In a welcome move, POPLA now hosts parking company evidence packs online.
This means that motorists will be able to download the evidence pack, rather than having to rely on the vagaries of the post.
This will also eliminate two avenues where parking companies used to try and exploit the system - saying evidence packs had been sent when they had not, and sending different evidence packs to POPLA and the motorist.
Although these exploits did not occur in great numbers, they did occur sometimes, and it is good news that POPLA has shut the door on these sharp practices.
It was also embarrassing to watch POPLA try and squirm out of sending motorists an evidence pack when they had not received one. Frankly, rather than engage in long and protracted disputes as to why they were not going to email the motorist a copy of the evidence they had, it would have been far easier just to email it.
The Prankster is glad POPLA have finally updated their systems to provide evidence packs electronically and congratulates then.
If you are using POPLA, one thing to note is the the evidence pack disappears after a while, so you should make sure you download and keep a safe copy.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankstern
Putting the fun back into parking
Click for guide to fighting ParkingEye court claims
Click for help with low-cost appeals and court defences
Thursday, 1 June 2017
Gladstones epic fail on behalf of AM Parking
AM Parking v "MA61", 31/06/2017. D4GF8736. Maidstone.
The Department of Utter Incompetence has been in full swing at Gladstones recently, and this claim proved no exception.
The full story is here on MSE.
AM Parking decided to pursue a parking event from back in 2014 and so filed a claim. As is Gladstones practice, the claim was vague to the point of uselessness.
The defendant represented themselves. AM Parking paid for Marcus Cleave from Elms Legal to attend on their behalf.
The defendant prepared well, given the paucity of available information, and obeyed the court's directions. Gladstones, going by their usual standards of apparently believing directions apply only to the other side and not to themselves, did not bother to file the witness statement on time.
The judge therefore started and ended proceedings with the following.
"We have a problem here, my directions were that the witness statements be submitted at least 14 days before the hearing. The claimant's statement was not received until the 24th. Therefore I cannot consider it and have no choice but to dismiss the claim."
Costs of £95 were awarded
Prankster Note
Gladstones do no proper due diligence before filing a parking claim because it costs too much money. This means that at the point of filing a claim they have no idea what exactly it is for (beyond some vague 'parking charge' related payment) and their particulars of claim reflect this.
They then attempt to stuff the true particulars of claim into their witness statement.
This means that if there witness statement is not allowed there is literally nothing for the court to go on, and the claim can only be dismissed.
AM Parking, you've been Gladstoned.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
The Department of Utter Incompetence has been in full swing at Gladstones recently, and this claim proved no exception.
The full story is here on MSE.
AM Parking decided to pursue a parking event from back in 2014 and so filed a claim. As is Gladstones practice, the claim was vague to the point of uselessness.
The defendant represented themselves. AM Parking paid for Marcus Cleave from Elms Legal to attend on their behalf.
The defendant prepared well, given the paucity of available information, and obeyed the court's directions. Gladstones, going by their usual standards of apparently believing directions apply only to the other side and not to themselves, did not bother to file the witness statement on time.
The judge therefore started and ended proceedings with the following.
"We have a problem here, my directions were that the witness statements be submitted at least 14 days before the hearing. The claimant's statement was not received until the 24th. Therefore I cannot consider it and have no choice but to dismiss the claim."
Costs of £95 were awarded
Prankster Note
Gladstones do no proper due diligence before filing a parking claim because it costs too much money. This means that at the point of filing a claim they have no idea what exactly it is for (beyond some vague 'parking charge' related payment) and their particulars of claim reflect this.
They then attempt to stuff the true particulars of claim into their witness statement.
This means that if there witness statement is not allowed there is literally nothing for the court to go on, and the claim can only be dismissed.
AM Parking, you've been Gladstoned.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Residential ticket only cancelled after letters before claim issued
This thread on MSE tells the full story.
UKCPM issued a resident a ticket for parking in his own parking space. The motorist appealed on the basis that they were parked in their own space and UKCPM had not yet issued a permit.
