At least one case has already been stayed until the Supreme Court has had a chance to decide on the Beavis case.
29 April 2015 Kingston upon Thames. ParkingEye v Mr B A7FC835N
Before the case, ParkingEye's representative from LPC Law asked the clerk to point out Mr B. He approached the defendant and said that ParkingEye v Beavis has gone in ParkingEye's favour. Mr B replied that he would ask for an adjournment until the Supreme Court ruling. The LPC Law representative laughed and said that was not going to happen as the court would not want to prolong the case. Mr B replied 'See you in court.'
As it happened the judge agreed with Mr B and the case is now stayed. The LPC Law representative was not pleased, but on the other hand he still trousered an estimated £200-£300 so that's not bad money for a few minutes work.
ParkingEye are known to be writing to the courts to get the stay lifted on all cases which were held over until the Beavis result. The Prankster suggests all defendants write back to the court, opposing the lifting of the stay, quoting the above case and asking for the stay to remain until the Supreme Court hearing has been held.
The Prankster does wonder at the sensibleness of ParkingEye's strategy. If they do succeed in getting the stay lifted only for it to be reapplied at a hearing, their eventual LPC Law costs for 3 hearings will be around £900. As the parking charge is a maximum of £100, they will out of pocket by £800 even if they finally win the case.
Currently the largest number of hearings a case has taken (that the Prankster is aware of) is 3, which means ParkingEye will be down by £1100 if they choose to go to a fourth hearing and win, or £1400 if it gets stayed again and goes to a fifth hearing.
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
Sunday, 3 May 2015
Thursday, 30 April 2015
ParkingEye kicked out of Fistral?
ParkingEye have apparently been kicked out of Fistral Beach, with Smart Parking taking over.
ParkingEye caused great misery at this car park, with confusing and inadequate signage ensuring a steady revenue stream for parking infringements.
The change between summer and winter tarrifs was also a great source of confusion to motorists and profit to ParkingEye.
The Prankster will investigate the new signage to see if an improvement has occurred - however, perhaps the best way to determine this would be to keep an eye on the forums and see if complaints about bad signage at this car park decrease.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
ParkingEye caused great misery at this car park, with confusing and inadequate signage ensuring a steady revenue stream for parking infringements.
The change between summer and winter tarrifs was also a great source of confusion to motorists and profit to ParkingEye.
The Prankster will investigate the new signage to see if an improvement has occurred - however, perhaps the best way to determine this would be to keep an eye on the forums and see if complaints about bad signage at this car park decrease.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Saturday, 25 April 2015
Beavis fund hits target after one day
Barry Beavis now has enough in the war chest to file an appeal and bundle. The fund was launched yesterday morning and took one day to achieve the target goal of £6,000
The fund was largely filled by ordinary motorists chipping in between £1 and £20, although there were also some larger donations.
The fact that the fund was filled so quickly shows the strength of feeling the ordinary person has on this subject.
The Prankster feels strongly that parking regulation is needed, but also that there is no need to bend the rules to achieve this. Parking charges at council fine levels (£25) have been shown to work, and co-incidentally are also at roughly the level of a pre-estimate of loss. There is therefore no need to re-interpret the law; the current law works.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
The fund was largely filled by ordinary motorists chipping in between £1 and £20, although there were also some larger donations.
The fact that the fund was filled so quickly shows the strength of feeling the ordinary person has on this subject.
The Prankster feels strongly that parking regulation is needed, but also that there is no need to bend the rules to achieve this. Parking charges at council fine levels (£25) have been shown to work, and co-incidentally are also at roughly the level of a pre-estimate of loss. There is therefore no need to re-interpret the law; the current law works.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Friday, 24 April 2015
Barry Beavis launches fund to finance commencing appeal against 'cowboy' parking charge
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/supreme-court-appeal-to-beat-the-parking-bullies
Barry Beavis has launched an fund to commence his appeal against the recent Court of Appeal ruling. He needs to raise £1,600 to lodge the notice of appeal and a further £4,500 to lodge the Appellant's bundle.
