Why Will Hurley and John Davies are Incompetent Scammers

6/7/2016 Link v Mr X.

Incompetent scammers Will Hurley and John Davies have once again failed their clients Link Parking, financially benefiting their company Gladstones Solicitors while Link are well out of pocket.

The claim concerned an incident where a driver trespassed on land belonging to Merchant Estates Ltd of Jersey. Link Parking managed the site and Gladstones Solicitors filed a claim for £150 on their behalf.

The driver contacted the Prankster who informed him that the signage clearly showed the driver was trespassing and there was therefore a valid claim against him by the land occupier. 

In cases of trespass the trespasser must make good any damage; if there is none the courts normally award a nominal £1. The  Prankster therefore advised the driver to offer £1 to the land occupier, plus a reasonable administration fee, to settle the case. However, there was no liability to Link Parking as they were not the land occupier, and the amount sought bore no relation to the cost. This view was supported both by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis and by HHJ Moloney in the appeal hearing of Ransomes Park v Anderson.

No reply was received to the offer and a hearing duly took place. The Prankster supplied the driver with transcripts of two recent cases which supported this view, UKPC v Masterson and PCM(UK) v Bull/Lyndsay/Woolford to bring to the hearing. Link's witness Martin Gardner did not turn up and Gladstones send an independent advocate. The advocate called the driver into a room where the driver informed him the basis of the defence was the signage on site and handed him a bundle consisting of the defence and witness statement, plus the two transcripts and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The advocate was either a rogue or incompetent because he tried to tell the driver that the transcripts and Act could not be use as he had not presented them beforehand. Any proper lawyer who regularly attends court would of course have known this is not the case. In the Supreme Court hearing of ParkingEye v Beavis new transcripts were introduced even in the middle of the hearing to back up previously made arguments. The driver therefore stood his ground and was asked to leave the room so that the advocate could call Gladstones.

During the hearing the advocate complained to the judge who ruled that the transcripts did not have to be provided up front but asked the advocate if he wanted to request an adjournment. The advocate agreed to continue. He then argued that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 was not appropriate as it came in force in October 2015 and the parking event was September 2015. This of course was only a technical victory as the previous Act, the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 was in force and contained exactly the same consumer protection points.

The regulations provide that if there is a confusion in the terms of a contract, they should be interpreted to the benefit of the consumer. The driver argued that there were multiple signs on site with conflicting terms. The judge disagreed, stating that as all the signs stated 'NO PARKING' then no parking was allowed.

The Advocate then mentioned the Beavis case and said that all potential arguments had been killed with that case. This is of course an extremely irresponsible statement for a legally qualified person to make and The Prankster believes only a truly incompetent person would make that statement. Following the Beavis case defendants continue to win large numbers of parking related cases; perhaps in greater numbers than before, as parking companies have been encouraged by greedy solicitors to file dubious claims.

The Advocate also said that arguments were boiler plate arguments provided by the "Parking Prankster" who runs a website. The driver asked if it was not allowed to use websites for help and the judge said of course it is. The driver then asked the judge to look through the two transcripts as they had been heard since the Beavis case and will help explain how this one was different.

The first case was UKPC v Matterson and the judge disagreed this was relevant as the signage was completely different.

The second case was PCM(UK) v Bull et al and here the wording was exactly the same. The judge agreed; he read the entire judgment and said it was strikingly similar to the case in hand. The Advocate tried to argue the Beavis case was relevant, but the judge kindly explained to him it was not, as in the Beavis case there was the gift of two hours parking, but in this case there was no offer of parking at all.

The Advocate then tried to argue that it didn't really matter what the law said as the justification behind the signs was to stop people parking, and that if the driver had a permit he could park. The driver replied there was no offer to get a permit and no way to obtain one. The judge told the Advocate he may want to reword his justification. The Advocate asked for time to call Gladstones and was given 30 minutes.

