The British Parking Association have apparently appointed Wright Hassall to deal with the stayed POPLA cases, although they have not yet confirmed this.
Wright Hassall operate at the debt-collection end of the parking industry, sending out second stage debt collection letters on behalf of Gary Osner's firm ZZPS, and also filing claims on behalf of parking operators. This is therefore far from an independent appointment and The Prankster thinks it a wholly inappropriate choice.
There is now a huge of a conflict of interest. Wright Hassall already have relationships with the parking companies and have assisted with filing a number of claims. This means that they will potentially be having to deal with appeals involving their own clients. Even worse, as some courts have referred cases back to POPLA, there is also the possibility they will have to deal with their own cases.
If Wright Hassall start finding for motorists, what will they do about the similar cases they have filed on behalf of their clients? Will they recommend to their clients that they drop them? Will they feel obliged to rule for parking companies in order to not lose current customers and to not lose potential future customers. After all, its hardly a deal winner to have to say to your prospective customers that most of your claims are baseless.
If the appeal is turned down, and the motorist disagrees, will Wright Hassall be allowed to tout for business and file a claim on behalf of the parking company?
The Independent Appeals Service is secretive and furtive about the solicitors it uses for its decisions. There is therefore the possibility that Wright Hassall personnel also work for the IAS. As the IAS decisions are highly controversial, often showing either no parking related knowledge or obvious bias, this is a secondary worry.
Wright Hassall.
Aptly named for the nuisance factor they case to motorists. But not it seems a company who can deliver an independent service for the stayed POPLA appeals.
If you think that appointing a parking debt collector to hear stayed appeals is the wrong choice then consider voting for Barry Beavis's petition to introduce regulation into the private parking industry.
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
Wednesday, 10 February 2016
Tuesday, 9 February 2016
ParkingEye charge pensioners for being stuck in a queue
This article in the Mirror details how ParkingEye hit two pensioners for over half the basic standard weekly pension (£115.95). The pensioners were charged £85 for being stuck in a queue trying to leave St Peter's Retail Park in Mansfield. The park allows 45 minutes free parking and the pensioners were 15 minutes over the time because the car park was gridlocked. The traffic lights changed 4 times before they were able to exit.
The British Parking association code of practice requires a minimum 10 minute grace period for leaving a car park, and an unspecified grace period on arrival to park, find the signage and read it. The Prankster considers that a 5 minute grace period to do this is not unreasonable, especially considering the motorist was in his 70s. ParkingEye will therefore have been in breach of the code of practice for issuing this charge.
The couple panicked and paid at the reduced rate of £50 because the letter arrived only a few days before the discount expired and the full amount became payable.
ParkingEye's signage and cameras are currently installed illegally at the park, and they were ordered to apply for planning permission on 26 January 2016.
The park has been blighted by ParkingEye for a long time. In 2012, Councillors passed the following resolution.
Sadly this does not seem to have been followed through.
The Prankster has not asked Lord Neuberger to comment, but if did, he would probably have said all the couple needed was a watch. And a bulldozer.
ParkingEye recommended to the Supreme Court that people who do not like being charged by them avoid their car parks. The Prankster thinks this is sound advice, but sadly for Mr and Mrs Burditt this will have come too late.
If you think that pensioners should not be treated in this way for matters outside their control, and that £85 is far too high a charge compared to the standard pension, then consider signing Barry Beavis's petition, asking the government to regulate private parking.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
The British Parking association code of practice requires a minimum 10 minute grace period for leaving a car park, and an unspecified grace period on arrival to park, find the signage and read it. The Prankster considers that a 5 minute grace period to do this is not unreasonable, especially considering the motorist was in his 70s. ParkingEye will therefore have been in breach of the code of practice for issuing this charge.
The couple panicked and paid at the reduced rate of £50 because the letter arrived only a few days before the discount expired and the full amount became payable.
