Residential Parking

There are many residential situations where some form of parking management is desired, but instead of doing their homework properly and engaging a reputable parking company the Management Company bring in one of the bottom-feeders.

These companies, such as Vehicle Control Services, Link Parking and ACE Security have no desire to implement proper parking management and only want to introduce schemes which are hard to use and which allow them to issue as many parking charges to residents as possible.

Typical tactics are a feeding frenzy of ticket issuing on day one of the contract, refusal to issue multiple permits, failure to reissue new permits on expiry of old tickets, reliance on paper permits, and refusal to cancel charges when a mistake has been made.

The reason why management companies introduce most of these schemes is to deter non-residents from using residents' parking spaces. The reality is that most charges are issued to residents. So, what exactly is the situation if a resident gets issued a ticket?

Primacy of Contract

The idea behind primacy of contract is that a contract cannot be unilaterally altered by one party without the permission of the other. In the case of residential parking, the lease is the key document. If this gives the resident the unfettered right to park then this cannot be altered later, for instance by requiring a permit to park.

There is a large body of case law which establishes this. In Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 it was found the managing agent could not reduce the amount of parking spaces available to residents. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading.

In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

Clauses in the Lease

Sometimes the situation is clouded by clauses in the lease which might allow management agents the right to impose further conditions.

In Pace v Mr N [2016] C7GF51J1, PACE came back again, this time claiming that clause 6.3 of the lease allowed the terms of the lease to be varied. The judge rules that this clause required a month's notice to be given, and as this had not occurred, the point was moot. The claim, and 7 others relying on this, were dismissed.

However, this does mean that the lease needs scrutinising carefully.

It is not sufficient for the operator to simply point to a clause which allows the lease to be varied. They must prove that the lease was so varied, and furthermore varied by the lessor.  The operator isn’t a party to the lease and cannot vary it.

Furthermore, a clause ostensibly permitting variations does not give carte blanche to introduce any terms at whim.  Such variation clauses are normally couched in terms stating that variations can be made for the good management of the site, or similar.  So, if a variation can be shown to be to the significant detriment of the lessees, it should be challenged.  A variation might also conflict with other terms of the lease e.g. the right to peaceful enjoyment.  If so then, again, it should be challenged.

The Parking Contract

If the lease is allowed to be varied, then this new contract will be the one in force. It is important to note that this contract is not the same as the signage on site, which may not even be there at the time. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E it was established that ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not apply to residential parking, and this will therefore bring the penalty doctrine back in play. The charge will therefore likely be a penalty and unfair consumer charge unless it is found the charge is a pre-estimate of loss or there is commercial justification. The supreme court found that £85 was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss in Beavis as there was no direct loss to the parking company. Similarly, it would be hard to establish commercial justification for charging residents hundreds of pounds a year to park in their own parking spaces.

Communal Areas

There may be communal spaces (eg visitor parking) or access roads where parking permission is not granted by the lease or covered by a permit scheme. Communal areas are not necessarily a free-for-all, governed only by the operator signage.  This was central to the Jopson case: an easement over the access roads implies a right to stop and load/unload.  Furthermore, easements are sometimes worded such that they grant lessees the use of communal areas without specifying any uses, in which case a lessee can do what he likes there, including parking.  And in extreme cases (such as one on MSE a while ago where a tenant had been parking in the same place for decades) a long-term resident might have acquired an easement by prescription.

The Signage - Performance

In those instances where there is no primacy of contract it is likely the contract will be formed by signage on site. This will need to be plentiful and easily visible, otherwise no contract can be entered by performance.

In Link Parking v Mr L C9GF5875 [2016] it was found that there was no entrance signage at a residential site and the other signage was not visible. The claim was dismissed.

The Signage - No Offer

If the wording of the signage forbids parking, then there is no offer to park and therefore no contract.

This is clear from several cases. In PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], residents were parking on access roads. The signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company.

In UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.

In Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.

Authority to Operate

The operator should be challenged to show their authority to operate.  There will usually be a chain of agents between the lessor and the operator, and it’s quite possible that this chain is broken somewhere in terms of devolving authority to the operator.

Other matters

The signage might not be forbidding. For instance visitor parking might allow 2 free hours for visitors, and would therefore appear to be similar to the Beavis case. In this situation, whether the charge is enforceable would depend on the frequency, visibility and readability of the signage, and whether the charge is made plain to the motorist or hidden in the small print. the Beavis judgment provides guidance on this.

Lastly, the signage might not comply with information requirements laid down in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014. This Act came in force after the Beavis case and as yet there is no case law available. However clause 13(1) of the act states that a contract is not binding on a consumer if the correct information is not provided.

Scotland

It’s all very different in Scotland where leaseholds are rare and tenement owners are normally the joint owners of communal areas. Scottish motorist should seek specialist advice.

Data Protection

All this means that residential parking is quite a minefield for everyone, and parking companies are quite likely to get this wrong. If a parking company gets your personal information from the DVLA for a situation where a charge is not valid, then it is highly likely that a breach of data protection laws has taken place. In this situation the case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.

Trespass

In Davey v UKPC MR Davey sued UKPC for trespass for placing tickets on his vehicle which was parked on his own land. He won the case and was awarded £150 damages for trespass and £1280.26 in costs.

