unaware of the outcome. In the hearing it appeared that the set-aside form and witness statement were all that was necessary. DJ Smith hardly had a word to say to Ms B and instead concentrated on grilling MIL's advocate.
Ms B was initially worried about having to prove she would win any rehearing but Judge Smith stopped MIL's representative from even trying to say anything about the case. He made it clear "that wasn't why we were are today and I am only judging on whether I should grant a set aside"
He wanted to know why MIL had made no attempt to verify Mr B's address before filing a claim. No satisfactory answers were forthcoming. The advocate stated MIL had got the data from the DVLA, which was not correct as they got it from NWPE. Ms B in fact had a letter from the DVLA confirming this but this was not needed. The Judge just looked at her and said "I take it when you moved house your car went with you?" and she just replied "Yes Sir". This was enough proof for the judge.
The judge granted the set-aside and pointed out that MIL would have substantial problems with their deed of allocation should they wish to continue with a new hearing.
Ms B asked for her costs and the judge ruled that as Ms B had been severely disadvantaged by having to pay £255 for a set-aside hearing, MIL should refund this to her within 14 days.
Prankster Note
MIL will have paid out around £500 to get this far for a claim involving a disputed £100 parking charge. Given that they have never been known to provide a valid deed of allocation they have no real prospect of success at a final hearing against defendants who raise this as a point of dispute.
Just recently it seems MIL have not been including the deed of assignment in their evidence packs - no doubt in the hope a judge will rule that it is satisfactory without having actually seen it.
It is surprising to people not in the know that a business can be run filing for claims which have no real hope of success at the hearing stage.
Ms Barry confirms she is extremely happy with the result so far and reports it is a lovely feeling when justice is done. She would like to encourage any motorist who has been unfairly lumbered with a CCJ to consider going through the set-aside process.
The Government recently announced a consultation to stop this nasty practice of granting judgments without confirming the victim's address.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-to-protect-consumers-from-debt-claims
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Ms B contacted the Prankster because she discovered a CCJ had been lodged against her at a previous address. She had not lived there since February 2015. The claim did not provide much to go on. Ms B contacted MIL and spoke to an arrogant representative who told her that MIL Collections had purchased a disputed parking charge from North West Parking Enforcement from 2014, the CCJ was now with the bailiffs and that they were in the process of taking her to court for another ticket. He informed her that she had to pay £100 to stop the new court hearing, but refused to provide any details of what the charge was for.
This obviously worried Ms B who contacted The Prankster
The Prankster assisted her to advise of the process for requesting a set-aside of the judgement. MIL stated they would not contest the set-aside, as long as Ms B paid them all the money they wanted, and did not claim against them for the set-aside fee of £255. The Prankster pointed out that this did not appear to be a particularly good bargain, seeing as MIL had lost all reported cases. Ms B decided not to accept the offer and so MIL contested the set-aside. The Prankster provided a witness statement detailing the known problems with MIL's purported deed of assignment, the fact that these issues had been substantially dealt with by a judge in the same court, and the fact that MIL appeared to be recycling the same undated deed of assignment in multiple cases, claiming it had been assigned on different dates each time.
The Hearing
MIL Collections sent an advocate to the hearing. Ms B made contact and described him as a lovely old man. The hearing was an hour behind schedule and there was a previous MIL case. Ms B was unaware of the outcome. In the hearing it appeared that the set-aside form and witness statement were all that was necessary. DJ Smith hardly had a word to say to Ms B and instead concentrated on grilling MIL's advocate.
Ms B was initially worried about having to prove she would win any rehearing but Judge Smith stopped MIL's representative from even trying to say anything about the case. He made it clear "that wasn't why we were are today and I am only judging on whether I should grant a set aside"
He wanted to know why MIL had made no attempt to verify Mr B's address before filing a claim. No satisfactory answers were forthcoming. The advocate stated MIL had got the data from the DVLA, which was not correct as they got it from NWPE. Ms B in fact had a letter from the DVLA confirming this but this was not needed. The Judge just looked at her and said "I take it when you moved house your car went with you?" and she just replied "Yes Sir". This was enough proof for the judge.
The judge granted the set-aside and pointed out that MIL would have substantial problems with their deed of allocation should they wish to continue with a new hearing.
Ms B asked for her costs and the judge ruled that as Ms B had been severely disadvantaged by having to pay £255 for a set-aside hearing, MIL should refund this to her within 14 days.
Prankster Note
MIL will have paid out around £500 to get this far for a claim involving a disputed £100 parking charge. Given that they have never been known to provide a valid deed of allocation they have no real prospect of success at a final hearing against defendants who raise this as a point of dispute.
Just recently it seems MIL have not been including the deed of assignment in their evidence packs - no doubt in the hope a judge will rule that it is satisfactory without having actually seen it.
It is surprising to people not in the know that a business can be run filing for claims which have no real hope of success at the hearing stage.
Ms Barry confirms she is extremely happy with the result so far and reports it is a lovely feeling when justice is done. She would like to encourage any motorist who has been unfairly lumbered with a CCJ to consider going through the set-aside process.