ParkingEye's signage and cameras are currently installed illegally at the park, and they were ordered to apply for planning permission on 26 January 2016.
The park has been blighted by ParkingEye for a long time. In 2012, Councillors passed the following resolution.
Resolution
1. This Council condemns the practices of Parking Eye Ltd at St Peter’s Retail Park particularly in their use of CCTV number plate recognition as they discriminate against disable users of the retail park, impose extortionate charges upon shoppers using the park and have failed, through inadequate signage, to properly advise users of the retail park as to the terms and conditions of parking.
2. This Council through its Managing Director shall write to Parking Eye Ltd requiring that:
Parking Eye Ltd abandons the number plate recognition system being used to monitor times when shoppers enter and leave the car park and revert to a pay and display ticketing system or adopt a pay on exit scheme
Parking Eye Ltd grants an amnesty to all those who have been sent penalty charge notices demanding the payment of unlawful and unjustified fines since taking over the management of the car park
Parking Eye Ltd refunds the fines they have collected to date since taking over the management of the car park
That the company sets up an appeals system run by a third party so that appeals against future alleged breaches of the parking regulations are dealt with fairly.
3. That the Managing Director shall write to the owners and managing agents of the retail park informing them that they expect Parking Eye Ltd to meet the Council’s requirements as set out above to make the car park user friendly to encourage, not discourage people to visit the retail park.
Proposed by :- Councillor M Lee
Seconded by:- Councillor J Bosnjak
Supported by:- Councillor S Ward
Sadly this does not seem to have been followed through.
The Prankster has not asked Lord Neuberger to comment, but if did, he would probably have said all the couple needed was a watch. And a bulldozer.
ParkingEye recommended to the Supreme Court that people who do not like being charged by them avoid their car parks. The Prankster thinks this is sound advice, but sadly for Mr and Mrs Burditt this will have come too late.
If you think that pensioners should not be treated in this way for matters outside their control, and that £85 is far too high a charge compared to the standard pension, then consider signing Barry Beavis's petition, asking the government to regulate private parking.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Monday, 8 February 2016
Independent Appeals Service credibility lowers another notch
The Prankster apologies for the possibly misleading blog title. Obviously it is not possible for something with zero credibility to fall lower.
This case, reported on pepipoo concerns a motorist who visited a Parking Awareness Services car park. There were two signs which caught her attention. One said that the car park was in operation 24 hrs/day and the other that was hand-written said “All day parking £7” with no indication that the ticket would expire before midnight. She therefore spoke to the attendant and asked for an all-day Parking Ticket and specifically informed the attendant that she was visiting the Blackpool Pleasure Beach. The attendant did not at any time ask when the she intended to return. The car park was almost next door to the Pleasure Beach and the attendant would be fully aware that it did not close until 10 pm. The attendant did not at any time before or after issuing the parking ticket warn the motorist that it would expire at 7 pm. The Attendant, after writing the ticket himself, placed it in the windscreen without showing it to the motorist.
On returning after 7 the motorist was surprised to find a parking charge.
She therefore appealed to the operator, and when that was rejected to the Independent Appeals Service, which also rejected the appeal. The motorist, correctly realising that the IAS had all the characteristics of a kangaroo court, knew the decision had no validity and so decided not to pay.
The kangaroo court stated it was the motorist's responsibility to produce photographs of signage, which of course is a complete reversal of the ways courts behave; in a real court it is the claimant's responsibility to prove their case.
Matthew Wild of PAS, no doubt emboldened by the IAS decision, eventually plucked up enough courage after 8 months to file a court claim. He decided not to use Gladstones Solicitors, no doubt reasoning that he was perfectly capable of losing his own case, without the need to pay fees to Gladstones to lose on his behalf.
This duly happened, and the claim was dismissed on the grounds that no contract could have been formed. There was a lack of signs stating an expiry time, so as the motorist was not aware (and could not reasonably be aware) of the 7pm time limit on the ticket at the time they purchased the ticket, the terms of the contract were void. (Prankster note; the ticket was merely a receipt that could not introduce a new condition. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971) is case law which explains this).