Happy Parking

The Parking

UKPC lose residential case. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

UKPC v Mr Aziz Birmingham 9/1/2017 C2HW01A6. DJ Gibson

Mr Aziz visited a residential block and parked with full permission of the tenant. He received 2 parking charges of £100 each, which UKPC magically inflated into a £400 claim.

Mr Aziz contested the claim on the basis that the charge was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and that UKPC did not have authority to issue charges as he was parked with the permission of the tenant.


First Hearing

The first hearing was before DJ Rich on 29/09/16. DJ Rich disagreed with the pre-estimate of loss point, but found that there was no chain of authority to prove UKPC could override the  lease. He adjourned the case on UKPC's request so that they could come up with some paperwork.

Second Hearing

Mr Aziz represented himself. UKPC engaged SCS law who contracted Simon Villae to appear as advocate. Before the hearing Mr Villae confided to Mr Aziz that he expected to get a tongue lashing from the judge due to the awfulness of the UKPC's bundle. DJ Gibson did not disappoint him, and laid into him as UKPC had failed to provide any evidence that they could override the lease, despite asking for an adjournment. They did provide a letter from the Management requesting them to put up a sign banning parking in the bin storage area, but as this was not where Mr Aziz parked, DJ Gibson ruled this was totally irrelevant. The photographs UKPC supplied were heavily pixelated and almost useless - Mr Aziz's vehicle appeared to have oval wheels.

DJ Gibson dismissed the claim on the basis UKPC did not have authority to override the lease and issue charges. She also followed the lead of HHJ Charles Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, and ruled that ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 did not apply to residential cases. There was no way that residents or their visitors would agree to pay a charge of £100 to park in spaces they owned. The charge of £100 therefore had no commercial justification and as it was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss was therefore a penalty and not justified.

DJ Gibson asked Mr Aziz if he had got his defence from the internet. Mr Aziz said he had. DJ Gibson said there was nothing wrong with this but cautioned Mr Aziz to be wary as case law was forever changing and so he should always make sure any research was up to date.

Prankster Note

When a parking company request an adjournment this should always be resisted on the grounds that they have employed a professional solicitor to assist and should therefore be fully aware of the paperwork required, and it would be out of proportion to the value of the claim to have a second hearing. The advocate costs, which are not reclaimable in the small claims track, far outweigh the value of the claim.

If there must be an adjournment ask for a wasted costs order which would be the full value of a lost days pay under the unreasonableness rule 27.14(2)g

Take a copy of the rule
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27

It should be noted that HHJ Charles Harris QC uses this rule to award £2,000 in costs against a parking company in a residential case.

Members of the British Motorists' Protection Association provided assistance to Mr Aziz, and he passes on his thanks.

Data Protection Act 1988 (DPA)

It would appear Mr Aziz has the possibility of two data protection claims against UKPC for obtaining his personal data from the DVLA and continuing to use it when no lawful reason existed. The going rate for these breaches is £250 each.

Parking Cowboys have written an insightful piece regarding making a claim for a DPA breach.

UKPC are already around £500 down on this hearing

If Mr Aziz decides to take action and successfully pursues a DPA breach this would leave them £1,000 out of pocket for issuing two bogus charges.

Happy Parking 

The Parking Prankster

UKPC lose residential case. Will victim get costs before UKPC are wound up?

C8HW3P0T – UKPC v Miss B, before District Judge Jones. 12/05/2017

UKPC were represented by Mr Elfer (not a practicing solicitor or a regulated barrister). Bargepole appeared as the Defendant’s Lay Representative. £1590 was claimed, for multiple tickets for parking at her own residence.

This was a residential parking case, for which Barry Beavis had assisted with the defence submissions. The main defence points were:

1/ Miss B had a tenancy agreement, predating UKPC’s appointment, which granted her rights to park without the need to display a permit.
2/ Ticketing bona fide residents was not within the purpose of the scheme
3/ The signage forbade unauthorized parking, therefore there was no consideration and so no contract
4/ There was no evidence of a chain of authority from the landowner to the Claimant
5/ This was clearly distinguishable from ParkingEye v Beavis

Bargepole wasn’t going to challenge the Claimant’s advocate’s Right of Audience, as the Defendant wanted this done and dusted on the day, with no adjournments. But as it turned out, he didn’t need to. The DJ started by asking all the parties who they were, and in what capacity they appeared. Mr Elfer stated that he was there as a Lay Representative. After a few seconds of stunned silence, the DJ asked if Bargepole had a copy of the Lay Representatives order, and Bargepole directed him to s3 (2)(a), which says that a lay representative can only represent a party if the client attends.

Mr Elfer argued that in CPR PD 3, a judge has discretion to hear any person, even if excluded by the Order, and that it would be in the interest of the overriding objective to allow him to speak.

The DJ agreed that he could exercise discretion. However, the Claimant had not notified the court that their Witness, Mr Kieran Ali, would not be attending, and had not previously notified the Court that they wished the hearing to be conducted by a person who was not an exempt person under the LSA 2007. They had not notified the Defendant of any of this either, and this potentially disadvantaged the Defendant who would not have had the opportunity to question the Witness in a case involving complex issues.

The ruling was that the Defendant had acted entirely properly in complying with Court directions, and arranging for a lay representative to put their case, whereas the Claimant had not. Therefore, Mr Elfer could not represent the Claimant in the absence of any representative of the Claimant company.