UKCPM refused to cancel the charge, as did the joke appeals company the "Independent" Appeals Service, overseen by Bryn Holloway. As his minions appear to have little or no knowledge of parking law, with their precepts regularly overturned by proper judges, the credibility of Mr Holloway is called into question by The Prankster.
The residents lease gave the right to park and did not require a permit to be displayed.
The resident therefore instructed UKCPM, the management company and the developer to cancel the charge. No reply was received apart from a letter from Debt recovery Plus increasing the charge.
After chasing up, several letters then followed with the developer trying to abdicate responsibility.
With forum help, the resident therefore sent a letter before claim, to the landowner, management company and UKCPM.
A few days later, the landowner cancelled the charge.
Prankster Note
The letters before claim are excellent examples to use for other residents in the same situation. The Prankster highly recommends them.
Residential parking companies are there to protect the residents from outside motorists, and not for them to fleece residents parking in their own spaces.
Will Hurley and John Davies provide a joke appeals service which does not uphold lawful appeals. This is of course attractive to the sleazy side of the industry as it allows them to get a good appeals record and pretend their charges are valid.
However, it is damaging long term to the whole parking sector. As this case shows, even though the IAS did not cancel the charge, it was cancelled when the resident asserted their legal rights and threatened to go to court to uphold them.
In this case the appeal was on the grounds that the resident had not received notification of any permit system, had not received a permit and that the signage displayed on 7 November 2016 was entirely inadequate.
In relation to signage, the IAS Barista stated that they had “some sympathy with this ground of appeal”, however then stated that as there was no independent evidence of where the sign was in
relation to the Parking Space they could not find in my favour. In relation to the permit, the adjudicator conceded that I was “unable to prove a negative” (ie that I had not received a permit or notice of the new system), but that, again, the appeal could not be allowed without
independent evidence.
In The Prankster's opinion, any appeals system which accepts the parking company evidence unquestioned, but dismisses the motorists evidence out of hand is biased and unfair and falls foul of ADR Entity statutory requirements. Schedule 3, requirement 3(c) has this condition:
The body ensures that no ADR official discharges his or her duties in a way that is biased as regards
a party to a dispute, or the representative of a party;
The Prankster suggests that the ADR Entity approval is removed from the IAS until they comply with the statutory legislation, and that Bryn Holloway is investigated to see if he is competent to oversee such a body and enforce the requirements. The Barista who interrupted their coffee making duties long enough to whip out such an incompetent decision should be the subject or retraining, and if they cannot make the grade, no longer used.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
UKCPM issued a resident a ticket for parking in his own parking space. The motorist appealed on the basis that they were parked in their own space and UKCPM had not yet issued a permit.
UKCPM refused to cancel the charge, as did the joke appeals company the "Independent" Appeals Service, overseen by Bryn Holloway. As his minions appear to have little or no knowledge of parking law, with their precepts regularly overturned by proper judges, the credibility of Mr Holloway is called into question by The Prankster.
The residents lease gave the right to park and did not require a permit to be displayed.
The resident therefore instructed UKCPM, the management company and the developer to cancel the charge. No reply was received apart from a letter from Debt recovery Plus increasing the charge.
After chasing up, several letters then followed with the developer trying to abdicate responsibility.
With forum help, the resident therefore sent a letter before claim, to the landowner, management company and UKCPM.
A few days later, the landowner cancelled the charge.
Prankster Note
The letters before claim are excellent examples to use for other residents in the same situation. The Prankster highly recommends them.
Residential parking companies are there to protect the residents from outside motorists, and not for them to fleece residents parking in their own spaces.
Will Hurley and John Davies provide a joke appeals service which does not uphold lawful appeals. This is of course attractive to the sleazy side of the industry as it allows them to get a good appeals record and pretend their charges are valid.
However, it is damaging long term to the whole parking sector. As this case shows, even though the IAS did not cancel the charge, it was cancelled when the resident asserted their legal rights and threatened to go to court to uphold them.
In this case the appeal was on the grounds that the resident had not received notification of any permit system, had not received a permit and that the signage displayed on 7 November 2016 was entirely inadequate.