On reconvening the Advocate asked the judge if he was aware of the Parking Prankster. The judge said he was not and the advocate falsely told the judge the Prankster acted as a lay representative in the Bull case, but that his client had a number of other cases where the same argument was used and had been unsuccessful. He then stated he had been ambushed and had changed his mind about continuing and wanted an adjournment. The judge agreed as he wanted to read the Beavis case in detail.

He ordered the driver to send a full bundle to Gladstones within 7 days, and Gladstones to then provide a new bundle within 14 days with their cases also included.

The Advocate requested costs as he had been 'ambushed' but the judge refused stating these would be awarded at the next hearing. He thanked the driver and said the case had been extremely interesting.

The Prankster then helped the driver prepare a new bundle for July 13th.

On July 27th Gladstones called to see if the driver wanted to make an offer to settle. The driver explained he had already made two offers so now it had been to court he will see it out.

20 minutes later Gladstones called to discontinue the case.

Why Will Hurley and John Davies are Incompetent Scammers

The Prankster believes Will Hurley and John Davies are either incompetent or scammers or both for the following reasons.

• Gladstones added an amount for debt collection which is not allowed by the solicitors code of practice and is not supported by the costs allowed in the small claims court.
• Gladstones filed a claim without doing proper due diligence. A solicitor has a duty of care to their client, and a trivial examination of the facts should have warned them of the problems in the case.
• Gladstones failed to engage in the proper pre-action protocol, failing to respond to the drivers request for information. This could have prevented the claim ever coming to court.
• Gladstones failed to file proper particulars of claim. This is a deliberate tactic to prevent motorists from being able to file a comprehensive defence. Gladstones then file the full particulars in the witness statement when it is too late to respond. This is a cynical abuse of court processes.
• Gladstones failed to respond to a request for further particulars, which would have enabled the driver to file a comprehensive defence at the time.
• In the witness statement which Gladstones prepared they then provided false information to the court stating they would have provided information if asked.
• Gladstones failed to inform the court of the potential problems with signage. The first duty of a solicitor is to the court, not their client, and the fact that a number of similar cases had been lost on this point should have been brought to the attention of the judge by Gladstones. 
• Gladstones also failed to brief the Advocate on this point; had they done so he would also have had a duty to the court to bring this to the attention of the judge. It is telling that at the point in the case where all seemed lost for Gladstones, they suddenly remembered after all that they were well aware of this point.

It is therefore apparent to The Prankster that the average man in the street, faced with this facts, is likely to that conclude that Will Hurley and John Davies are spectacularly failing in their duties to both their client and the court, and that they are therefore incompetent or scammers or both.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UKPC lose in court - Notice to Keeper not compliant

C9QZ3509 UKPC v Ms E Manchester 19/08/2016

Mr Wilkie parachuted into a case in Manchester this morning - they seek him here, they seek him there - in order to act as a Lay Representative for a lady who was definitely, and provably not driving her car when it was parked in a hotel in Manchester, incurring £1120 worth of Parking Charges. The court documents were prepared by Bargepole, who argued that the claimant has no standing, and that there was no keeper liability.

SCS Law, on behalf of UKPC, submitted another Mr W, who is a charming and skilled advocate, but not a solicitor. As UKPC didn't turn up, or even send their witness, Mr Wilkie challenged the right of audience of the Advocate, and after a few minutes of argument, it was agreed that, notwithstanding any rights of audience issues, the Advocate could present the case.

Following this, Mr Wilkie asked the court to deal with the UKPC's history of false evidence, the lack of attendance of a witness and the harm this did to their case. The court was not with him on these points.

Next, the claimant argued Standing and Right to Litigate. A copy of part of a contract was produced, and together with the witness statement, this was accepted as proof of the contract on the balance of probabilities, and right to pursue charges.

As a result the case turned on one issue - Did the Notices to Keeper comply with Sch4, Section 8.2.  After much to-ing and fro-ing, the Judge found as a finding of fact that the claimant had failed to put the "specified period of parking" on the Notices to Keeper and this therefore meant that the Keeper Liability conditions of the Protection of freedoms Act, Schedule 4 had not been met.