Bargepole then directed the Judge to CPR 27.9, dealing with non-attendance of parties, and he agreed that this applied. He would ignore all of the Claimant’s submissions, and based on the Defence argument that the Defendant had an unfettered right to park granted by their tenancy, the claim was dismissed.

On the subject of costs, Bargepole  referred to the Costs Schedule sent by the Claimant’s legal representatives, SCS Law, which the Defendant had received a few days ago, and Bargepole only became aware of on the morning of the hearing. This document set out total costs £651.20, including the £70 filing fee and £115 hearing fee. The other £466 was an inventive matter of pure fantasy, including £195 for drafting a witness statement, a £105 advocate fee, and £96 ‘fixed fee for issuing claim’, despite the claim form already including the standard £50.

Bargepole  submitted that this was not only an abuse of process, but also a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court and the Defendant, and possibly crossed the threshold of Contempt of Court. As such, it was evidence of unreasonable behaviour by the Claimant, which, together with their unreasonable behaviour in failing to discharge their obligations to the Court, meant that additional costs could be claimed under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

Miss B was therefore awarded a total of £170.80, to include Bargepole's advocate fee. Bargepole also asked the Judge to make the costs payable within 7 days, as UKPC are due in the High Court on 22 May for a winding-up petition by HMRC, and Miss B wanted the costs paid before they went out of business.

Bargepole also advised Mr E to submit his invoice ASAP, if he expected to get paid for his work today.

Prankster Notes

Parking companies are well known for submitting fictitious costs. This time it backfired on them.

Even if UKPC had sent a proper advocate, they had little chance of winning. In a residential claim, the lease will usually overrides any signage erected by parking companies, although the actual wording will be key and may vary from claim to claim.

The point of a residential scheme is not to penalise the residents, but to stop non-residents abusing the spaces, and parking companies would do well to keep that in mind.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UKPC lose residential case. Tenant can derogate parking rights to visitors.

C8HW2E9Q – UKPC v Miss C, Reading 12/07/2017 before District Judge Harrison

Claimant represented by Andrew Gibbs-Ripley, solicitor instructed by LPC Law
Defendant represented by Bargepole.

Guest report from Bargepole

This was a residential parking case in which the Defendant had parked as a visitor in the space allocated to the tenant of the property, Miss B. UKPC had previously issued a claim against Miss B, reported a month ago: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/ukpc-lose-residential-case-will-vicim.html

The Judge at that hearing had ruled that Miss B had an unfettered right to park, and that trumped anything on UKPC’s signage. So the key decision that DJ Harrison had to make, was whether that principle could be extended to visitors.

Mr G-R argued that a visitor was not a party to the contract between landlord and tenant and thus could not rely upon it, whereas I argued that the tenant had inherent rights in the contract, which could be derogated to visitors.

The DJ preferred the Defence submissions, so case dismissed. Costs of £96 awarded.

Prankster Note

Parking companies continue to take landowners and their guests to court for parking in their own spaces. This is a complete abuse. Parking companies are brought in to protect the rights of landowners, not attempt to fleece them.

The Prankster suggests that any parking company who does not explicitly state in their contract that they will cancel all tickets accidentally issued to residents and their guests should be booted of site and a proper parking management company brought in instead.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Link Parking lose in Wrexham. Flat owner has every right to park in her own parking space

C7GF50J7 Link Parking v Ms P 2/11/2016 Wrexham

This case concerns a residential car park at Overstone Court Cardiff. The motorist in question has her own assigned parking space which she has successfully managed for several years by installing a post which can be raised and lowered. She has never had any problems with this system.

One day on arriving at the property she discovered a letter from the management company explaining that the car park was now managed by Link Parking. On returning to the car she discovered that a ticket had been issued.

She naturally appealed, expecting that any reasonable parking company would cancel the charge. Link Parking declined. As the motorist refused to pay, a claim was issued by Gladstones Solicitors.

The Hearing

The hearing took place in Wrexham Court No.3 in front of Judge Louise Metcalf.  Ms P was introduced to Mr. Pickup, an advocate from LPC, instructed by Gladstones and acting for Link parking. Mr Pickup was a pleasant young man who does a lot of parking case work and is based about 60 miles away in Bury. The hearing began at 10.00am in front of the Judge, who informed Ms P she had received no papers from her.  Mr Pickup confirmed he had received his copies. Both sets had been sent by Ms P on 17th October via Royal Mail Special Delivery (to arrive next day, deadline was 19th Oct)  Presumably the papers were lost somewhere in the Law Court building.  Ms P. then handed her copies to the Judge, who then sent the parties out, and heard another case.

The case resumed just after 11.00am; by this time the Judge had read the defendant's copy. After reading both submissions, she stated  Link's case was “fairly simple”.  She then asked both Ms P and Link’s rep questions. Finally she asked if Ms P. had any further questions, Ms P asked if she would be disadvantaged in any way because her documents had not found their way to the judge.  The judge assured Ms P it would not as she totally believed that she had sent them. She then sent both parties out and they were called back in just before noon, where they listened to the summing up. At first Ms P thought it was going in Link’s favour but then the judge read Ms P's submission regarding contracts. The judge also read the submissions regarding signage compared to the Beavis case.

