Casehub now have 200 people signed up for the class action against ParkingEye. This means they are 80% of the way there, with only another 50 ParkingEye victims needed.
If you have an unexpected CCJ from ParkingEye you can read up about the class action here.
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
Monday, 30 May 2016
Sunday, 29 May 2016
Bank Holiday Carmageddon at ASDA
ASDA recently cancelled their contract with Smart Parking to manage their car parks. The notice period appears to have come to an end - ASDA Bedminster has had the cameras and signs removed**.
As yet, no new operator has been installed. A Prankster operative sent in pictures today of the ensuing carmageddon over the bank holiday weekend.
No doubt Patrick Troy will now be on the phone and the Prankster will have to eat his hat. The photograph conclusively shows that without signage and ANPR to protect free city centre car parks, chaos almost instantly ensues.
Oh wait...
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
**except the signs they hid so well they couldn't find them themselves.
As yet, no new operator has been installed. A Prankster operative sent in pictures today of the ensuing carmageddon over the bank holiday weekend.
No doubt Patrick Troy will now be on the phone and the Prankster will have to eat his hat. The photograph conclusively shows that without signage and ANPR to protect free city centre car parks, chaos almost instantly ensues.
Oh wait...
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
**except the signs they hid so well they couldn't find them themselves.
Saturday, 28 May 2016
MIL Collections cut and run
Truro court. Guest Report
On one of the threads I read that MIL try to trick people with an unsigned notice of discontinuation, so smiled when I received one from them; ha your not gonna have me over you monkeys.
So my day in court came, off I went fully one hundred % prepared; boy was I the best dressed man at Truro County Court. Asked what to do; told to click name on roster, and was very disappointed not to see my name. Asked the Usher why? Showed him the letter of discontinuation, told them it was a common trick they played, he smiled and went off to check, came back a few minutes later to tell me that yes they had discontinued. Damn it was I disappointed, the Usher was trying hard not to laugh. I took my jacket off, tore off my tie, unbuttoned my shirt and stormed out of the Court. So there you go, thanks for the inspiration, and yes you can beat these Monkeys.
Prankster Note
MIL's victim was correct to doubt to notice of discontinuance as parking companies have tried this kind of trick before. However the best way of making sure is probably to both phone the court to check and also cover yourself by writing to the court with a copy of the notice. This way, you will be covered if any shenanigans occur.
MIL Collections are obviously now running scared if they dare not even appear in their home court of Truro. The Prankster advises anyone who has been contacted by MIL Collections to get advice from pepipoo or moneysavingexpert to get help with a defence.
If you paid MIL (before a court claim was filed) then you may be able to get your money back by suing MIL. If you paid MIL after they filed a claim then the situation is more complicated. The Prankster is investigating the situation to see if any remedy is possible; watch this space.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
On one of the threads I read that MIL try to trick people with an unsigned notice of discontinuation, so smiled when I received one from them; ha your not gonna have me over you monkeys.
So my day in court came, off I went fully one hundred % prepared; boy was I the best dressed man at Truro County Court. Asked what to do; told to click name on roster, and was very disappointed not to see my name. Asked the Usher why? Showed him the letter of discontinuation, told them it was a common trick they played, he smiled and went off to check, came back a few minutes later to tell me that yes they had discontinued. Damn it was I disappointed, the Usher was trying hard not to laugh. I took my jacket off, tore off my tie, unbuttoned my shirt and stormed out of the Court. So there you go, thanks for the inspiration, and yes you can beat these Monkeys.
Prankster Note
MIL's victim was correct to doubt to notice of discontinuance as parking companies have tried this kind of trick before. However the best way of making sure is probably to both phone the court to check and also cover yourself by writing to the court with a copy of the notice. This way, you will be covered if any shenanigans occur.
MIL Collections are obviously now running scared if they dare not even appear in their home court of Truro. The Prankster advises anyone who has been contacted by MIL Collections to get advice from pepipoo or moneysavingexpert to get help with a defence.