The appeal needs to be lodged within 42 days of the judgment.
If 600 motorists donate £10 each, the fund will be raised. At the time of blogging 2% had been raised. The Prankster will shortly make his own contribution.
The Prankster views this as an important test case to stop the 'cowboys' in the parking industry.
Contributions can be made at this link.
Please share this blog and link on facebook.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Barry Beavis has launched an fund to commence his appeal against the recent Court of Appeal ruling. He needs to raise £1,600 to lodge the notice of appeal and a further £4,500 to lodge the Appellant's bundle.
The appeal needs to be lodged within 42 days of the judgment.
If 600 motorists donate £10 each, the fund will be raised. At the time of blogging 2% had been raised. The Prankster will shortly make his own contribution.
The Prankster views this as an important test case to stop the 'cowboys' in the parking industry.
Contributions can be made at this link.
Please share this blog and link on facebook.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Thursday, 23 April 2015
ParkingEye v Beavis appeal result - HHJ Moloney was wrong but appeal dismissed
The judgment is here.
The COA have neatly sidestepped the fundamental question of the appeal, which was whether penalties could be commercially justified.
The COA have neatly sidestepped the fundamental question of the appeal, which was whether penalties could be commercially justified.
Instead, they have ruled that PE’s charges should not be treated as penalties, and therefore unenforceable, because the level of charge is not ‘extravagant and unconscionable’ which they say is the true test of whether a clause is a penalty. Charges in line with council charges are acceptable.
In the HHJ Moloney hearing ParkingEye told HHJ Moloney their charges were in line with council penalties. However The Prankster has researched this and found this was a lie. In Cambridgeshire the council charges are £50, discounted to £25 if paid within 14 days. This is therefore half the level of the ParkingEye charge. (There are some higher level infringements charged at £70, but an overstay is £50)
They also say that there are social, or public policy, reasons why the charges should be enforced, because if they were not, the spaces in the car park would become unavailable for customers. They also say that PE would suffer a likely loss of contract with the BA Pension Fund if they were unable to perform the contract with them. (The Armageddon scenario).
It is also stated that the contractual arrangements between PE and the landowner are irrelevant for the purposes of this decision, so that blows the ‘fishing licence’ argument out of the water.
They have also said that the signage most likely creates a bare licence rather than a contract, although it was not in their remit to rule on that, but in any event the outcome would have been the same.
Their lordships thought the charge may actually be a contractual charge, rather than a charge for breach of contract. Their lordships thought this would make no difference but forgot that contractual charges attract VAT. This would therefore destroy ParkingEye's business model and require them to stump up significant backdated cash and penalties to HMRC.
Mr Hossain has prepared a submission requesting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, Mr Kirk has made a submission opposing it, and the CA have sent in a statement supporting Mr Hossain’s application.
Permission to appeal was granted.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Monday, 20 April 2015
Smart Parking fraud does not hit motorists or ASDA customers
The Parking Prankster has been informed of a fraud operated inside Smart Parking. The scam apparently involved cancelling parking charges, but instead of refunding the charges to the motorist, 'refunding' them to their own pockets instead. Strathclyde police were called in to investigate, but Smart Parking decided not to press charges due to the embarrassment this would cause. During the relocation of the headquarters from Perth, everyone involved 'left' the business.
The Prankster contacted Paul Gillespie, Group Chief Executive Officer, to verify the story and he responded with the following press release.
The Prankster was concerned that motorists who should have had their appeals upheld were not receiving their refunds. However, it seems as if this is not the case and either the appeals never would have been upheld in the first place, or the motorists have since been contacted and refunded.
Prankster Analysis
The Prankster was also informed that 80% of Smart Parking business is with ASDA, so it is likely that some ASDA customers would have been affected. The Prankster understands that ASDA have already been contacted and informed no ASDA customers were out of pocket.