The judge ruled that that for Link or CPML (the management company) to have any right to manage the parking on the Landowner's property, the deeds would have to be altered to state this for the whole site. She ruled that the Landowner could not be penalised for parking in her own space.

She dismissed the claim and asked if the defendant was claiming expenses, which was declined. It appeared the judge was influenced by the transcript of the similar case from Croydon court of PACE v Mr N, which is available on The Prankster's web site.

Prankster Note

If there is car park management at a residential site, this will be primarily to stop non-residents from parking. No reputable car parking company would target the residents and refuse to cancel a parking charge, issued to a resident, especially if they have only just been informed of parking restrictions. Sadly, Martin Gardner is far from reputable and the large number of failed court cases show he runs a rogue company with no regard to the law, proper parking management, or common decency.

Also sadly, Gladstones Solicitors seem to be encouraging him that this behaviour is acceptable and above board.

For this particular car park The Prankster is aware of one ticket being issued to the management company representative, a large number of tickets to residents, and none whatsoever to non-residents. This does not seem to be a useful service at all.

Martin Gardner of Link Parking, you've been Gladstoned!

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

No score draw in Brentford. P&PM claim adjourned to a cooler day

C3GF78FE – Parking & Property Management Ltd -v- Mr S, before District Judge Nicholson. 21/06/2017

Claimant represented by Mr Offord (Solicitor’s Agent). Defendant represented by Bargepole, via the BMPA.

This involved 2 x PCNs issued to the Defendant’s vehicle, while parked without displaying a permit in the numbered space designated in his Lease of the apartment. An interesting feature is that, as evidenced by a letter from the DVLA, P&PM had never applied to the DVLA for keeper details, so no-one is sure where they got them from.

There was also a Counterclaim in play, claiming £750 for DPA breach, £150 for trespass, and £95 for additional time spent defending which would not be recoverable as ordinary costs, so £995 in total. The Defendant had already filed this, before Bargepole was instructed in the case.

Defence

The main Defence arguments were that the lease established primacy of contract, and there was no evidence of a variation. As the Claimant had not obtained the RK details from the DVLA, they were unable to rely on keeper liability, and had no evidence of who the driver was (could have been Mr S or his wife). The contract with the Managing Agent did not authorise P&PM to litigate in their own name.

Counterclaim

That P&PM had no reasonable cause to obtain (by whatever means) or to process the RK’s data. That they had no authority to enter the parking space and put notices on the car, therefore trespass to land and property. That by unreasonably pursuing charges to which they were not entitled, they had caused distress to the Defendant, and financial loss in terms of time spent on this.

Unfortunately, DJ Nicholson decided that the allocated 2-hour slot was insufficient time to read the voluminous case authorities, and make rulings on what he described as ‘a number of complex legal arguments’. The case was therefore adjourned for a half day hearing at some future date.

A more cynical person than Bargepole might conclude that, on the hottest June day for 41 years, and with the Court’s air-conditioning system about as effective as a gnat farting on your hand, this was the strategic option.

Prankster Note

P&PM's greed, coupled with their poor understanding of parking related law, could lead them to losing £1500 or more on the claim.

Parking companies brought in to manage residential parking are not there to feather their nests by victimising the residents. Their presence is to deter unwanted parking, not to penalise residents whose lease gives them the unfettered right to park.

Will Hurley's lack of morals and leadership in failing to correctly advising his IPC customers of the situation in residential parking could yet lead to his undoing. Parking companies who have been badly advised by him have up to 6 years to bring a claim.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Residential ticket only cancelled after letters before claim issued

This thread on MSE tells the full story.

UKCPM issued a resident a ticket for parking in his own parking space. The motorist appealed on the basis that they were parked in their own space and UKCPM had not yet issued a permit.

UKCPM refused to cancel the charge, as did the joke appeals company the "Independent" Appeals Service, overseen by Bryn Holloway. As his minions appear to have little or no knowledge of parking law, with their precepts regularly overturned by proper judges, the credibility of Mr Holloway is called into question by The Prankster.

The residents lease gave the right to park and did not require a permit to be displayed.

The resident therefore instructed UKCPM, the management company and the developer to cancel the charge. No reply was received apart from a letter from Debt recovery Plus increasing the charge.

After chasing up, several letters then followed with the developer trying to abdicate responsibility.

With forum help, the resident therefore sent a letter before claim, to the landowner, management company and UKCPM.

A few days later, the landowner cancelled the charge.

Prankster Note

The letters before claim are excellent examples to use for other residents in the same situation. The Prankster highly recommends them.

Residential parking companies are there to protect the residents from outside motorists, and not for them to fleece residents parking in their own spaces.

Will Hurley and John Davies provide a joke appeals service which does not uphold lawful appeals. This is of course attractive to the sleazy side of the industry as it allows them to get a good appeals record and pretend their charges are valid.

However, it is damaging long term to the whole parking sector. As this case shows, even though the IAS did not cancel the charge, it was cancelled when the resident asserted their legal rights and threatened to go to court to uphold them.

In this case the appeal was on the grounds that the resident had not received notification of any permit system, had not received a permit and that the signage displayed on 7 November 2016 was entirely inadequate.

In relation to signage, the IAS Barista stated that they had “some sympathy with this ground of appeal”, however then stated that as there was no independent evidence of where the sign was in
relation to the Parking Space they could not find in my favour. In relation to the permit, the adjudicator conceded that I was “unable to prove a negative” (ie that I had not received a permit or notice of the new system), but that, again, the appeal could not be allowed without
independent evidence.