As the defendant was not the driver, there was therefore no liability. Costs of £75 were awarded to the defendant.

UKPC sought leave to appeal, which was granted to the Circuit Judge. 

Prankster Note

The conditions of POFA Sch 4 are fairly easy to comply with, but 4 years after the act it is surprising how many operators fail to meet the requirements.

UKPC has recently changed both the design of its Notices to Driver and Keeper to include the information which it is now appealing about. However, on this occasion, this is a good win for Mr Wilkie, as it proves that he and Private Parking Appeals are "raising standards in Private Parking" - exactly as the BPA intends, as opposed to the IPC race to the bottom.

The Prankster will continue to follow this case if/when it proceeds to appeal.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Smart Parking kicked out from Marshall's Yard

Smart Parking have been kicked out of Marshall's yard after just over two months, as this facebook post shows.

The Prankster congratulates the Marshall's Yard management team for their swift and decisive action, and also their decision that all parking charges should be cancelled.

The comments on the facebook page show that motorists also welcome this decision and motorists who have stayed away will now start to return to the shopping centre.

Litha Bacon commented that she had been told Smart Parking was paying Marshall's Yard to run the car park. In the Prankster's opinion paying for the right to issue parking charges never results in proper parking management, and just results in parking companies creating hard to follow parking conditions so that they can generate as many parking charges as possible.

Smart Parking's attitude exemplifies this, as the reports of their feeding frenzy when the started 'managing' the car park show. When new parking conditions come into force this is effectively Christmas for parking companies who get to issue tickets like confetti. The British Parking Association code of practice recommends that extra signs are erected when conditions change, but The Prankster has found most parking companies decide not to follow the code, preferring instead to maximise income and issue as many charges as possible.

The Prankster believes is is possible to manage car parks fairly. As an example, Total Parking Solutions operate a car park at Bristol eye Hospital where it is almost impossible to pay the incorrect amount for parking, or enter an incorrect registration, as the machines show you how long your car has been parked for and how much to pay. Freedom of Information requests show that hardly any parking charges have been issued there - less than one per month.

It is important therefore for landowners to choose their car park operators wisely. Marshall's yard have not commented on how much, if any, they had to pay Smart parking to cancel the contract. However Somerfield had to pay ParkingEye £300,000 and B&Q had to pay ParkingEye a reported £400,000, so making the wrong choice can be an expensive mistake.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Failed Debt Collectors MIL Collections lie to Parking News to drum up business

The July edition of Parking News (a BPA members-only publication) contains an article from Alan Davies, managing director of MIL collections.

The Prankster would like to take this opportunity to correct a few of the lies Alan Davies told the publication. This may be useful to defendants. Following the revelations that MIL's 'legal eagle' Matt Muroch/k does not exist apart from in comic books, MIL's witness statements are now signed by Alan Davies. As Alan Davies never turns up in court, evidence that he is a habitual liar may be useful to get his witness statement thrown out as unreliable.

Porky #1 MIL always send an advocate to hearings

'Nuff said.

Porky #2 MIL treat consumers fairly and with respect

MIL's modus operanti is to issue a claim as soon as possible. Their first letter is a letter before action, and a claim follows barely 14 days later.

As MIL have won no known cases which have gone to hearings, it appears they are trying to rattle consumers into paying up by using the courts as a scare tactic. By now it must be plainly apparent to MIL that they have no valid claim in their parking cases.

MIL have also discontinued large numbers of claims where a robust defence is filed.

MIL have also lied to the court repeatedly, presenting witness statements signed by 'Matt Murdoch/k' when no such person has been shown to exist.

Additionally, The Prankster has had a number of reports where MIL are rude, aggressive and unhelpful on the phone.

This is hardly treating consumers fairly.

Outrageous claim #1 Parking companies benefit from MIL's court record

As anyone with Google can easily find out, MIL's court record for parking cases is less than stellar. As of the date of writing, no cases of wins at hearings have been recorded. Any operator with a record of selling to MIL is therefore not likely to gain a benefit from this.