If you paid MIL (before a court claim was filed) then you may be able to get your money back by suing MIL. If you paid MIL after they filed a claim then the situation is more complicated. The Prankster is investigating the situation to see if any remedy is possible; watch this space.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Are Wright Hassall incompetent, institutionally biased, or just plain lazy?
Wright Hassall brand-POPLA assessments are now coming in, and it is clear they are far from the standard set by London Council. This has the smack of a rubber stamping exercise rather than that of proper considered assessments, asking the question of whether Wright Hassall thought they were getting money for old rope during the tender process and could just write off all appeals with a few minutes work.
Here is their boiler-plate paragraph regarding charge levels.
The Supreme Court case judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis is 124 pages long, but nowhere does it state that a blanket charge of £100 is reasonable in all cases.
In fact, the Supreme Court went to great lengths to make this clear, tweeting that the judgment took into account the use of the car park, and the clear wording of the notices.
There have been a number of recent court cases where gnu-for-hire lawyers** have swaggered into court, chanting 'Beavis, Beavis, Beavis' only to leave with their tails between their legs whn the judge patiently explained that Beavis did not apply in this instance.
The Prankster expects the same diligence from Wright Hassall in their adjudications. 'Pursuant to the guidance' just doesn't cut the mustard and gives no confidence that Wright Hassall have analysed the current case on the facts. The Supreme Court made it clear that the penalty situation was 'in play' and was only taken out of play by mitigating factors. Each case therefore needs to be analysed to see if these, or similar mitigating factors apply; if not, the charge remains a penalty and an unfair consumer contract.
It is clearly necessary to examine both the placement and wording of the notices. There is no evidence that Wright Hassall have done this (the Prankster has previously analysed the Supreme Court decision in this respect).
It is necessary to examine the nature of the charge. If it is for trespass, for instance, then the Supreme Court decision favours the motorist. There is no evidence that Wright Hassall have done this.
It is also necessary to examine the nature of the charge and the use of the car park. There is no evidence that Wright Hassall have done this. If the charge is for overstay in a free car park, subject by its location to misuse, then the Supreme Court analysis is likely to apply. If not, then the way the legal sysem in this country works, it would be up to the claimant to make their case and show how ParkingEye v Beavis applies in this situation. It would certainly not be Wright Hassall's job to make the case for them. The lead assessor of POPLA made this clear when he first stayed the cases to await the Supreme Court judgment.
In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court made it clear there was no viable alternative to a large charge to prevent overstaying free time. However, this would not be the case in all circumstances. For instance, MOTO Services make a modest charge of around £12 to deter overstaying the two hours free time at service stations. This presumably works well for them as they have been doing this for many year.
Given the current crop of verdicts, The Prankster therefore asks the question, are Wright Hassall incompetent, institutionally biased, or just plain lazy?
If the answer is the first, then Wright Hassall must be removed as POPLA assessors. Alternatively, if the answer is the second, then Wright Hassall must be removed as POPLA assessors. Lastly, if the answer is the third, then Wright Hassall must be removed as POPLA assessors.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
** These are like gun-for-hire lawyers, only not as good***
*** A bit like the IPC Baristas are not as good as Barristers
Here is their boiler-plate paragraph regarding charge levels.
The Supreme Court case judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis is 124 pages long, but nowhere does it state that a blanket charge of £100 is reasonable in all cases.
In fact, the Supreme Court went to great lengths to make this clear, tweeting that the judgment took into account the use of the car park, and the clear wording of the notices.
There have been a number of recent court cases where gnu-for-hire lawyers** have swaggered into court, chanting 'Beavis, Beavis, Beavis' only to leave with their tails between their legs whn the judge patiently explained that Beavis did not apply in this instance.
The Prankster expects the same diligence from Wright Hassall in their adjudications. 'Pursuant to the guidance' just doesn't cut the mustard and gives no confidence that Wright Hassall have analysed the current case on the facts. The Supreme Court made it clear that the penalty situation was 'in play' and was only taken out of play by mitigating factors. Each case therefore needs to be analysed to see if these, or similar mitigating factors apply; if not, the charge remains a penalty and an unfair consumer contract.