In The Prankster's opinion, any appeals system which accepts the parking company evidence unquestioned, but dismisses the motorists evidence out of hand is biased and unfair and falls foul of ADR Entity statutory requirements. Schedule 3, requirement 3(c) has this condition:

The body ensures that no ADR official discharges his or her duties in a way that is biased as regards
a party to a dispute, or the representative of a party;

The Prankster suggests that the ADR Entity approval is removed from the IAS until they comply with the statutory legislation, and that Bryn Holloway is investigated to see if he is competent to oversee such a body and enforce the requirements. The Barista who interrupted their coffee making duties long enough to whip out such an incompetent decision should be the subject or retraining, and if they cannot make the grade, no longer used.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Link Parking lose in Wrexham. Flat owner has every right to park in her own parking space

C7GF50J7 Link Parking v Ms P 2/11/2016 Wrexham

This case concerns a residential car park. The motorist in question has her own assigned parking space which she has successfully managed for several years by installing a post which can be raised and lowered. She has never had any problems with this system.

One day on arriving at the property she discovered a letter from the management company explaining that the car park was now managed by Link Parking. On returning to the car she discovered that a ticket had been issued.

She naturally appealed, expecting that any reasonable parking company would cancel the charge. Link Parking declined. As the motorist refused to pay, a claim was issued by Gladstones Solicitors.

The Hearing

The hearing took place in Wrexham Court No.3 in front of Justice Louise Metcalf.  Ms P was introduced to Mr. Pickup, a barrister from LPC, instructed by Gladstones and acting for Gladstones. Mr Pickup was a pleasant young man who does a lot of parking case work and is based about 60 miles away in Bury. The hearing began at 10.00am in front of the Judge, who informed Ms P she had received no papers from her.  Mr Pickup confirmed he had received his copies. Both sets had been sent by Ms P on 17th October via Royal Mail Special Delivery (to arrive next day, deadline was 19th Oct)  Presumably the papers were lost somewhere in the Law Court building.  Ms P. then handed her copies to the Judge, who then sent the parties out, and heard another case.

The case resumed just after 11.00am; by this time the Judge had read the defendant's copy. After reading both submissions, she stated  Link's case was “fairly simple”.  She then asked both Ms P and Link’s rep questions. Finally she asked if Ms P. had any further questions, Ms P asked if she would be disadvantaged in any way because her documents had not found their way to the judge.  The judge assured Ms P it would not as she totally believed that she had sent them. She then sent both parties out and they were called back in just before noon, where they listened to the summing up. At first Ms P thought it was going in Link’s favour but then the judge read Ms P's submission regarding contracts. The judge also read the submissions regarding signage compared to the Beavis case.

The judge ruled that that for Link or CPML (the management company) to have any right to manage the parking on the Landowner's property, the deeds would have to be altered to state this for the whole site. She ruled that the Landowner could not be penalised for parking in her own space.

She dismissed the claim and asked if the defendant was claiming expenses, which was declined. It appeared the judge was influenced by the transcript of the similar case from Croydon court of PACE v Mr N, which is available on The Prankster's web site.

Prankster Note

If there is car park management at a residential site, this will be primarily to stop non-residents from parking. No reputable car parking company would target the residents and refuse to cancel a parking charge, issued to a resident, especially if they have only just been informed of parking restrictions. Sadly, Martin Gardner is far from reputable and the large number of failed court cases show he runs a rogue company with no regard to the law, proper parking management, or common decency.

Also sadly, Gladstones Solicitors seem to be encouraging him that this behaviour is acceptable and above board.

For this particular car park The Prankster is aware of one ticket being issued to the management company representative, a large number of tickets to residents, and none whatsoever to non-residents. This does not seem to be a useful service at all.

Martin Gardner of Link Parking, you've been Gladstoned!

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UKPC lose 7 ticket residential case. Judge rules resident can park in safety

UKPC v Ms H. D5HW059T Manchester Civil Justice Centre. 07/12/2017. District Judge Ranson

Guest Report 

I listened in on the above case this afternoon, where UKPC had issued 7 tickets in a six month period last year to a resident of a block of flats. The claim was for just over £1100.00. Six of the tickets were issued for not parking in her allocated bay, and 1 ticket was issued for not parking within a marked bay.

Ms H explained that, due to drug users frequenting the parking area (due to broken security gates) she had not felt safe parking in her allocated bay as the area was littered with needles. Instead, she parked in a well lit communal area within the apartment block grounds, close to her apartment and displayed her permit.

Several complaints were made to the landlord, but these fell on deaf ears.

SCS sent a Ms Hurley to represent  the claimant. She provided  photos of the vehicle on 6 occasions parked in the communal area. She also provided one photo of the vehicle in pitch dark alleging that it was not parked within a marked bay - it was so dark you could not even see any bay markings!

After hearing both sides, the Judge dismissed the claim as the landlord had not addressed the issue with the needles and therefore, as Ms H had complained on several occasions, Ms H was not able to park in her allocated bay and had parked in a safe, well lit, needle free area instead.

Ms H was understandably very upset by the proceedings and was extremely relieved by the outcome. She didn't want costs and just wanted to go home.

