ParkingEye v Mr H C7FC6J8D 28/3/17
Mr H purchased a ticket for what he thought was the correct amount at the Royal Free Hospital. ParkingEye disagreed. He appealed to POPLA. POPLA did not uphold his appeal.
ParkingEye therefore took Mr H to court.
The hearing
Mr H had very little to do. The judge started off by saying that it was up to the claimant not the defendant to prove their case. He said that as Mr H was saying that he had tried to pay, but either the payment machine was faulty or that the signage was in error, it was up to the claimant to prove that this was not the case.
Because the Parking Eye witness didn’t appear in person it was left to their solicitor to argue their case. She could only rely on the papers in front of her and as these didn’t contain any information to show that the machine was working properly, the judge found in Mr H's favour.
The judge wasn’t interested in anything else (Beavis, Cargius etc) and said that Parking Eye’s evidence was ‘just a lot of white noise’. It all seemed a little random. Perhaps a different judge would have come to a different conclusion.
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
Tuesday, 28 March 2017
Gladstones discontinue Heath Parade scam site claim
Gladstones have discontinued yet another claim for the notorious Heath Parade scam site.
The motorist used a defence based on the Prankster's earlier report on the site.
Will Hurley of Gladstones and the IPC had this to say of the Prankster "your comments and
approach lack any objectivity or credibility".
Obviously a man who takes money from his clients when he knows the claim has no validity is in the perfect position to make comments about credibility.
PCM UK, you've been Gladstoned!
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Will Hurley of Gladstones and the IPC had this to say of the Prankster "your comments and
approach lack any objectivity or credibility".
Obviously a man who takes money from his clients when he knows the claim has no validity is in the perfect position to make comments about credibility.
PCM UK, you've been Gladstoned!
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Monday, 27 March 2017
Prankster Blog gets 3 millionth hit
Parking seems to be a hot topic at the moment.
The blog got its 3 millionth hit today.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Sunday, 26 March 2017
BW Legal discontinue Albert Street claim
VCS v Ms C C8DP37CH. Claim discontinued
VCS have instructed BW Legal to discontinue yet another claim for car parking at Albert Street, Birmingham.
The problem VCS have is that the signage at Albert Street historically was in the name of Excel Parking services.
After discussing the claim with The Prankster, Ms C pointed this out in a robust letter to BW Legal.
Dear BW Legal,
I note that the signage at Albert Street at the time of parking was in the name of Excel Parking Services and not your client, VCS. Any contract made by the driver would therefore have been with Excel. Your client is therefore not a party to any contract and has no standing to bring a claim.
I therefore look forward to receiving your notice of discontinuance within 7 days.
If you fail to cancel the hearing I will ask for my full costs under 27.14(2)g
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27#27.14
This will include my full time spent on this matter at the litigant in person rate of £19/hour.
I refer you to the following blog posts, which confirm you are well aware of this matter from other cases.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/vehicle-control-systems-lose-wrong.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/vehicle-control-services-discontinue.html
I will make the court aware of these blog posts should you proceed to a hearing, as well as these cases which you are fully aware of.
Discontinued
VCS v Zozulya A8QZ6666
VCS v Ms M 3QZ53955
VCS v Ms O C8DP9D8C
VCS v Mr H C2DP0H7C
VCS v Mr W C1DP3H5V
Dismissed
VCS v Ms A C6DP7P37 claim dismissed.
BW Legal took a little longer than the 7 days, but a notice of discontinuance has now arrived.
VCS have instructed BW Legal to discontinue yet another claim for car parking at Albert Street, Birmingham.
The problem VCS have is that the signage at Albert Street historically was in the name of Excel Parking services.
Dear BW Legal,
I note that the signage at Albert Street at the time of parking was in the name of Excel Parking Services and not your client, VCS. Any contract made by the driver would therefore have been with Excel. Your client is therefore not a party to any contract and has no standing to bring a claim.
I therefore look forward to receiving your notice of discontinuance within 7 days.
If you fail to cancel the hearing I will ask for my full costs under 27.14(2)g
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27#27.14
This will include my full time spent on this matter at the litigant in person rate of £19/hour.
I refer you to the following blog posts, which confirm you are well aware of this matter from other cases.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/vehicle-control-systems-lose-wrong.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/vehicle-control-services-discontinue.html
I will make the court aware of these blog posts should you proceed to a hearing, as well as these cases which you are fully aware of.
Discontinued
VCS v Zozulya A8QZ6666
VCS v Ms M 3QZ53955
VCS v Ms O C8DP9D8C
VCS v Mr H C2DP0H7C
VCS v Mr W C1DP3H5V
Dismissed
VCS v Ms A C6DP7P37 claim dismissed.