It is clearly necessary to examine both the placement and wording of the notices. There is no evidence that Wright Hassall have done this (the Prankster has previously analysed the Supreme Court decision in this respect).
It is necessary to examine the nature of the charge. If it is for trespass, for instance, then the Supreme Court decision favours the motorist. There is no evidence that Wright Hassall have done this.
It is also necessary to examine the nature of the charge and the use of the car park. There is no evidence that Wright Hassall have done this. If the charge is for overstay in a free car park, subject by its location to misuse, then the Supreme Court analysis is likely to apply. If not, then the way the legal sysem in this country works, it would be up to the claimant to make their case and show how ParkingEye v Beavis applies in this situation. It would certainly not be Wright Hassall's job to make the case for them. The lead assessor of POPLA made this clear when he first stayed the cases to await the Supreme Court judgment.
In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court made it clear there was no viable alternative to a large charge to prevent overstaying free time. However, this would not be the case in all circumstances. For instance, MOTO Services make a modest charge of around £12 to deter overstaying the two hours free time at service stations. This presumably works well for them as they have been doing this for many year.
Given the current crop of verdicts, The Prankster therefore asks the question, are Wright Hassall incompetent, institutionally biased, or just plain lazy?
If the answer is the first, then Wright Hassall must be removed as POPLA assessors. Alternatively, if the answer is the second, then Wright Hassall must be removed as POPLA assessors. Lastly, if the answer is the third, then Wright Hassall must be removed as POPLA assessors.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
** These are like gun-for-hire lawyers, only not as good***
*** A bit like the IPC Baristas are not as good as Barristers
Thursday, 26 May 2016
ISPA disagree with Wright Hassall hiding assessor names
ISPA have released the follwing statement regarding Wright Hassall
The Prankster also considers that the real reason that the assessors do not want to be named is that their incompetence will then be on record which could be career harming for years to come.
For instance, The Prankster has been contacted by one motorist who received a ticket even though she was not parked in an area where the operator was allowed to issue tickets. Wright Hassall ruled against the motorist even though in their appeal they clearly showed the place where the car was parked which was outside the enforcement boundary. Wright Hassall clearly did not consider the evidence properly.
In another case Wright Hassall ruled a contract was in place even though this would have required the motorist to read a huge amount of text in a tiny font as they whizzed past. The Prankster considers that no competent solicitor would rule a contract is in place in those situations. A contract requires a meeting of minds, which is clearly impossible if one party never has a chance to read it.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
ISPA believes for PoPLA to be fair – and be seen to be fair – that the decision maker in each individual appeal should be named. This was the practice whilst PoPLA was run by London Councils and is the practice under Ombudsman Services. A third provider, Wright Hassall, is also running the PoPLA scheme. Wright Hassall is dealing mainly with cases which were adjourned until the decision in Parking Eye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) [2015] UKSC 87.The Prankster disagrees that these are legitimate concerns. If Wright Hassall did not want to name their assessors, then they should not have tendered for the contract in the first place.
At the present time Wright Hassall is not naming the decision maker. The firm is considering ISPA’s request that the decision maker be named but has raised legitimate concerns about staff welfare and practical implications. ISPA believes these concerns can be overcome as they were by London Councils and Ombudsman Services. ISPA can, however, only make recommendations to Wright Hassall it cannot compel it to follow those recommendations.
The Prankster also considers that the real reason that the assessors do not want to be named is that their incompetence will then be on record which could be career harming for years to come.
For instance, The Prankster has been contacted by one motorist who received a ticket even though she was not parked in an area where the operator was allowed to issue tickets. Wright Hassall ruled against the motorist even though in their appeal they clearly showed the place where the car was parked which was outside the enforcement boundary. Wright Hassall clearly did not consider the evidence properly.