Prankster Notes

Sadly some parking companies have no intention of operating a proper residential parking service. Their sole intention is to gouge residents by creating an inappropriate set of rules conducive to issuing as many charges to residents as possible.

It is clear to The Prankster that UKPC, owned by Rupert John Williams, is one of these companies. UKPC have a long history of deceit and malpractice. They have been taken to court by Trading standards twice, and their wardens have been caught manipulating photographs to pretend motorists overstayed.

The Prankster believes that reform is long overdue for this company.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

UKPC hit for £352 for discontinuing residential case

UKPC v Mr X 21/11/2016

Court Report from Mr X

UKPC had a representative there, who was there for another case. He said before we went in that he wasn't there to represent the case but to make sure it was discontinued, so I told him I was applying for costs and gave him the schedule. He ran around a bit looking anxious, and got his big book of CPRs out which he was thumbing through furiously while I sat there as calm as you like, which was nice to see.

Went in and had to do very little. The judge had obviously been through everything thoroughly and made it quite clear he thought it was a good job they discontinued because they had no legitimate claim. He asked if I'd incurred costs so I gave him the schedule. He said it all seemed fine to him, and asked their guy if there was any reason not to award them to which he responded that there was no automatic order of costs after discontinuance on small claims.

The judge shot him down straight away with that wasn't the point, the point was whether they had been reasonable or not. Their guy tried to say the discontinuance was because they received the lease, and had I submitted that earlier they wouldn't have continued, to which the judge said I submitted it exactly when I was required to and there was no reason why I should have done so earlier, and they should have made an effort to check whether they had a genuine claim before proceeding.

The judge awarded my full costs of around £350, told their guy to go back and "tell [his] masters such behaviour won't be accepted in future". He then asked him if he was representing any other cases today, to which their guy responded "not in front of you" and the judge replied "good".

Game over.

Prankster Note

Many parking companies jump into residential parking enforcement without doing the proper due diligence before signing contracts with the management agent.

The legal situation is that if your lease gives you rights to park then you have primacy of contract and other parties cannot unilaterally introduce terms and conditions.

If a parking company requests your data from the DVLA in such situation then it is likely there is a data protection breach, as they had no right to request your data from the DVLA in the first place. It is up to the parking company to do the proper due diligence. You may be able to make a claim against the parking company in such a situation. You should also complain to the DVLA that the parking company are issuing tickets on land where they have no rights to do so. If the DVLA have not put proper steps in place to audit parking companies and keep your personal data safe then you might also have a claim against the DVLA.

The right to claim lasts for 6 years, so if you have received or paid out a parking charge in such a situation you can claim for your money back. If the parking company requested your data from the DVLA you might also be able claim for a data protection breach.

Tenancy Agreement not overruled by Parking signage

Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0 16/09/2016 Croydon.

Mr N had the temerity to park outside his own home, in his own parking space, without displaying a permit. Pace Recovery and Storage (trading as ACE Security) issued him a parking charge, and when Mr N declined to pay it, took him to court.

In the hearing, Mr N produced his tenancy agreement, which showed he had the unrestricted right to park.

District Judge Coonan dismissed the claim and refused leave to appeal.

I have to deal with this on the evidence that is before me now. I have before me a tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that. It has got to be the other contracting party, Affinity Sutton, which amends the terms of the tenancy agreement to restrict the right to park on a place in circumstances in which a permit is displayed but that is not in this tenancy agreement and you as a third party cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.

The approved judgment which may be of use to other people in the same boat, is hosted on the Prankster's site here.

After the hearing, Mr Charman stated his regret that he had relied on the advice of solicitors.

 As you can see from this, we rely on solicitors, which maybe we should not really have done, but we have relied on solicitors who at this point have said, “No, there is not a need” and maybe if they had seen the lease

No doubt a lot of other Parking companies who have lost at the hands of Gladstones Solicitors will be thinking the same think.

Prankster Note

It is a well established legal doctrine that an existing contract cannot be unilaterally altered. Any solicitor, apart it seems from Gladstones Solicitors, could have told Mr Charman that.

In the case of residential parking, the existing contract would normally come into place when the tenancy agreement is signed.

Failing that, the contract next most probably comes into force at the time permits are supplied. If this does not explicitly state parking charges of £100 will be charged for non-display, then this term cannot be unilaterally introduced later.

It would be very unusual for the contract with a resident to be formed by the signage on site. The signage is there only to form a contract with non-residents.

Responsible parking companies will realise this. Spivs and chancers, who have no intention of providing a responsible parking management service and only want to gouge the residents, will have difficulty accepting this.

Paper permits are an outdated and inefficient way of managing a residential car park. They fail to take note of the needs of the residents, who may have to swap cars at short notice, or who may want someone else to use their space at short notice. They also have a habit of disappearing from view or expiring while the owner is on holiday.

Responsible parking companies will either use a modern system which does not need paper permits, or will cancel charges accidentally given to residents or their guests.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Resident counterclaims against UKPC for £1000. Score draw

UKPC v Mr McCarthy 15/12/2016 Luton

Mr McCarthy's vehicle was often to be found parked in common residential areas. This behaviour was allowable under his lease agreement. UKPC attempted to unilaterally impose new terms and conditions which Mr McCarthy ignored, resulting in the issue of a number of parking charges.