Mr Wild therefore had to shell out an estimated £200 or more, but on the plus side he did get two very nice days out in Stoke, which no doubt made the whole thing worthwhile.
Prankster Note
The IAS is a cruel joke on the less able members of the IPC, who have little or no knowledge of the legal areas around parking on private land. The IAS baristas are equally talented, which makes the situation something of the blind leading the blind. Winning an IAS appeal raises expectations of the parking operator that they actually have a case. As we see, a real judge takes the opposite view.
This does not help poor Mr Wild, who is now £200 lighter, albeit he may now have many happy tourist memories of Stoke. As he has also forked out £15 for the IAS appeal he might well be coming to the conclusion that this forum shopping malarkey is not all its made out to be.
If you think the IAS is a cruel joke on operators and the government should step in to put them out of their misery, consider signing Barry Beavis's petition.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
This case, reported on pepipoo concerns a motorist who visited a Parking Awareness Services car park. There were two signs which caught her attention. One said that the car park was in operation 24 hrs/day and the other that was hand-written said “All day parking £7” with no indication that the ticket would expire before midnight. She therefore spoke to the attendant and asked for an all-day Parking Ticket and specifically informed the attendant that she was visiting the Blackpool Pleasure Beach. The attendant did not at any time ask when the she intended to return. The car park was almost next door to the Pleasure Beach and the attendant would be fully aware that it did not close until 10 pm. The attendant did not at any time before or after issuing the parking ticket warn the motorist that it would expire at 7 pm. The Attendant, after writing the ticket himself, placed it in the windscreen without showing it to the motorist.
On returning after 7 the motorist was surprised to find a parking charge.
She therefore appealed to the operator, and when that was rejected to the Independent Appeals Service, which also rejected the appeal. The motorist, correctly realising that the IAS had all the characteristics of a kangaroo court, knew the decision had no validity and so decided not to pay.
The kangaroo court stated it was the motorist's responsibility to produce photographs of signage, which of course is a complete reversal of the ways courts behave; in a real court it is the claimant's responsibility to prove their case.
Matthew Wild of PAS, no doubt emboldened by the IAS decision, eventually plucked up enough courage after 8 months to file a court claim. He decided not to use Gladstones Solicitors, no doubt reasoning that he was perfectly capable of losing his own case, without the need to pay fees to Gladstones to lose on his behalf.
This duly happened, and the claim was dismissed on the grounds that no contract could have been formed. There was a lack of signs stating an expiry time, so as the motorist was not aware (and could not reasonably be aware) of the 7pm time limit on the ticket at the time they purchased the ticket, the terms of the contract were void. (Prankster note; the ticket was merely a receipt that could not introduce a new condition. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971) is case law which explains this).
Mr Wild therefore had to shell out an estimated £200 or more, but on the plus side he did get two very nice days out in Stoke, which no doubt made the whole thing worthwhile.
Prankster Note
The IAS is a cruel joke on the less able members of the IPC, who have little or no knowledge of the legal areas around parking on private land. The IAS baristas are equally talented, which makes the situation something of the blind leading the blind. Winning an IAS appeal raises expectations of the parking operator that they actually have a case. As we see, a real judge takes the opposite view.
This does not help poor Mr Wild, who is now £200 lighter, albeit he may now have many happy tourist memories of Stoke. As he has also forked out £15 for the IAS appeal he might well be coming to the conclusion that this forum shopping malarkey is not all its made out to be.
If you think the IAS is a cruel joke on operators and the government should step in to put them out of their misery, consider signing Barry Beavis's petition.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Sunday, 7 February 2016
UK Parking Control promise to stop issuing charges on landowner's drive
UK Parking control are sailing pretty close to the wind. Currently they are on maximum sanction points and one more offence will see them banned from the DVLA database again, and facing possible expulsion from the BPA.