In relation to signage, the IAS Barista stated that they had “some sympathy with this ground of appeal”, however then stated that as there was no independent evidence of where the sign was in
relation to the Parking Space they could not find in my favour. In relation to the permit, the adjudicator conceded that I was “unable to prove a negative” (ie that I had not received a permit or notice of the new system), but that, again, the appeal could not be allowed without
independent evidence.
In The Prankster's opinion, any appeals system which accepts the parking company evidence unquestioned, but dismisses the motorists evidence out of hand is biased and unfair and falls foul of ADR Entity statutory requirements. Schedule 3, requirement 3(c) has this condition:
The body ensures that no ADR official discharges his or her duties in a way that is biased as regards
a party to a dispute, or the representative of a party;
The Prankster suggests that the ADR Entity approval is removed from the IAS until they comply with the statutory legislation, and that Bryn Holloway is investigated to see if he is competent to oversee such a body and enforce the requirements. The Barista who interrupted their coffee making duties long enough to whip out such an incompetent decision should be the subject or retraining, and if they cannot make the grade, no longer used.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Bad day for Gladstones
Gladstones lost 4 out of 4 cases yesterday which were assisted by members of the MSE forum.
Gladstones are known for filing cases without doing any due diligence as to whether the claim is valid and has any hope of success. Instead, their strategy appears to be to file large numbers of cases with inflated costs and play the numbers game, hoping that a large number of defendants will be scared by the court process and will chicken out and pay up, even though there is no valid claim against them.
When a case is well defended, their track record is littered with discontinuances and losses.
Obviously this raises doubts about their competence, professionalism, and adherence to the solicitors code of practice. Gladstones have a duty of care to their customers, which includes advising them if a case is not likely to succeed.
In the Pranksters experience, large numbers of people who are affected are those who are vulnerable members of society; those least likely to be able to defend themselves. The Prankster therefore believes that this is also morally wrong, and that Will Hurley and John Davies should take a long hard look at themselves and the way they are lining their nests. If they can sleep soundly in their beds, knowing that their bank account is bolstered by money from people who did not legally owe it, but were scared into paying by their actions, then this says a lot about their moral character.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Gladstones are known for filing cases without doing any due diligence as to whether the claim is valid and has any hope of success. Instead, their strategy appears to be to file large numbers of cases with inflated costs and play the numbers game, hoping that a large number of defendants will be scared by the court process and will chicken out and pay up, even though there is no valid claim against them.
When a case is well defended, their track record is littered with discontinuances and losses.
Obviously this raises doubts about their competence, professionalism, and adherence to the solicitors code of practice. Gladstones have a duty of care to their customers, which includes advising them if a case is not likely to succeed.
In the Pranksters experience, large numbers of people who are affected are those who are vulnerable members of society; those least likely to be able to defend themselves. The Prankster therefore believes that this is also morally wrong, and that Will Hurley and John Davies should take a long hard look at themselves and the way they are lining their nests. If they can sleep soundly in their beds, knowing that their bank account is bolstered by money from people who did not legally owe it, but were scared into paying by their actions, then this says a lot about their moral character.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Wednesday, 31 May 2017
PCM lose Heath Parade claim
PCM UK v Ms C. 31/05/2017. C1GF92FF. Clerkenwell & Shoreditch
This MSE thread gives the full story.
The motorist stopped in a layby for under 2 minutes when there was an issue with her brakes. PCM claimed she was parked, and filed a claim for £235.50. The motorist filed a counterclaim for £250 for a breach of the data protection act.
PCM UK sent an advocate, Mr Akbol, who attempted to give Ms C more papers on the day; she resisted.
The judge dismissed the claim on 2 counts;
1. The grace period was, according to the claimant's evidence, 3 minutes, which isn't enough time to pull up, get out of the car, read the terms and leave.
2. Forbidding language on the signs - the largest sign saying NO CUSTOMER PARKING AT ANY TIME. This is echoed in the Claimant's sign.
The counterclaim was dismissed "because at the time of the event the Claimant had enough reason to believe a contract existed between the driver and them and it would be unfair to expect the Claimant to first conclude there was a contract agreement before pursuing the DVLA for details"
No costs were awarded to either party.