The Prankster has been informed that Smart Parking charge ASDA nothing for their services, and instead take 50% of parking charges, with the other 50% going to ASDA.
According to 'The Grocer' ASDA generate a portion of the 'fines' it receives from misuse of disabled/parent child bays to Motability, totaling £68,400 last year. It is not known what they do with the 'fines' it receives for overstays.
The donation is likely to be less in the future. Smart Parking have poached Ben Jonson from ParkingEye, and are moving towards the ParkingEye model. This means they are getting rid of wardens on the ground and becoming more reliant on ANPR. Of course, ANPR cannot detect disabled bay and parent/child misuse so these amounts will dwindle.
Currently ASDA retain the right to cancel any charge but apparently Ben Jonson wants to do away with this because it is losing too much money. Although ASDA are resisting this, apparently Ben has played the strategic card and gone over their head straight to Walmart in an attempt to renegotiate the contract. If this is correct, ASDA customers can expect a far less sympathetic attitude to parking in the future. Perhaps ASDA should talk to Somerfield and B&Q to find what to expect next (clue - fewer customers).
Ben's role may well be to implement the ParkingEye model, ramp up PCNs, and inflate the value of the business for a possible sale. If so, he has already been successful with an increase in charges of over £1,000,000 in the last few months.
The Prankster will keep a close eye on ASDA in the coming months to see if they like this new regime.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
The Prankster contacted Paul Gillespie, Group Chief Executive Officer, to verify the story and he responded with the following press release.
The Prankster was concerned that motorists who should have had their appeals upheld were not receiving their refunds. However, it seems as if this is not the case and either the appeals never would have been upheld in the first place, or the motorists have since been contacted and refunded.
Prankster Analysis
The Prankster was also informed that 80% of Smart Parking business is with ASDA, so it is likely that some ASDA customers would have been affected. The Prankster understands that ASDA have already been contacted and informed no ASDA customers were out of pocket.
The Prankster has been informed that Smart Parking charge ASDA nothing for their services, and instead take 50% of parking charges, with the other 50% going to ASDA.
According to 'The Grocer' ASDA generate a portion of the 'fines' it receives from misuse of disabled/parent child bays to Motability, totaling £68,400 last year. It is not known what they do with the 'fines' it receives for overstays.
The donation is likely to be less in the future. Smart Parking have poached Ben Jonson from ParkingEye, and are moving towards the ParkingEye model. This means they are getting rid of wardens on the ground and becoming more reliant on ANPR. Of course, ANPR cannot detect disabled bay and parent/child misuse so these amounts will dwindle.
Currently ASDA retain the right to cancel any charge but apparently Ben Jonson wants to do away with this because it is losing too much money. Although ASDA are resisting this, apparently Ben has played the strategic card and gone over their head straight to Walmart in an attempt to renegotiate the contract. If this is correct, ASDA customers can expect a far less sympathetic attitude to parking in the future. Perhaps ASDA should talk to Somerfield and B&Q to find what to expect next (clue - fewer customers).
Ben's role may well be to implement the ParkingEye model, ramp up PCNs, and inflate the value of the business for a possible sale. If so, he has already been successful with an increase in charges of over £1,000,000 in the last few months.
The Prankster will keep a close eye on ASDA in the coming months to see if they like this new regime.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Wednesday, 15 April 2015
Vehicle Control Systems signage at Liverpool Airport...update
The Prankster previously blogged about the signage at Liverpool Airport. Since the blog, the signage has been updated.
Today's post examines the new signage at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, with grateful thanks to Esmerobbo who once again took photographs and made measurements.
Vehicle Control Systems try and pretend that anyone who drives into the airport enters into a contract to pay them £100 if they stop on the airport roads. The Prankster's first observation is that the first sign and the repeater signs 50 yards down the road contain the name of Vehicle Control Systems, as do one added sign near the free drop off entrance and another on the roundabout as you leave the airport. As it is a general principle that you must know who you are contracting with it is the Prankster's view that only these signs can form a contract.