BW Legal took a little longer than the 7 days, but a notice of discontinuance has now arrived.
Future Albert Street motorists can therefore send the same letter to BW Legal, but add in the link to this blog and the claim reference VCS v Ms C C8DP37CH.
Prankster Notes
The Prankster questions the morals of VCS owner Simon Renshaw-Smith for filing claims when he knows he has no standing to do so. Presumably he hopes the motorist will either be scared into paying up, or that if it goes to a hearing, neither the motorist or judge will realise the signage is in the wrong name.
The signage is now in the name of Vehicle Control Services. This matter only relates to historical parking events.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Coxeter House get rid of UK CPM due to shambolic enforcement.
Coxeter House is a retail site in Abingdon with a number of businesses and a car park of about 40 spaces.
Due the the size of the car park the landowners (Coxeters Ltd) desired that it only be used by genuine customers of the shops, and not by motorists who wished to park and go elsewhere. This is of course a perfectly reasonable desire on the part of Coxeters. There were historical problems with people parking and then leaving the site and customers not then being able to find a parking space.
They therefore contacted UK Car Parking Management who suggested they put in an unmanned solution where ANPR records vehicles entering and leaving, and customers record their genuineness by entering their registration on tablet computers held within the shops. In theory this all sounded fine, but in practice the system proved unworkable.
UKCPM had limited previous experience with systems of this type. The tablets were cheap and cheerful no-brand models and would continually break down. Large numbers of charges were incorrectly issued to genuine customers. The management team contacted the parking company who wrote back agreeing to cancel all incorrectly issued charges if Coxeters asked them to cancel.
However, the situation did not improve, and Coxeters found themselves spending huge amounts of time getting charges cancelled for their customers.
During the short period of 7 months the system was in operation, over 1,500 incorrect charges were issued, including to the directors of Coxeters, their tenants and their customers. This had the potential to harm their business and Coxeters therefore decided that UKCPM could no longer manage the car park. They tried to enter into dialogue, but UKCPM then became unresponsive.
In order to protect their customers, Coxeters turned off the power supply to the ANPR cameras. UKCPM then removed the cameras. After a number of letters threatening to sue, UKCPM backed down - but only for a little while.
There were still a large number of outstanding charges, and it appears the parking company then began to commence court proceedings only against motorists identified as genuine customers, and not those issued to people who should not have parked. To date UKCPM have not provided any evidence that this is not the case.
Aided and abetted by Gladstones Solicitors, they are now in the process of taking these customers to court.
This is of course totally against the wishes of the landowners, totally against the brief given to the parking company, and totally against the contents of the communications promising to cancel charges when instructed.
Coxeters wish to assist any genuine customers who have been caught up in this debacle. If you are a customer threatened with legal action, or who has a court claim, please contact coxeterhouseparking@gmail.com
Prankster Notes
Although there are about 200 parking companies registered with the trade associations, The Prankster only gets complaints about a very few. Sadly UKCPM are one of these, and it looks as if Coxeters picked a dud. Had they picked a different company, things could have turned out better. Meanwhile Coxters have turned to a manual patrol system operated by rhemselves and this seems to be working well.
Due the the size of the car park the landowners (Coxeters Ltd) desired that it only be used by genuine customers of the shops, and not by motorists who wished to park and go elsewhere. This is of course a perfectly reasonable desire on the part of Coxeters. There were historical problems with people parking and then leaving the site and customers not then being able to find a parking space.
They therefore contacted UK Car Parking Management who suggested they put in an unmanned solution where ANPR records vehicles entering and leaving, and customers record their genuineness by entering their registration on tablet computers held within the shops. In theory this all sounded fine, but in practice the system proved unworkable.
UKCPM had limited previous experience with systems of this type. The tablets were cheap and cheerful no-brand models and would continually break down. Large numbers of charges were incorrectly issued to genuine customers. The management team contacted the parking company who wrote back agreeing to cancel all incorrectly issued charges if Coxeters asked them to cancel.
During the short period of 7 months the system was in operation, over 1,500 incorrect charges were issued, including to the directors of Coxeters, their tenants and their customers. This had the potential to harm their business and Coxeters therefore decided that UKCPM could no longer manage the car park. They tried to enter into dialogue, but UKCPM then became unresponsive.
In order to protect their customers, Coxeters turned off the power supply to the ANPR cameras. UKCPM then removed the cameras. After a number of letters threatening to sue, UKCPM backed down - but only for a little while.