In another case Wright Hassall ruled a contract was in place even though this would have required the motorist to read a huge amount of text in a tiny font as they whizzed past. The Prankster considers that no competent solicitor would rule a contract is in place in those situations. A contract requires a meeting of minds, which is clearly impossible if one party never has a chance to read it.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Excel Parking change debt collectors yet again
Parking companies use debt collectors for several reasons. Debt Collectors, unlike Bailiffs, have no powers, so the first reason is to scare a victim into paying up. By sending letters with red writing, capitals, short deadline dates and threats of debt escalation, this often works.
Some debt collectors track down the victim's telephone number and bombard them with endless aggressive calls.
Typically the debt collection company works on a no-win, no fee basis. A £100 parking charge will be escalated to £160. If the victim pays up, the parking company gets the original £100, and the debt collector gets £60.
A second reason to use debt collectors is to artificially escalate the claim. The parking company pass the debt to a sister company, often owned by the same person as the original parking company. This lets them get round the £100 limit on parking charges by adding on whatever they want.
If the debt collector fails to collect the debt, it returns to the parking company. However, often the debt will stay at the new increased level even though the parking company has not incurred costs (being on a no win no fee basis with the debt collectors).
Different parking companies use different debt collecting companies, and change them from time to time.
Excel Parking (and their subsidiary VCS) for instance have over the last year or so gone through TNC, Wright Hassall and BW Legal. Now it looks like BW Legal have been given the old heave-ho, and Excel have switched to using DCBL. The Prankster has been contacted by a number of people receiving their letters.
DCBL are both debt collectors and bailiffs, which has worried some recipients of these letters. however, in this case they are acting as debt collectors.
Excel do take some motorists to court. The problem for any person receiving one of these letters is knowing if they are one of these or not. The Prankster therefore advises not ignoring these letters but replying to deny the debt (if you do). If you cannot cope with the letters and wish to pay the charge, then The Prankster suggests you negotiate with the parking company on a without prejudice basis to pay the original charge (or a discounted amount), rather than negotiating with the parking company.
This sometimes works and sometimes does not. In one case The Prankster helped with the motorist's relative had forgotten where they parked the car, before remembering after several days. A number of charges had accrued in the time. The Prankster therefore helped to attempt to negotiate a fair amount based on the unpaid parking fee rather than a per-day penalty charge. Sadly the debt collecting company (Debt Recovery Plus) were too greedy and refused to drop the settlement amount. As the motorist was not liable, The Prankster eventually broke off negotiations and suggested the the debt collectors contact the driver instead - DR+ ended up with nothing.
In other cases a settlement has been reached.
The Prankster suggests writing to DCBL to limit costs in case Excel do go to court.
Dear DCBL,
In line with the Credit Services Association code of practice I require all communications from you to be by letter. You may not use phone or email.
The debt is denied. Please refer the debt back to the principal. Any further communications apart from to confirm this will be treated as harassment. Debt collection costs will therefore be wasted costs on your part.
The principal will find the following information useful. No debt exists because [put the reasons why you are disputing the debt here]
I would be prepared to use alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in an attempt to settle this matter and I suggest the Consumer Ombudsman. For the avoidance of doubt, the IAS has been exposed as a kangaroo court and would not be acceptable. I also point you to the clear conflict of interest between the IAS and Gladstones Solicitors, who are owned by the same people.
Otherwise I suggest we settle the matter in court and I suggest you send a letter before claim without delay. I will ask the court to apply sanctions if you refuse ADR.
A large number of these DCBL cases appear to be airport related. In these cases no debt would exist because it is impossible to enter into a contract while driving past complicated signs at 50 mph. The driver simply doesn't have time to read the signs and therefore cannot enter into a contract.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Some debt collectors track down the victim's telephone number and bombard them with endless aggressive calls.
Typically the debt collection company works on a no-win, no fee basis. A £100 parking charge will be escalated to £160. If the victim pays up, the parking company gets the original £100, and the debt collector gets £60.
A second reason to use debt collectors is to artificially escalate the claim. The parking company pass the debt to a sister company, often owned by the same person as the original parking company. This lets them get round the £100 limit on parking charges by adding on whatever they want.