Cut-off distance
A useful publication from the Department of Transport, 'Determination of x-height' is available at this link. It describes how font sizes are calculated on road signs. The first observation is that drivers must be able to read signs without moving their head more than 10% from the road. This is for safety reasons. Both the Independent Parking Committee and the British Parking Association agree with this in their respective code of practices.
The publication gives calculations to show how far away the sign is when the driver must turn their head back to the road. This is known as the 'cut off distance', C
The calculation is: C = S x cotangent of 10 degrees = S x 5.7
S is the offset distance, defined as the distance from the centre of the driving lane to the centre of the sign. On dual carriageways this is measured from the centre of the right-hand-most lane.
The road in question is a dual carriageway. There are now signs on both sides of the road. The DfT publication is silent on whether the driver can turn their head to the right as well as the left and whether this is a safe practice. The Prankster will therefore give the signage the benefit of the doubt and assume the 10 degree head angle can be to either side.
S is therefore given as (sign width /2) + distance from sign to road + 0.5 x width of one lane. Esmerobbo has kindly provided these distances as:
S = (.80/2) + 1 + 0.5 x (4) = 3.40m
This gives C = 3.40 x 5.7 = 19.38m.
The sign can therefore only safely be read from around 20m away. Any closer and the head angle is not safe for driving. As the first sign is placed 4.5m from a T-junction, it can never safely be read. There are repeater signs around 50m from the junction, so these can be safely read.
Reading Time
The next consideration is the number of words on the sign. DfT guidelines state that a sign should contain no more than 6 words or directions. This is the number that can be scanned safely in 4 seconds. Any more than that and the driver's eyes are off the road for too long.
Reading time R is given as 2 + N/3 seconds, where N is the number of words or directions on the sign. 2 seconds are given for the eyes to settle on the sign and start reading.
The sign contains 62 words, not including the small print at the bottom. This will take 23 seconds to read. The sign also contains several graphics, some of which also contain words. The only possible way to read the sign would be to stop on the road, but this will be a breach of the alleged contract.
The first six words, are 'No Stopping £100 CHARGE IF YOU...'. The ones in the biggest font, are 'N Stopping PRIVATE PROPERTY £100 CHARGE'
To form a contract there must be a meeting of minds. For this to take place, the driver must not only have time to read the sign, but also time to consider and digest the contract and decide whether to accept or not. In a car park, the driver can do this at their leisure; typically the operator will give 5 minutes for the driver to consider any contract and decide whether to accept or not. It is obvious that there can be no meeting of minds if the driver does not have time to read the sign, let alone have time to consider it, especially when their main focus must be on driving safely and not considering the intricacies of contract law.
Font Size
The final consideration is font size. The main 'NO STOPPING' is 11cm, the sub headings are 4cm and the main writing is 3.5cm.
The small print disclosing the £100 charge is therefore 4cm high.
The eyesight standards for driving are here. They require a driver to read a 8cm number plate at a distance of 20m. This translates into being able to read 4cm letters at 10m.
The road has a 40mph speed limit. At 40mph a vehicle travels 18 meters a second. The font becomes readable at 20m away, and the sign is passed around one second later. Two seconds are needed for 'settle time' before any words can be read. The small print is therefore not readable; by the time the driver's eyes have settled, the sign has been passed.
There also remains the impossible conundrum that to drive safely the driver must stop reading the sign at a distance of 19.38m, but can only read the signs once they get 10m away. Thus, the signs are never safely readable.
Guidelines
We can go back to the DfT guidelines and find out what they would recommend. The distance travelled while reading the sign R is given as:
R = reading time x speed (meters per second)
For the maximum 6 words at 40mph, we get R = 4 x 18 = 72m.
The driver therefore starts reading the sign at 72+42m (114m) and stops reading at 42m.