There were still a large number of outstanding charges, and it appears the parking company then began to commence court proceedings only against motorists identified as genuine customers, and not those issued to people who should not have parked. To date UKCPM have not provided any evidence that this is not the case.
Aided and abetted by Gladstones Solicitors, they are now in the process of taking these customers to court.
This is of course totally against the wishes of the landowners, totally against the brief given to the parking company, and totally against the contents of the communications promising to cancel charges when instructed.
Coxeters wish to assist any genuine customers who have been caught up in this debacle. If you are a customer threatened with legal action, or who has a court claim, please contact coxeterhouseparking@gmail.com
Prankster Notes
Although there are about 200 parking companies registered with the trade associations, The Prankster only gets complaints about a very few. Sadly UKCPM are one of these, and it looks as if Coxeters picked a dud. Had they picked a different company, things could have turned out better. Meanwhile Coxters have turned to a manual patrol system operated by rhemselves and this seems to be working well.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Michael Schwartz suspended for 5 years
The full report is here
http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files-sdt/11593.2017.Schwartz.pdf
Previously the SRA ordered that Mr Schwartz be suspended from practice as a solicitor for a period of 5 years from 9 September 2016, but that the suspension be suspended for 5 years from the same date subject to compliance with the following restrictions imposed by the Tribunal on the
Respondent’s practice as a solicitor.
Mr Schwartz failed to keep to the restrictions, and during the course of giving live oral evidence to the Tribunal during the hearing which took place on 22 December 2016 Mr Schwartz admitted:
The Tribunal therefore decided to activate the 5 year suspension.
Mr Schwartz is therefore suspended for 5 years from 9 September 2016
Prankster Notes
The issue of whether Mr Schwartz actually signed any of the witness statements he claimed to on behalf of Civil Enforcement Limited remains unresolved
The issue of whether Mr Schwartz invoiced for and was paid £50 to file numerous claims on behalf of Civil Enforcement limited remains unresolved
The issue of whether Mr Schwartz took any part in filing claims on behalf of Civil enforcement Limited remains unresolved
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files-sdt/11593.2017.Schwartz.pdf
Previously the SRA ordered that Mr Schwartz be suspended from practice as a solicitor for a period of 5 years from 9 September 2016, but that the suspension be suspended for 5 years from the same date subject to compliance with the following restrictions imposed by the Tribunal on the
Respondent’s practice as a solicitor.
Mr Schwartz failed to keep to the restrictions, and during the course of giving live oral evidence to the Tribunal during the hearing which took place on 22 December 2016 Mr Schwartz admitted:
- that he had deliberately and knowingly breached the restrictions on 14 September 2016;
- that he had then lied about having done so in a witness statement provided to the SRA and to the Tribunal at the December hearing.
The Tribunal therefore decided to activate the 5 year suspension.
Mr Schwartz is therefore suspended for 5 years from 9 September 2016
Prankster Notes
The issue of whether Mr Schwartz actually signed any of the witness statements he claimed to on behalf of Civil Enforcement Limited remains unresolved
The issue of whether Mr Schwartz invoiced for and was paid £50 to file numerous claims on behalf of Civil Enforcement limited remains unresolved
The issue of whether Mr Schwartz took any part in filing claims on behalf of Civil enforcement Limited remains unresolved
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Saturday, 25 March 2017
Overstone Court test case adjourned due to a procedural issue
The test case to examine whether tickets issued by Link Parking to residents and visitors parking in their own spots at Overstone Court, Cardiff was heard on 24/3/2017 at Cardiff Court, being listed for an all day hearing.
There were three defendants, two represented by John Wilkie and one by themselves. Martin Gardner of Link Parking attended and was represented by Mr Nash. Mr Nash, although legally qualified, did not possess rights of audience and was therefore appearing as a lay representative, charging Link £450 + VAT.
The hearing was in front of DDJ Pratt in Cardiff.
Rights of audience were discussed. DDJ Pratt ruled that there was no impediment to a lay representative charging for their time, and Mr Nash was therefore allowed to continue.
The next item was a procedural matter to do with one of the defendants. The court had failed to deal with this, despite this being filed back in January and served on the court, Link Parking, and their solicitors, Gladstones. The defendant's father testified in the witness box that he had served the papers on the court by hand, and on Link and Gladstones by first class post.
DDJ Pratt decided he did not have enough evidence to decide on the matter, and therefore adjourned the hearing for the parties to submit more evidence. The hearing was rescheduled for the next available slot in 35 days time, reserved to himself. Costs were reserved.