It therefore came as a surprise to The Prankster to find they had been issuing tickets on land where they had no authority. Although they have signage in the vicinity and have been issuing tickets since 2012, this week they started to trespass on private property and issue one resident multiple tickets on his own driveway.
Thankfully a robust letter sorted the problem out and UKPC have cancelled the charges and promised never to issue tickets there again.
The landowner is now happy. Happier than his neighbours in fact, some of who have paid up for these bogus charges in the past as this was the only way to stop the threatening letters.
Prankster Note
Issuing parking charges without authority is a breach of the code of practice.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
It therefore came as a surprise to The Prankster to find they had been issuing tickets on land where they had no authority. Although they have signage in the vicinity and have been issuing tickets since 2012, this week they started to trespass on private property and issue one resident multiple tickets on his own driveway.
Thankfully a robust letter sorted the problem out and UKPC have cancelled the charges and promised never to issue tickets there again.
The landowner is now happy. Happier than his neighbours in fact, some of who have paid up for these bogus charges in the past as this was the only way to stop the threatening letters.
Prankster Note
Issuing parking charges without authority is a breach of the code of practice.
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Saturday, 6 February 2016
Will Hurley and John Davies member reaches new low
Will Hurley and John Davies run the Independent Parking Committee. Their members are essentially the bottom feeders of the industry, using dodgy tactics and pushing the envelope of what is and is not allowable. Recently for instance, some of their members stopped allowing vehicle keepers to appeal either the notice to driver or the notice to keeper. This is ironic since their appeals service, the Independent Appeals Service, fits all the criteria for a kangaroo court and finds increasingly desperate ways to avoid allowing motorists appeals. John Davies boasted his service only allows 20% of appeals and even one of their own members accidentally revealed the service's results were a formality.
The IPC attract the worst of the parking companies and it has been said that each time a company leaves the British Parking Association for the IPC it simultaneously raises the level of ethics in both trade associations.
The jewel in the IPC crown is Excel Parking/Vehicle Control Services. The Prankster is disturbed to find out that VCS have found a tactic which hits a new low, even for IPC members. According to this post on moneysaving expert, VCS are now issuing tickets to vehicles for stopping where stopping is not permitted - while queuing at a barrier!
This tactic is particularly disturbing because this is the barrier to the hire car return pool, and typically hire companies will add an extra £50 or more on to any parking charge for administrative purposes. Although their contracts generally do not allow them to do this, this does not stop them and it is then a fight for the motorist to get their money back.
The parking charge was issued by the VCS mobile car who doctored the evidence by cutting off the car that was at the barrier from the picture but you can apparently still see 3 cars in the queue and the wheels turned on the motorists car in order to get through the barrier. It is clear then this is a deliberate move by the VCS car operator, and since the headquarters staff (who have full access to the CCTV and vehicle location) did not quibble and still issued a PCN it appears this odious practice must have been condoned by management.
The Prankster has been banned by Will Hurley from contacting the IPC to report incidents like this, but when The Prankster reported similar evidence doctoring to the British Parking Association this resulted in UK Parking Control getting banned from the DVLA for forging timestamps on photographs.
The Prankster will therefore wait and see whether anything happens about this, or whether Will Hurley and John Davies are too scared to discipline their top customer. In The Prankster's opinion, if Will Hurley and John Davies do not stamp this practice out and impose a temporary ban as a warning to others, this will confirm them to be shysters of the top order, condoning the worst practices of the private parking industry.
If you think people like Will Hurley and John Davis are not competent to regulate the parking industry, consider signing this petition to ask the Government to look at the issues.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
The IPC attract the worst of the parking companies and it has been said that each time a company leaves the British Parking Association for the IPC it simultaneously raises the level of ethics in both trade associations.