ParkingEye are well known to be one of the most unsuccessful parking operators of all time, with a reputation of being unable to manage car parks properly. Their number of parking charges issued increases year on year. they are also the most litigious, issuing over 30,000 claims a year.

The claim that issuing charges results in an improvement in compliance is therefore laughable. Better compliance comes through better management, not selling off the charges you cannot enforce.

True but irrelevant claim #1 Charges must be processed in line with FCA guidelines

The DVLA have been asked multiple times if MIL are complying with the KADOE requirements, but have failed to answer. MIL themselves are clearly in violation of many of the FCA guidelines they refer to.

True but irrelevant claim #2 Reasonable Justification

A Google search finds no reports of contested hearing which MIL have won. This claim therefore appears to be MIL arguing that they should be shut down by the FCA.

The Prankster therefore wonders at what point the FCA will step in to end this sorry debacle.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Are MIL Collections the worst debt collectors, ever?

Failed debt collectors MIL Collections have apparently accepted their dodgy catalogue of parking charges are not viable, and have palmed them off on another debt collector, DCBL.

The strategy of taking claims to court has apparently not been working well. No cases where MIL have won a defended hearing have been reported to The Prankster, and plenty of cases where they lost have.

Anyone receiving a letter from DCBL regarding a right to sue over a disputed parking charge should therefore be robustly replied to.

Dear DCBL,

The debt is denied. My research shows that MIL have never won a defended parking claim in court, and the main reasons are that the claim is champterous, and that the deed of assignment is not valid.

You are therefore required to refer the claim back to MIL. Do not contact me again, apart from to acknowledge this letter or to cancel the alleged charge, unless you provide a copy of the deed of assignment for this specific debt from the assignor, and the full chain of authority to the Debt Collector.

I require you to contact me only by letter post, and not by email or telephone.

The above provisions are all laid down in the CSA code of practice. Currently, I am not raising this as a formal complaint. However, if you continue to flout the code of practice,  I will have no hesitation of doing so in the future.

If DCBL fail to follw the CSA code of practice, then The Prankster recommends that a complaint is raised with the CSA. More information can be found here: http://www.csa-uk.com/

The Prankster considers that a debt collector who is not cabable of collecting their own debts, and has to pass them to another debt collector, is either totally incompetent, or guilty of trying to artificially inflate the debt. On this basis The Prankster puts forward MIL Collections for the Prankster Award of worst debt collector, ever.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

MIL unexpectedly do not lose a court hearing

Today's case for John Wilkie was another MIL matter, a little out of district in East Anglia.

Arriving to meet Mr M at 11:00 for an 11:30 hearing, the defence team got told by the usher at 11:15 that the Claimant's advocate had phoned in "broken down", and was being returned home by the AA.

Obviously, it's entirely unreasonable to blame MIL for this, though it is noted that Mr Wilkie managed to get down to Taunton from his offices with a broken down car some weeks ago, and this is not the first time that Alan Davis of MIL hasn't managed to get to court either - all of the MIL "legal team" was in a meeting, yet again!

MIL are claiming £210 - An adjournment was agreed because of the circumstances, but Defendant's costs of £327.40 were reserved on the face of the order, so it is predicted that MIL will now discontinue to avoid a further £327.40 to be added next hearing.

In other news, MIL Collections has publicly accused Mr Wilkie and others of committing an offence by "conducting legal proceedings". Clearly Mr Davis has not read the Lay Representative (Right of Audience) Order 1999 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1225/pdfs/uksi_19991225_en.pdf
and has no understanding of the Small Claims Procedure, unlike Messrs Wilkie, Bargepole, Prankster etc. This is probably the reason why MIL Collections have yet to win against one of "our" lay representatives.

The Prankster suggests that if Mr Davis has any complaints about Mr Wilkie assisting members of the public to defeat his champertous, vexatious and entirely unreasonable claims (as determined by the courts more than once), he really ought to actually turn up to court and make the complaints to the judges.