UKPC filed a claim for £840. Mr McCarthy filed a counter-claim for £1,000 for harassment.

The Hearing

The claim was partially dismissed and the counterclaim partially allowed. The judge awarded amounts which cancelled each other out.

Prankster Note

A score draw.

The Prankster suspects that if McCarthy had used different arguments it would have been a clear home win, and UKPC would have been sent packing. So next time, use 4-3-3, not 3-3-4.

An analysis of the legal issues around residential parking is here.

It is clear that parking companies have no idea of the laws which govern their own industry. This sad state of affairs has been compounded by unscrupulous shysters of the likes of Will Hurley and John Davies who cruelly convince parking companies they have a valid case, while actually the reverse is true. Instead of guiding the companies to be within the law, they actively encourage sharp practices and the issuing of tickets in situations where they cannot, in the Prankster's opinion, possibly be valid.

The case of ParkingEye v Beavis revealed that something like 80% of tickets are not valid. While not all of these will give rise to an enforceable claim against the parking company, it is likely that a good percentage will.

A total of 16 million keeper enquiries were made in 2015 and 9 million in the first half of 2016. Extrapolating these figures would mean that something like 29 million parking charges have been improperly issued over the last 2 years. If each driver managed to get £250 per ticket, this would mean that parking companies are in the hole for around £7 billion.

Claims can go back up to 6 years, which would mean the actual liability is substantially more.

Given that driverless cars may substantially alter the way we park over the coming years, The Prankster thinks that anyone investing in a parking company right now may be throwing their money away.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Managment companies should beware of using Parking Ticketing Ltd run by Mario Ireland

This is a cautionary tale about contracting with a disreputable parking company to manage a residential car park.

Churchill Park is a small development in Hounslow TW4. Because of an ongoing parking problem with non-residents using residents bays on the estate the management company employed the services of  Parking Ticketing Ltd (PTL) of 83 Ducie Street  Manchester M1 2JQ.

This Company is run by Mario Ireland. The management company issued residents with permits supplied by them to display while parked on bays. The scheme worked well to start, but after a few months reports started to come to the management company about residents being ticketed. They directed Parking Ticketing to void these tickets as they could vouch for the resident having a permit; however, Parking Ticketing refused. Residents appealed via the ways as advised on the rear of tickets only to find the appeals rejected. It would also appear that the appeals company that they were informed to appeal to was run by the same person. Under BPA rules the management company were under the impression that even during an appeal the clock stopped ticking on the ticket. However, Parking Ticketing Ltd continued to add no payment time onto the ticket and so some residents were presented with bills for hundreds of pounds.

The management company contacted Parking Ticketing Ltd again, asking them to stop this practice of issuing residents with tickets, even when the management company could prove residents had a permit which they had issued.

Things quietened down for a while and then there were incidents of miss-ticketing involving the same person's car. The permit was clearly displayed on the dashboard and the resident showed the management company a photograph proving this. Because of past form the management company paid the ticket as they felt it was morally unjust to ticket a car that had a valid permit displayed on the dashboard. Also because of previous events with the company they wished the bill not to escalate into the hundreds of pounds.They paid the bill out of their funds as over the years they have had a good working relationship with the gentleman who had been ticketed and did not wish this relationship to be affected by the overzealous actions of Parking Ticketing Ltd. They reported Parking Ticketing Ltd to trading standards who felt that Parking Ticketing Ltd were acting in an immoral way.

Parking Ticketing Ltd has a very unusual clause in their contract. The management company wrote to them giving 30 days notice to cancel a contract as they had had the contract for over a year. However, within the contract, there is small print that states that if they do not give a cancellation notice within 30 days of the anniversary of, the contract it will run for a further 12 months.

The Churchill Park management company are now gathering evidence where Parking Ticketing Ltd have miss-ticketed and therefore are in breach of contract. They now have two cases of this where valid permits were on display, yet the resident was issued with a parking ticket. The management company noted that the resident who had been targeted was one who complained about the practices of Parking Ticketing Ltd.

The management company wrote to The Prankster so that more people could be be made aware of the practices of Mario Ireland's company as it would appear there are many examples of him doing this in the press over numerous years. He also had a previous company that was removed from the BPA.

The management company will be writing to him again saying the contract is terminated because he has breached his terms and conditions.

Prankster Note

The company Mario Ireland was previously running was notorious clamping firm Magnaco Limited which was expelled from the BPA for unpaid CCJs and entered voluntary liquidation.

This cautionary tale shows that management companies should take extreme care when contracting with a car parking company and that all terms and conditions should be carefully scrutinised.

If you don't like the contract, don't agree to sign it. Either get the contract changed, or find a different parking company. For a residential contract it is important to include a term stating that genuine residents and their visitors will not be charged and if a ticket is accidentally issued then it will be cancelled.

Paper permit schemes should be avoided as they are routinely abused by parking companies. In this day and age electronic schemes are common where residents can register their and their vistors vehicles via apps websites and telephone.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Millennium Door And Security Group lose claim over 4 residential tickets

Millennium Door and Security v Mr T. Swansea 03/07/2017. D7GF651J. DJ Batcup

Mr T represented himself. David Bellis and an assistant represented the claimant.

There were 4 tickets involved, all for a residential site where Mr T's leasehold gave him the right to park.