The Government recently announced a consultation to stop this nasty practice of granting judgments without confirming the victim's address.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-to-protect-consumers-from-debt-claims
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Wheel slightly over line; de-minimis applies. Claim dismissed as Ms Jackson stomps off
John Wilkie is the “Scarlet Pimpernel” of parking cases, as shown this week, when not only did he not turn up in Southampton for a case that was won, he also didn’t turn up in Carlisle to help win a case, or in Dudley to help win a case, or even to help win a Spinningfields case – all wins reported by the Prankster, and where, according to some online reports, Mr Wilkie was expected by the Parking Company.
They seek him here,
They seek him there,
John Wilkie pops up anywhere.
And so he popped up in Oldham on Monday, where De Minimis was the original argument.
Excel v Miss Bradsell C1DP6Q75 Oldham. 27/2/17
Miss Bradsell parked in a car park which was free after 6pm. The car park was almost full, and a previous driver had parked slightly over the line, which meant all other drivers had also parked slightly over. Miss Bradsell and her friend therefore also parked slightly over. No spaces were lost because of this intelligent response by the line of drivers. However, when Miss Bradsell returned she found the entire line had been ticketed.
The Hearing
Mr Wilkie arrived to represent Miss Bradsell.
Strangely, despite her poor showing in Stockport just a week previously, Ms Jackson, a solicitor's agent, arrived to represent Elms Legal who were representing BW Legal who were representing Excel Parking Services.
The Judges comments on right of audience were exactly the same as he politely showed her the door, stating that Elms Legal will really need to reconsider their position. On this occasion he did hand a copy of the “authority” letter to Mr Wilkie, but there was, as he stated, no Authority in the letter, simply instructions.
Ms Jackson took her leave to take further instructions….
Following this, Mr Wilkie quickly took the judge through the error-filled witness statement, the illegible signs showing both IPC and BPA membership credentials, the contradiction in terms and conditions, and the fact that, far from being parked “taking up two bays” as claimed by the witness statement, Ms B was clearly parked as fairly as possible, not obstructing the car in the next bay.
The judge, who also knew the car park intimately, and far better than the legal executive witness from BW Legal, gave a clear finding in favour of the Defendant, who was allowed her costs for attending.
He gave some strong words in the judgment about Rights of Audience, but no-one from Elms or BW Legal, or even Excel was present to receive his wisdom, so no doubt the same will be occurring again and again this week against defendants who know no better.
All in all any win is a good win. But this was an excellent win.
Prankster Notes
The concept behind De Minimis is that "the law does not concern itself with trifles." So if the letter of a contract is broken, but the spirit is not and no harm has been done, then no damages for breach contract apply.
In this case the wheel protruded a few inches over the line, but this did not stop other cars from parking and so no harm was done.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
They seek him here,
They seek him there,
John Wilkie pops up anywhere.
And so he popped up in Oldham on Monday, where De Minimis was the original argument.
Excel v Miss Bradsell C1DP6Q75 Oldham. 27/2/17
Miss Bradsell parked in a car park which was free after 6pm. The car park was almost full, and a previous driver had parked slightly over the line, which meant all other drivers had also parked slightly over. Miss Bradsell and her friend therefore also parked slightly over. No spaces were lost because of this intelligent response by the line of drivers. However, when Miss Bradsell returned she found the entire line had been ticketed.
The Hearing
Mr Wilkie arrived to represent Miss Bradsell.
Strangely, despite her poor showing in Stockport just a week previously, Ms Jackson, a solicitor's agent, arrived to represent Elms Legal who were representing BW Legal who were representing Excel Parking Services.
The Judges comments on right of audience were exactly the same as he politely showed her the door, stating that Elms Legal will really need to reconsider their position. On this occasion he did hand a copy of the “authority” letter to Mr Wilkie, but there was, as he stated, no Authority in the letter, simply instructions.
Ms Jackson took her leave to take further instructions….
Following this, Mr Wilkie quickly took the judge through the error-filled witness statement, the illegible signs showing both IPC and BPA membership credentials, the contradiction in terms and conditions, and the fact that, far from being parked “taking up two bays” as claimed by the witness statement, Ms B was clearly parked as fairly as possible, not obstructing the car in the next bay.
The judge, who also knew the car park intimately, and far better than the legal executive witness from BW Legal, gave a clear finding in favour of the Defendant, who was allowed her costs for attending.
He gave some strong words in the judgment about Rights of Audience, but no-one from Elms or BW Legal, or even Excel was present to receive his wisdom, so no doubt the same will be occurring again and again this week against defendants who know no better.
All in all any win is a good win. But this was an excellent win.
Prankster Notes
The concept behind De Minimis is that "the law does not concern itself with trifles." So if the letter of a contract is broken, but the spirit is not and no harm has been done, then no damages for breach contract apply.
In this case the wheel protruded a few inches over the line, but this did not stop other cars from parking and so no harm was done.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)