The first sign is 5m from the junction and therefore not within the 42-114m range
The repeater signs are 50m from the junction. They are within the 42-114m range, but only just, and are so only readable for about 8m (about 1/2 second at 40mph)
To read the signage at 114m, the DfT calculation for lowercase letters (known as X-height) is (100/60) x 114 = 19cm
Each lowercase letter should therefore be 19cm high.
The actual size of the biggest uppercase letter is 11cm. Therefore the biggest font is less than 1/2 of the required size.
The font hiding the parking charge is a tiny 4cm in size. This is about 1/5 of the required size.
Conclusions
Only a few signs are capable of creating a contract
The first sign is too close to the junction to be read safely
The repeater signs are also too close to the junction to have enough time to read
The signs contains ten times the number of words which can be read safely
The smallest font hiding the charge can never be read safely
The biggest font is only 1/2 of the required size for vehicles travelling at the speed the road allows
The small font hiding the charge is about 1/5 of the required size
The biggest font is only readable once the vehicle is too close for the driver to safely turn their head.
The biggest font is only readable for 1 second by a driver with legal eyesight travelling at the speed limit.
In The Prankster's opinion, there is no possibility these signs can ever be said to form a contract with the driver, and the signs actually tempt drivers into unsafe driving practices, by making them turn their head too far from the road, and keeping their attention off the road for too long.
The Prankster considers that VCS should have consulted with him regarding the signage. He would have told them where to put it. Instead, they have forked out a load of money for no benefit.
This week VCS chickened out of a court case regarding Liverpool Airport, despite the fact that the barristers used by the Independent Appeals Service have regularly argued that deficient signage like this can form a contract.
The Prankster will wait and see whether they go all the way with a case with this new signage.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Today's post examines the new signage at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, with grateful thanks to Esmerobbo who once again took photographs and made measurements.
Vehicle Control Systems try and pretend that anyone who drives into the airport enters into a contract to pay them £100 if they stop on the airport roads. The Prankster's first observation is that the first sign and the repeater signs 50 yards down the road contain the name of Vehicle Control Systems, as do one added sign near the free drop off entrance and another on the roundabout as you leave the airport. As it is a general principle that you must know who you are contracting with it is the Prankster's view that only these signs can form a contract.
Cut-off distance
A useful publication from the Department of Transport, 'Determination of x-height' is available at this link. It describes how font sizes are calculated on road signs. The first observation is that drivers must be able to read signs without moving their head more than 10% from the road. This is for safety reasons. Both the Independent Parking Committee and the British Parking Association agree with this in their respective code of practices.
The publication gives calculations to show how far away the sign is when the driver must turn their head back to the road. This is known as the 'cut off distance', C
The calculation is: C = S x cotangent of 10 degrees = S x 5.7
S is the offset distance, defined as the distance from the centre of the driving lane to the centre of the sign. On dual carriageways this is measured from the centre of the right-hand-most lane.
The road in question is a dual carriageway. There are now signs on both sides of the road. The DfT publication is silent on whether the driver can turn their head to the right as well as the left and whether this is a safe practice. The Prankster will therefore give the signage the benefit of the doubt and assume the 10 degree head angle can be to either side.
S is therefore given as (sign width /2) + distance from sign to road + 0.5 x width of one lane. Esmerobbo has kindly provided these distances as:
S = (.80/2) + 1 + 0.5 x (4) = 3.40m
This gives C = 3.40 x 5.7 = 19.38m.
The sign can therefore only safely be read from around 20m away. Any closer and the head angle is not safe for driving. As the first sign is placed 4.5m from a T-junction, it can never safely be read. There are repeater signs around 50m from the junction, so these can be safely read.
Reading Time
The next consideration is the number of words on the sign. DfT guidelines state that a sign should contain no more than 6 words or directions. This is the number that can be scanned safely in 4 seconds. Any more than that and the driver's eyes are off the road for too long.