If the debt collector fails to collect the debt, it returns to the parking company. However, often the debt will stay at the new increased level even though the parking company has not incurred costs (being on a no win no fee basis with the debt collectors).
Different parking companies use different debt collecting companies, and change them from time to time.
Excel Parking (and their subsidiary VCS) for instance have over the last year or so gone through TNC, Wright Hassall and BW Legal. Now it looks like BW Legal have been given the old heave-ho, and Excel have switched to using DCBL. The Prankster has been contacted by a number of people receiving their letters.
DCBL are both debt collectors and bailiffs, which has worried some recipients of these letters. however, in this case they are acting as debt collectors.
Excel do take some motorists to court. The problem for any person receiving one of these letters is knowing if they are one of these or not. The Prankster therefore advises not ignoring these letters but replying to deny the debt (if you do). If you cannot cope with the letters and wish to pay the charge, then The Prankster suggests you negotiate with the parking company on a without prejudice basis to pay the original charge (or a discounted amount), rather than negotiating with the parking company.
This sometimes works and sometimes does not. In one case The Prankster helped with the motorist's relative had forgotten where they parked the car, before remembering after several days. A number of charges had accrued in the time. The Prankster therefore helped to attempt to negotiate a fair amount based on the unpaid parking fee rather than a per-day penalty charge. Sadly the debt collecting company (Debt Recovery Plus) were too greedy and refused to drop the settlement amount. As the motorist was not liable, The Prankster eventually broke off negotiations and suggested the the debt collectors contact the driver instead - DR+ ended up with nothing.
In other cases a settlement has been reached.
The Prankster suggests writing to DCBL to limit costs in case Excel do go to court.
Dear DCBL,
In line with the Credit Services Association code of practice I require all communications from you to be by letter. You may not use phone or email.
The debt is denied. Please refer the debt back to the principal. Any further communications apart from to confirm this will be treated as harassment. Debt collection costs will therefore be wasted costs on your part.
The principal will find the following information useful. No debt exists because [put the reasons why you are disputing the debt here]
I would be prepared to use alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in an attempt to settle this matter and I suggest the Consumer Ombudsman. For the avoidance of doubt, the IAS has been exposed as a kangaroo court and would not be acceptable. I also point you to the clear conflict of interest between the IAS and Gladstones Solicitors, who are owned by the same people.
Otherwise I suggest we settle the matter in court and I suggest you send a letter before claim without delay. I will ask the court to apply sanctions if you refuse ADR.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Sunday, 22 May 2016
Changegate car park, Haworth revisited. Keeper details apparently leaked by West Yorkshire Police employee
[Update 31/7/2016 Mr Evans has contacted the Prankster to say he disagrees with elements of this post. The post has therefore been updated to include Mr Evans views]
The Prankster previously blogged about his visit to Changegate car park, Haworth. Although The Prankster did not get a ticket, many other visitors have, and the forums are rife with tales of charges for ridiculous reasons, such as the ticket being upside down, or of possible entrapment by a mysterious woman in a BMW handing over her ticket so motorists could be charged with reusing an invalid ticket. [Prankster note. No conclusive evidence either way has been presented about this mystery lady]
A typical forum message (see link) is as follows:
The car park was run by Car Stoppers employed by retired magistrate Ted Evans and The Prankster wondered how the enforcers contacted motorists as they are not a member of a parking-related accredited trade association and so should not be able to get keeper details from the DVLA.
This post on facebook, offers a suggestion. Keeper addresses were apparently illegally obtained through a West Yorkshire Police contact. (Mr Evans disagrees with this version of events).
Mr Evans also sued Adrian Crozier for defamation for writing the song. After six years the claim was eventually dismissed in June 2017. The Prankster wishes to make it clear that Mr Crozier's details were obtained from the DVLA, and not from any other source.