Prankster Note
The claim there is a grace period at this site appears to be false. All reports to the Prankster are that Ms Sunglasses appears as soon as a car stops and immediately begins snapping. There have been reports for instance, where a car stops, a person immediately alights to read the sign, then immediately returns to the car and leaves - yet still gets a parking charge.
Data Protection breaches occur at all parts of the process, not just the initial enquiry to the DVLA. Moreover, it is the parking companies responsibility to understand the law. So if their signage is forbidding, there would never be a good reason to believe a contract existed with any motorist. Parking companies have lost enough cases on this point (and they all read the Prankster blog) so that it could reasonably bes established they are well aware they are issuing charges which have no basis in law. The Prankster therefore believes the judge got the counterclaim decision wrong.
It seems yet another parking company have been conned into making a no-hope claim by the greedy bunglers at Gladstones. Gladstones are run by Will Hurley and John Davies. Will Hurley and John Davies also run the IPC, a trade association given permission by the DVLA to access keeper details. It beggars belief that two incompetents who have such a poor grasp of the legal issues around parking, (as evidenced by their growing track record of losing parking cases), are allowed to run a parking trade association.
PCM UK, you've been Gladstoned!
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
This MSE thread gives the full story.
The motorist stopped in a layby for under 2 minutes when there was an issue with her brakes. PCM claimed she was parked, and filed a claim for £235.50. The motorist filed a counterclaim for £250 for a breach of the data protection act.
PCM UK sent an advocate, Mr Akbol, who attempted to give Ms C more papers on the day; she resisted.
The judge dismissed the claim on 2 counts;
1. The grace period was, according to the claimant's evidence, 3 minutes, which isn't enough time to pull up, get out of the car, read the terms and leave.
2. Forbidding language on the signs - the largest sign saying NO CUSTOMER PARKING AT ANY TIME. This is echoed in the Claimant's sign.
The counterclaim was dismissed "because at the time of the event the Claimant had enough reason to believe a contract existed between the driver and them and it would be unfair to expect the Claimant to first conclude there was a contract agreement before pursuing the DVLA for details"
No costs were awarded to either party.
Prankster Note
The claim there is a grace period at this site appears to be false. All reports to the Prankster are that Ms Sunglasses appears as soon as a car stops and immediately begins snapping. There have been reports for instance, where a car stops, a person immediately alights to read the sign, then immediately returns to the car and leaves - yet still gets a parking charge.
Data Protection breaches occur at all parts of the process, not just the initial enquiry to the DVLA. Moreover, it is the parking companies responsibility to understand the law. So if their signage is forbidding, there would never be a good reason to believe a contract existed with any motorist. Parking companies have lost enough cases on this point (and they all read the Prankster blog) so that it could reasonably bes established they are well aware they are issuing charges which have no basis in law. The Prankster therefore believes the judge got the counterclaim decision wrong.
It seems yet another parking company have been conned into making a no-hope claim by the greedy bunglers at Gladstones. Gladstones are run by Will Hurley and John Davies. Will Hurley and John Davies also run the IPC, a trade association given permission by the DVLA to access keeper details. It beggars belief that two incompetents who have such a poor grasp of the legal issues around parking, (as evidenced by their growing track record of losing parking cases), are allowed to run a parking trade association.
PCM UK, you've been Gladstoned!
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Millennium lose in Port Talbot
Millennium v 'JackBasta' Port Talbot C2GF3V4A 31/05/2017. DJ Bennett.
This thread on MSE contains the full story.
Millennium were resurrecting an old parking charge dating back to the summer of 2012.
The motorist represented themselves. Millennium were represented by their employee, India Beavan. The claim was filed by those well-known incompetents, Gladstones Solicitors, with the factually challenged Helen Cook signing the claim.
India is a former bartender from Li'l London, has a law degree from Swansea and is now Head of Appeals & Litigation at the Millennium Group
The motorist was fully prepared to challenge right of audience. However, as Ms. Beavan is an employee this does not apply. They didn't need to worry too much - District Judge Bennett tore her a new one anyway.
The Judge started off by listing out all the documents in the bundles, and asked if there was anything missing. The motorist told her there should be two emails complaining about the Claimant's Witness Statement being a month late.