Prankster Notes
This is not the first time in these related cases that Cardiff court have failed to deal with procedural matters raised. In fact, this is at least the third time. There have now been 4 hearings, all of which could easily have been avoided if Cardiff court had got their act together and dealt with them prior to the hearing. This has caused a huge amount of wasted court time, and also wasted time and expense for the claimant and defendants. This is of course, taxpayers money which has been wasted, and there has now been around one and one half valuable court days thrown away by Cardiff court.
It is noted that the behaviour of Link and Gladstones have not helped, being obstructive at all times, even when previous similar matters have been decided against them. In a similar case, a DJ in Cardiff was extremely critical of Wright Hassall for not using case management to combine dozens of similar parking cases.
The hearing was adjourned because DDJ Pratt decided the issues raised by all defendants were interlinked, and he could not stop hearing one case while continuing with the other two.
The Prankster considers this to be an error. For instance, there have been and are still many cases concerning Overstone Court still continuing in Cardiff court, also raising the same issues in defence, and DDJ Pratt did not seek to make an order staying or combining those cases.
The Prankster considers that the case could still have gone ahead with two defendants, thereby avoiding the waste of court time. In the interest of efficient case management the court could have removed the third defendant. Thus all the major issues could have been dealt with on the day and without wasting court time.
The specific issues raised by the third defendant, which are only applicable to them, could then have been dealt with in a short second hearing if the parties wished to continue based on the results of the first hearing.
As a general note, Link Parking are a huge burden on Cardiff court. In 2016 the court with the most parking cases heard by any one court for any one parking company was Cardiff, hearing 94 Link Parking cases. The next biggest number was ParkingEye, with 49 cases in Manchester.
As these Link cases are mostly for the same sites with the same issues raised in defence The Prankster considers that Cardiff are missing a trick by not using their case management powers to combine hearings.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
There were three defendants, two represented by John Wilkie and one by themselves. Martin Gardner of Link Parking attended and was represented by Mr Nash. Mr Nash, although legally qualified, did not possess rights of audience and was therefore appearing as a lay representative, charging Link £450 + VAT.
The hearing was in front of DDJ Pratt in Cardiff.
Rights of audience were discussed. DDJ Pratt ruled that there was no impediment to a lay representative charging for their time, and Mr Nash was therefore allowed to continue.
The next item was a procedural matter to do with one of the defendants. The court had failed to deal with this, despite this being filed back in January and served on the court, Link Parking, and their solicitors, Gladstones. The defendant's father testified in the witness box that he had served the papers on the court by hand, and on Link and Gladstones by first class post.
DDJ Pratt decided he did not have enough evidence to decide on the matter, and therefore adjourned the hearing for the parties to submit more evidence. The hearing was rescheduled for the next available slot in 35 days time, reserved to himself. Costs were reserved.
Prankster Notes
This is not the first time in these related cases that Cardiff court have failed to deal with procedural matters raised. In fact, this is at least the third time. There have now been 4 hearings, all of which could easily have been avoided if Cardiff court had got their act together and dealt with them prior to the hearing. This has caused a huge amount of wasted court time, and also wasted time and expense for the claimant and defendants. This is of course, taxpayers money which has been wasted, and there has now been around one and one half valuable court days thrown away by Cardiff court.
It is noted that the behaviour of Link and Gladstones have not helped, being obstructive at all times, even when previous similar matters have been decided against them. In a similar case, a DJ in Cardiff was extremely critical of Wright Hassall for not using case management to combine dozens of similar parking cases.
The hearing was adjourned because DDJ Pratt decided the issues raised by all defendants were interlinked, and he could not stop hearing one case while continuing with the other two.
The Prankster considers this to be an error. For instance, there have been and are still many cases concerning Overstone Court still continuing in Cardiff court, also raising the same issues in defence, and DDJ Pratt did not seek to make an order staying or combining those cases.
The Prankster considers that the case could still have gone ahead with two defendants, thereby avoiding the waste of court time. In the interest of efficient case management the court could have removed the third defendant. Thus all the major issues could have been dealt with on the day and without wasting court time.
The specific issues raised by the third defendant, which are only applicable to them, could then have been dealt with in a short second hearing if the parties wished to continue based on the results of the first hearing.
As a general note, Link Parking are a huge burden on Cardiff court. In 2016 the court with the most parking cases heard by any one court for any one parking company was Cardiff, hearing 94 Link Parking cases. The next biggest number was ParkingEye, with 49 cases in Manchester.
As these Link cases are mostly for the same sites with the same issues raised in defence The Prankster considers that Cardiff are missing a trick by not using their case management powers to combine hearings.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)