The jewel in the IPC crown is Excel Parking/Vehicle Control Services. The Prankster is disturbed to find out that VCS have found a tactic which hits a new low, even for IPC members. According to this post on moneysaving expert, VCS are now issuing tickets to vehicles for stopping where stopping is not permitted - while queuing at a barrier!
This tactic is particularly disturbing because this is the barrier to the hire car return pool, and typically hire companies will add an extra £50 or more on to any parking charge for administrative purposes. Although their contracts generally do not allow them to do this, this does not stop them and it is then a fight for the motorist to get their money back.
The parking charge was issued by the VCS mobile car who doctored the evidence by cutting off the car that was at the barrier from the picture but you can apparently still see 3 cars in the queue and the wheels turned on the motorists car in order to get through the barrier. It is clear then this is a deliberate move by the VCS car operator, and since the headquarters staff (who have full access to the CCTV and vehicle location) did not quibble and still issued a PCN it appears this odious practice must have been condoned by management.
The Prankster has been banned by Will Hurley from contacting the IPC to report incidents like this, but when The Prankster reported similar evidence doctoring to the British Parking Association this resulted in UK Parking Control getting banned from the DVLA for forging timestamps on photographs.
The Prankster will therefore wait and see whether anything happens about this, or whether Will Hurley and John Davies are too scared to discipline their top customer. In The Prankster's opinion, if Will Hurley and John Davies do not stamp this practice out and impose a temporary ban as a warning to others, this will confirm them to be shysters of the top order, condoning the worst practices of the private parking industry.
If you think people like Will Hurley and John Davis are not competent to regulate the parking industry, consider signing this petition to ask the Government to look at the issues.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
Civil Enforcement Limited discontinue 20 claims
The Prankster previously blogged that Civil Enforcement Limited were filing claims where they were not giving out any details apart from the name of the car park - no date, vehicle registration, reason for claim, initial parking charge, or indeed anything useful which would give the recipient anything to go by to understand what the claim was about.
One common theme was that the sites were all ones where CEL no longer had a contract. It seems as if CEL were getting revenge on landowners for daring to cancel their contract with them.
This moneysavingexpert report details another claim. CEL originally tried to scam the motorist back in 2013/4 by issuing a ticket even though they were displaying a permit. The manager of the hotel assured the motorist the ticket would be cancelled and the motorist heard no more. Perhaps CEL pushed their luck and tried the scam once too often, because the hotel cancelled their contract in Febriuary 2015.
CEL decided to punish the hotel by resurrecting old tickets and filing claims. The motorist contacted the hotel and had difficulty getting through due to the large number of other motorists also phoning to complain.
The motorist found the original letter from the hotel manager informing them the charge would be dropped and therefore filed a counter claim.
Today the motorist has been contacted by the hotel informing them that CEL have dropped their claim, not only against them but also against 20 other similarly affected motorists.
The Prankster has been contact by a number of motorists, all of who had bogus tickets issued at sites where the landowner has now cancelled
The Prankster has also been informed that the BPA has received a number of similar complaints.
Prankster Note
Any landowner thinking of making a contract with Civil Enforcement or Creative Car Parks should think long and hard before putting pen to paper. CEL have already filed claims against hundreds of Co-op employees getting revenge on sites once The Co-op cancelled their contract.. Now this pattern has been repeated at a number of other sites.
Although CEL have dropped their claim against the motorist, the counter claim will still stand.
The motorist has promised to keep moneysavingexpert informed of developments.
If you think parking companies should not file claims without giving reasonable information on what the claim is about, and should not file frivolous claims once their contract has been terminated, consider signing Barry Beavis's petition asking for regulation of the industry.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
One common theme was that the sites were all ones where CEL no longer had a contract. It seems as if CEL were getting revenge on landowners for daring to cancel their contract with them.
This moneysavingexpert report details another claim. CEL originally tried to scam the motorist back in 2013/4 by issuing a ticket even though they were displaying a permit. The manager of the hotel assured the motorist the ticket would be cancelled and the motorist heard no more. Perhaps CEL pushed their luck and tried the scam once too often, because the hotel cancelled their contract in Febriuary 2015.