Reading time R is given as 2 + N/3 seconds, where N is the number of words or directions on the sign. 2 seconds are given for the eyes to settle on the sign and start reading.
The sign contains 62 words, not including the small print at the bottom. This will take 23 seconds to read. The sign also contains several graphics, some of which also contain words. The only possible way to read the sign would be to stop on the road, but this will be a breach of the alleged contract.
The first six words, are 'No Stopping £100 CHARGE IF YOU...'. The ones in the biggest font, are 'N Stopping PRIVATE PROPERTY £100 CHARGE'
To form a contract there must be a meeting of minds. For this to take place, the driver must not only have time to read the sign, but also time to consider and digest the contract and decide whether to accept or not. In a car park, the driver can do this at their leisure; typically the operator will give 5 minutes for the driver to consider any contract and decide whether to accept or not. It is obvious that there can be no meeting of minds if the driver does not have time to read the sign, let alone have time to consider it, especially when their main focus must be on driving safely and not considering the intricacies of contract law.
Font Size
The final consideration is font size. The main 'NO STOPPING' is 11cm, the sub headings are 4cm and the main writing is 3.5cm.
The small print disclosing the £100 charge is therefore 4cm high.
The eyesight standards for driving are here. They require a driver to read a 8cm number plate at a distance of 20m. This translates into being able to read 4cm letters at 10m.
The road has a 40mph speed limit. At 40mph a vehicle travels 18 meters a second. The font becomes readable at 20m away, and the sign is passed around one second later. Two seconds are needed for 'settle time' before any words can be read. The small print is therefore not readable; by the time the driver's eyes have settled, the sign has been passed.
There also remains the impossible conundrum that to drive safely the driver must stop reading the sign at a distance of 19.38m, but can only read the signs once they get 10m away. Thus, the signs are never safely readable.
Guidelines
We can go back to the DfT guidelines and find out what they would recommend. The distance travelled while reading the sign R is given as:
R = reading time x speed (meters per second)
For the maximum 6 words at 40mph, we get R = 4 x 18 = 72m.
The driver therefore starts reading the sign at 72+42m (114m) and stops reading at 42m.
The first sign is 5m from the junction and therefore not within the 42-114m range
The repeater signs are 50m from the junction. They are within the 42-114m range, but only just, and are so only readable for about 8m (about 1/2 second at 40mph)
To read the signage at 114m, the DfT calculation for lowercase letters (known as X-height) is (100/60) x 114 = 19cm
Each lowercase letter should therefore be 19cm high.
The actual size of the biggest uppercase letter is 11cm. Therefore the biggest font is less than 1/2 of the required size.
The font hiding the parking charge is a tiny 4cm in size. This is about 1/5 of the required size.
Conclusions
Only a few signs are capable of creating a contract
The first sign is too close to the junction to be read safely
The repeater signs are also too close to the junction to have enough time to read
The signs contains ten times the number of words which can be read safely
The smallest font hiding the charge can never be read safely
The biggest font is only 1/2 of the required size for vehicles travelling at the speed the road allows
The small font hiding the charge is about 1/5 of the required size
The biggest font is only readable once the vehicle is too close for the driver to safely turn their head.
The biggest font is only readable for 1 second by a driver with legal eyesight travelling at the speed limit.
In The Prankster's opinion, there is no possibility these signs can ever be said to form a contract with the driver, and the signs actually tempt drivers into unsafe driving practices, by making them turn their head too far from the road, and keeping their attention off the road for too long.
The Prankster considers that VCS should have consulted with him regarding the signage. He would have told them where to put it. Instead, they have forked out a load of money for no benefit.
This week VCS chickened out of a court case regarding Liverpool Airport, despite the fact that the barristers used by the Independent Appeals Service have regularly argued that deficient signage like this can form a contract.
The Prankster will wait and see whether they go all the way with a case with this new signage.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)