The allegation regarding the potential abuse of keeper addresses is extremely worrying. The DVLA have many times stated both to parliament and the public at large that they take great care to protect keeper data and to keep it safe from unscrupulous hands. In The Prankster's opinion there can be few more unscrupulous people than those running Changegate Car Park Haworth, given their reported history of threats, violence, perjury and vexatious litigation. The Prankster is interested on finding out whether they did ever obtain keeper details to pursue parking charges, and if so, how these details were obtained. If they do not obtain keeper details, then the charges are essentially unenforceable, as there is no way to contact the driver or keeper.
The Prankster considers that if you were a vehicle keeper and received a letter regarding parking charges at this car park then it may be worth investigating how your address was obtained. If it was obtained illegally then you may have a valid case against Ted Evans, Car Stoppers or Mrs V*** B*** or West Yorkshire Police and you may also have a valid Data Protection complaint. Please contact The Prankster if you want to be put in touch with other victims.
As of this update (June 2017) so far nobody has yet contacted the Prankster.
As an aside, Ted Evans was probably the person who most contributed to getting clamping banned. When he clamped parliamentary speaker Betty Boothroyd's friend the chain of events ended with The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which banned clamping and introduced keeper liability instead.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
The Prankster previously blogged about his visit to Changegate car park, Haworth. Although The Prankster did not get a ticket, many other visitors have, and the forums are rife with tales of charges for ridiculous reasons, such as the ticket being upside down, or of possible entrapment by a mysterious woman in a BMW handing over her ticket so motorists could be charged with reusing an invalid ticket. [Prankster note. No conclusive evidence either way has been presented about this mystery lady]
A typical forum message (see link) is as follows:
These men are thugs who profiteer from various scams.
A popular one at the moment is to have a woman (usually a large lady leaving in a BMW) offer you a ticket with lots of time left on it. They then clamp you for transferring the ticket. This woman is clearly in on the deal.
This post on facebook, offers a suggestion. Keeper addresses were apparently illegally obtained through a West Yorkshire Police contact. (Mr Evans disagrees with this version of events).
Gareth Evans, Edward's son, was having an affair with an employee of the West Yorkshire Police, a lady from Haworth called Mrs V**** B*******.The Facebook page Changegate car park Haworth reveals further items of interest. Ted Evans is apparently suing journalist Graham Smith for defamation, part of which is for linking to a song. The song was written by Adrian Crozier and is apparently not complimentary about Mr Evans. Mr Evan's solicitor has excused himself from the claim, leaving Mr Evans to represent himself.
Mrs B*******, on many occasions, provided information off the Police National Computer to Gareth to chase up car park disputes, as the DVLA will not provide them the licence to obtain vehicle keeper details.
Mr Evans also sued Adrian Crozier for defamation for writing the song. After six years the claim was eventually dismissed in June 2017. The Prankster wishes to make it clear that Mr Crozier's details were obtained from the DVLA, and not from any other source.
The allegation regarding the potential abuse of keeper addresses is extremely worrying. The DVLA have many times stated both to parliament and the public at large that they take great care to protect keeper data and to keep it safe from unscrupulous hands. In The Prankster's opinion there can be few more unscrupulous people than those running Changegate Car Park Haworth, given their reported history of threats, violence, perjury and vexatious litigation. The Prankster is interested on finding out whether they did ever obtain keeper details to pursue parking charges, and if so, how these details were obtained. If they do not obtain keeper details, then the charges are essentially unenforceable, as there is no way to contact the driver or keeper.
The Prankster considers that if you were a vehicle keeper and received a letter regarding parking charges at this car park then it may be worth investigating how your address was obtained. If it was obtained illegally then you may have a valid case against Ted Evans, Car Stoppers or Mrs V*** B*** or West Yorkshire Police and you may also have a valid Data Protection complaint. Please contact The Prankster if you want to be put in touch with other victims.
As of this update (June 2017) so far nobody has yet contacted the Prankster.
As an aside, Ted Evans was probably the person who most contributed to getting clamping banned. When he clamped parliamentary speaker Betty Boothroyd's friend the chain of events ended with The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which banned clamping and introduced keeper liability instead.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)