CEL decided to punish the hotel by resurrecting old tickets and filing claims. The motorist contacted the hotel and had difficulty getting through due to the large number of other motorists also phoning to complain.
The motorist found the original letter from the hotel manager informing them the charge would be dropped and therefore filed a counter claim.
Today the motorist has been contacted by the hotel informing them that CEL have dropped their claim, not only against them but also against 20 other similarly affected motorists.
The Prankster has been contact by a number of motorists, all of who had bogus tickets issued at sites where the landowner has now cancelled
The Prankster has also been informed that the BPA has received a number of similar complaints.
Prankster Note
Any landowner thinking of making a contract with Civil Enforcement or Creative Car Parks should think long and hard before putting pen to paper. CEL have already filed claims against hundreds of Co-op employees getting revenge on sites once The Co-op cancelled their contract.. Now this pattern has been repeated at a number of other sites.
Although CEL have dropped their claim against the motorist, the counter claim will still stand.
The motorist has promised to keep moneysavingexpert informed of developments.
If you think parking companies should not file claims without giving reasonable information on what the claim is about, and should not file frivolous claims once their contract has been terminated, consider signing Barry Beavis's petition asking for regulation of the industry.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Tuesday, 2 February 2016
Customers desert Morrisons in droves once ParkingEye arrives
This post on moneysavingexpert describes how Morrisons has become a ghost town since ParkingEye began enforcement in the car park.
The transformation took less than a month; a once busy car park is now only half-full*
The in-store cafe which normally would be full up with about 100 people now only had 6 at lunch time.
The manager confirmed this was not unusual and that the store was often like this now.He explained that since ParkingEye started enforcement he has had many many complaints and lost many customers.
Prankster Note**
ParkingEye made it quite plain to everyone in the Supreme Court that if people didn't like their terms and conditions then they should park elsewhere. Consumers have apparently taken them at their word and have voted with their feet, at least at this store.
The Supreme Court ruled that having ParkingEye working the car park for profit was beneficial to retailers, but it seems this is not always the case. This store proves the opposite is sometimes true. Somerfield also found the need to get rid of ParkingEye, paying £300,000 to terminate their contract. B&Q were even more desperate, forking out an estimated £400,000 to dispose of ParkingEye in a desperate attempt to stop the flow of leaving customers.
The plain fact is that it is not safe to park in a ParkingEye car park (even if you have got a watch). Their ropy technology and shoddy installations are apparent to The Prankster from the complaints he gets every day.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
* Half-empty for you pessimists
** This footnote is purely here as a tribute to Terry Pratchett
The transformation took less than a month; a once busy car park is now only half-full*
The in-store cafe which normally would be full up with about 100 people now only had 6 at lunch time.
The manager confirmed this was not unusual and that the store was often like this now.He explained that since ParkingEye started enforcement he has had many many complaints and lost many customers.
Prankster Note**
ParkingEye made it quite plain to everyone in the Supreme Court that if people didn't like their terms and conditions then they should park elsewhere. Consumers have apparently taken them at their word and have voted with their feet, at least at this store.
The Supreme Court ruled that having ParkingEye working the car park for profit was beneficial to retailers, but it seems this is not always the case. This store proves the opposite is sometimes true. Somerfield also found the need to get rid of ParkingEye, paying £300,000 to terminate their contract. B&Q were even more desperate, forking out an estimated £400,000 to dispose of ParkingEye in a desperate attempt to stop the flow of leaving customers.
The plain fact is that it is not safe to park in a ParkingEye car park (even if you have got a watch). Their ropy technology and shoddy installations are apparent to The Prankster from the complaints he gets every day.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
* Half-empty for you pessimists
** This footnote is purely here as a tribute to Terry Pratchett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)