And he should bring Matt Murdoch/k with him...

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

MIL Collections lose in court. Are the IPC technically bankrupt?

Today's case was a "permit holders only" case, with MIL Collections pursuing a speculative invoice they had purchased from CPMS. The defendant was represented by John Wilkie. MIL were represented by Mr Howes, a solicitor.

There being no sign of MIL's witness, owner Alan Davis, Mr Wilkie's team phoned MIL Collections to see if he would be arriving. Mr Davis got a tad upset, got off on a bit of a rant, and threatened to call the police. It seemed that yet again Alan Davis has chickened out of making an appearance. Cluck cluck cluck.

Unlike MIL Collection's fictitious Matt Murdoch, Alan Davies does actually exist. However, he seems equally reluctant to make a court appearance, which is hardly surprising given the quality of his case. The Prankster thinks it would be very interesting if Mr Davies were questioned in front of the judge regarding the true financial nature of the arrangement between MIL and parking companies they allegedly purchase parking cases from.

On entry to the hearing, the judge was concerned about Mr Wilkies Bona Fides, and had the defendant explain why he was using a lay representative. Once he was satisfied with the client, he rounded on Mr Wilkie, who explained that he has had the privilege of representing motorists in a number of cases, and does not charge for doing so. Mr Wilkies citing of the Overriding Objectives seemed to help.

At this point, the judge rounded on Mr Howes, the Solicitor for the other side. He made the point that signage is "trespasser" and forbidding, and that as there was no contract, they could not use contract to sue.

He then ask if Mr Wilkie was aware of any "forbidding offer" cases, and he seemed to know about Masterson, the High Wycombe three and the Akhtar appeal, as he specifically asked if Mr Wilkie was aware of anything that bound him. Mr Wilkie conceded that he was not. That does suggest there might be one though, as this judge had clearly done his homework.

The judge then made it clear that the particulars were "spectacularly unhelpful" in determining the cause of action, and, in the absence of a contract, and no evidence of tortuous damages, together with Particulars of Claim that were "woefully inadequate" he dismissed the claim with costs of £52 to the very relieved defendant.

Prankster Note

It is clear that some judges are keeping a keen eye on developments in parking cases.

It is also equally clear that Will Hurley and John Davies are now in a very uncomfortable position. Any half decent first year law student would be able to identify that the signage they approved does not offer a parking contract, yet Will Hurley and John Davies have spectacularly failed to reach that level of competence. Their parking charge business makes money by advising customers on the legality of their signage. The Prankster considers that even a barely competent lawyer would have warned their client that there was a possibility their signage would not be enforceable, if not actually recommended a different wording altogether.

Having now lost a significant number of cases in court on this issue, Will Hurley and John Davies now owe a duty of care to their clients to write and warn them that their signage warranty is as much use as a neutral Mavic bike on a mountain top Tour De France finish**.

However, having previously told their clients that the signage was pukka, this could well leave them liable to claims from their clients to cover the cost of replacing their signs. Even worse, if millions of parking tickets have been issued which are now unenforceable, their clients may well have a case for claiming the lost revenue. As this would run into tens or hundreds of millions of pounds, if this action succeeded it would effectively bankrupt the IPC.

This also raises a clear conflict of interest with their satellite company Gladstones Solicitors, who have a parasitic relationship with the IPC. A proper firm of solicitors would warn their clients that it is extremely likely they have no case, and warn them of the dangers and costs of proceeding. A proper firm of solicitors would also realise that their primary duty is to the courts and therefore bring to the attention of judges in hearings that a large number of judges have found their signs do not form a contract and then allow the judge to make their decision.

As this is apparently not happening, it is time for the DVLA to draw a veil on this sorry episode and remove the right of Will Hurley and John Davies to run a parking charges trade association. They are clearly not competent to do so, in the Prankster's opinion.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

** none at all, for all you non-bike riders