The Judge asked Ms Beavan why their Witness Statement was a month late without asking the court for permission.
"Don't know."
The motorist complained that the Claimant having a month to view their Witness Statement before submitting their own Witness Statement put them at a disadvantage. The judge didn't agree as there was nothing in their Witness Statement that wasn't "standard", and it was still received a month ago, so she would allow it.
The Judge then went on to the landowner contract and asked why that contract was dated 2015, 3 years after the event.
"We do have a proper one".
"Why didn't you use it then?"
"Don't know."
At which point the motorist raised the fact that all the pictures of the signs were a number of years out too. The Judge asked Ms Beavan why.
"Don't know."
Then the Judge moved onto the crux of the defence - they were going after the motorist as the registered keeper, had no proof who was driving, and the incident was pre-POFA.
Ms Beavan stated they were going after the motorist as the driver. The Judge asked for proof of the driver. Ms Beavan said "We don't have any".
At which point the Judge said "You've pretty much fallen on your own sword here. I'm dismissing the claim."
The motorist asked for costs at which point the judge produced the costs schedule put in with the defence.
The Judge explained that costs would only be allowed if the claim was seen to be unreasonable and for the reasons detailed above, this was judged to be an unreasonable claim.
Total awarded to the motorist; £197.34.
Millennium - you've been Gladstoned.
Prankster Notes
In the Prankster's opinion, Helen Cook should examine her competence in advising her client to take out a claim which was so hopeless the judge gave costs for unreasonableness. Perhaps her bosses Will Hurley and John Davies will schedule her for disciplinary action. Solicitors after all have a duty of care to their clients.
It is strange Ms Beavan did not know why her own witness statement was filed late. After all, it is pretty much a template regurgitated every case, and she is after all Head of Litigation. If they did have a contract in force at the time of the event, it does seem strange that they did not file it as evidence.
Millennium were confused as to the amount owed. The signage says £100. The parking charge notice was for £150. The zatpark amount was £75. The court claim was for £125 plus other charges.
Additionally, the Parking Charge Notice had the IPC logo at the bottom even though the IPC did not exist at the time and Millennium were members of the BPA at the time, and therefore was clearly a fake.
There were 2 other cases at Port Talbot today. The Prankster has no idea how Ms Beavan fared with those.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
This thread on MSE contains the full story.
Millennium were resurrecting an old parking charge dating back to the summer of 2012.
The motorist represented themselves. Millennium were represented by their employee, India Beavan. The claim was filed by those well-known incompetents, Gladstones Solicitors, with the factually challenged Helen Cook signing the claim.
India is a former bartender from Li'l London, has a law degree from Swansea and is now Head of Appeals & Litigation at the Millennium Group
The motorist was fully prepared to challenge right of audience. However, as Ms. Beavan is an employee this does not apply. They didn't need to worry too much - District Judge Bennett tore her a new one anyway.
The Judge started off by listing out all the documents in the bundles, and asked if there was anything missing. The motorist told her there should be two emails complaining about the Claimant's Witness Statement being a month late.
The Judge asked Ms Beavan why their Witness Statement was a month late without asking the court for permission.
"Don't know."
The motorist complained that the Claimant having a month to view their Witness Statement before submitting their own Witness Statement put them at a disadvantage. The judge didn't agree as there was nothing in their Witness Statement that wasn't "standard", and it was still received a month ago, so she would allow it.
The Judge then went on to the landowner contract and asked why that contract was dated 2015, 3 years after the event.
"We do have a proper one".
"Why didn't you use it then?"
"Don't know."
At which point the motorist raised the fact that all the pictures of the signs were a number of years out too. The Judge asked Ms Beavan why.
"Don't know."
Then the Judge moved onto the crux of the defence - they were going after the motorist as the registered keeper, had no proof who was driving, and the incident was pre-POFA.
Ms Beavan stated they were going after the motorist as the driver. The Judge asked for proof of the driver. Ms Beavan said "We don't have any".
At which point the Judge said "You've pretty much fallen on your own sword here. I'm dismissing the claim."
The motorist asked for costs at which point the judge produced the costs schedule put in with the defence.
The Judge explained that costs would only be allowed if the claim was seen to be unreasonable and for the reasons detailed above, this was judged to be an unreasonable claim.
Total awarded to the motorist; £197.34.
Millennium - you've been Gladstoned.
Prankster Notes
In the Prankster's opinion, Helen Cook should examine her competence in advising her client to take out a claim which was so hopeless the judge gave costs for unreasonableness. Perhaps her bosses Will Hurley and John Davies will schedule her for disciplinary action. Solicitors after all have a duty of care to their clients.
It is strange Ms Beavan did not know why her own witness statement was filed late. After all, it is pretty much a template regurgitated every case, and she is after all Head of Litigation. If they did have a contract in force at the time of the event, it does seem strange that they did not file it as evidence.
Millennium were confused as to the amount owed. The signage says £100. The parking charge notice was for £150. The zatpark amount was £75. The court claim was for £125 plus other charges.
Additionally, the Parking Charge Notice had the IPC logo at the bottom even though the IPC did not exist at the time and Millennium were members of the BPA at the time, and therefore was clearly a fake.
There were 2 other cases at Port Talbot today. The Prankster has no idea how Ms Beavan fared with those.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Thursday, 25 May 2017
Motorist awarded £900 for data protection breach by parking company
D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne
This thread on MSE details the story of a motorist awarded £900 because a parking company committed data protection breaches against him.
The parking company was Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL), who have a long history of making bogus inflated court claims and then discontinuing if a robust defence is filed.
Mr B. was the vehicle keeper but was not the driver on the day. As CEL do not use keeper liability, they had not valid claim against the keeper. In addition, and aided bylaw firm Wright Hassall, they artificially inflated the claim from £100 to £300 by adding spurious amounts. Mr B filed a counterclaim for breaches of the data protection act. True to form, CEL discontinued the claim, which left only the counterclaim to be decided.
Barry Beavis assisted Mr B in preparing the paperwork and acting as his lay representative.
The case was heard by DJ Osborne at Bury. The DJ was initially critical of the defendant for failing to file papers and obey court directions.
However, he then interviewed Mr B as witness, establishing the validity of the counterclaim and the distress caused.
In his judgment DJ Osborne ruled a data breach had occurred, the tort of damages was applicable and that £500 was not an unreasonable amount in the circumstances.
He added an additional £405 in costs, part of which were awarded under rule 27.14.2(g) for the unreasonable behaviour of CEL.
He also stated he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case, and in the behaviour of Wright Hassall who were otherwise a respectable law firm.
This thread on MSE details the story of a motorist awarded £900 because a parking company committed data protection breaches against him.
The parking company was Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL), who have a long history of making bogus inflated court claims and then discontinuing if a robust defence is filed.
Mr B. was the vehicle keeper but was not the driver on the day. As CEL do not use keeper liability, they had not valid claim against the keeper. In addition, and aided bylaw firm Wright Hassall, they artificially inflated the claim from £100 to £300 by adding spurious amounts. Mr B filed a counterclaim for breaches of the data protection act. True to form, CEL discontinued the claim, which left only the counterclaim to be decided.
Barry Beavis assisted Mr B in preparing the paperwork and acting as his lay representative.
The case was heard by DJ Osborne at Bury. The DJ was initially critical of the defendant for failing to file papers and obey court directions.
However, he then interviewed Mr B as witness, establishing the validity of the counterclaim and the distress caused.
In his judgment DJ Osborne ruled a data breach had occurred, the tort of damages was applicable and that £500 was not an unreasonable amount in the circumstances.
He added an additional £405 in costs, part of which were awarded under rule 27.14.2(g) for the unreasonable behaviour of CEL.
He also stated he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case, and in the behaviour of Wright Hassall who were otherwise a respectable law firm.
Prankster Notes
It is important to obey all court instructions. Witness statements and evidence need to be filed on time, otherwise a winning case can be lost by procedural errors.
A number of cases have now established that a data protection breach can occur when a parking company pursues a charge which is not valid, or an over-inflated charge, or both.
The size of damages will depend on the facts of each individual case .This case establishes that a claim of £500 is not unreasonable for the particular circumstances of today's case.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)