DJ Batcup agreed, and dismissed the claim because the leasehold took precedence over Millenniums contract.

In the run up to the hearing, Gladstones requested a copy of the lease, which was provided to them. Despite this, they decided to continue with the claim. The lease did allow the management company to introduce regulations in various circumstances. However, the parking contract was not found to be such a regulation.

Prankster Notes

It is quite obvious and there is plenty of case law that an existing contract takes precedence, and cannot be unilaterally altered.

David Bellis has legal training and so will be well aware of this. It is likely then that he is taking out these claims because he hopes that his victims will not know the legal situation, and will either be scared of court and pay up, or will mess up in the court procedures, or will file an irrelevant defence.

In the Prankster's behaviour this is morally bankrupt behaviour.

Millennium Door and Security, you've been Gladstoned!

Happy Parking 

The Parking Prankster

Link Parking lose Lakeshore residential case at XBristolX Bath

Link Parking lose at Bristol Bath

Bristol court is currently flooded which means cases are currently in chaos, paperwork unavailable and hearings moved.

One hearing was moved to Bath and heard on 4/7/2017.

This was a residential case involving a motorist parked in their own space at Lakeshore, Bristol.

The lease gives residents the unfettered right to park, so The Prankster wonders why Link Parking think they have the right to unilaterally override the lease and impose their own conditions.

Apparently The Judge agreed with The Prankster and was very harsh on Link Parking for bringing the claim.

Link Parking, you've been Gladstoned.

Gladstones parking department is staffed by the incompetent pair of Jamie Ashford and Helen Cook. If either of these two had done their job properly and undertaken the proper due diligence, The Prankster believes that the claim would never have been filed and valuable court time would not have been taken up.

Gladstones is owned by failed solicitor Will Hurley and his inept sidekick John Davies. John Davies is infamous for threatening to file a defamation case for publishing his mobile phone number. Notwithstanding the fact that it was himself who actually published his own number in the first place, it is difficult to see where defamation is involved. Anyone seeking his services as a barrister should be forewarned on his apparently shaky grasp of legal concepts.

Will Hurley and John Davies also own the International Parking Community. The Prankster calls on the government to remove their ATA status until they show they understand parking related law.

Data Protection

Any residents issued with tickets at Lakeshore may well have a data protection claim not only against Link, but also against the managing agents who employed them. This is because Link have no right to personal data because he motorist had every right to the quiet enjoyment of their own parking space.

The amount of claim would depend on the level of distress and harassment caused.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Mick Cook from Armtrac presents 'alternative facts' to the judge. Judge not remotely interested. Armtrac you've been Gladstoned

KBT Cornwall t/a Armtrac Security Services v Mr H. C8GF5C06 Clerkenwell & Shoreditch CC 22 Jan 2017

This case involved a driver Mr H and 2 passengers visiting a friend and parking in a residential private car park at night. The friend couldn't find his visitors permit but gave consent to park and placed a Housing Association calling card in the car window. Mr H and his passengers left later that night.

Fast forward several months and Mr H received a Notice to Keeper from Armtrac Security Services stating that as they had not heard from him, his chance to appeal had passed and £100 was now due. This was the first time that Mr H was aware of any parking ticket.

At this point the Mr H sought forum help. A closer look was taken at the photos supplied by Armtrac and it was observed that the ticket wasn't stuck to the car windscreen, but stuck under the wiper.

There is a practice carried out by the more disreputable operators of placing tickets on a car, taking photos and then removing the ticket. This is known as 'Ghost Ticketing'. The first thing a registered keeper knows about this is when they receive a Notice to Keeper demanding £100. The registered keeper is informed that the opportunity to appeal the charge has passed.  Disreputable operators like this practice because it increases their charge from £60 to £100, it removes the right to appeal and it is difficult to prove. However the fact that the ticket wasn't stuck on the car is strong evidence that this practice had occurred.

The next opportunity the registered keeper had to challenge the ticket was in court and Amtrac and their solicitors Gladstones duly obliged by issuing a Letter before Claim.

A visit was made to the car park at night and photographic evidence was taken of a dark unlit car park, an entrance with no signage whatsoever and the first signage seen was displaying the logo of  the British Parking Association which Armtrac had left a year previously. There was also a sign stating that wheel clamping was in operation. Armtrac were investigated by the British Parking Association and told to remove the signs.

The claim rumbled on and a date was set for 23 January 2017. In the interim Mr H did not receive any of the information that he requested regarding the case. This is standard practice by Gladstones. Not providing information means they can keep their costs down and it also makes it much more difficult for any defendant to know what they are being sued for, thus meaning they cannot defend the case properly.

Armtrac also claimed they hadn't been investigated by the British Parking Association.

Armtrac's witness statement 'put together' by Mick Cooke, Armtrac's manager was received late by the court and Mr H. The witness statement was a template often used by Gladstones and is amusing only to show the levels of incompetence which can be reached by Gladstones in a simple document.

Court Report

Mr H was approached by Armtrac's advocate but Mr H didn't want to speak to him about the case. The advocate found rather rude but Mr H wanted to  speak to him only in the court room, as is his right. When they entered the chambers the judge launched straight into a tirade against the hapless solicitor about the quality of the witness statement which left the solicitor stuttering . The judge was not impressed that Mick Cook hadn't bothered to turn up, nor was he impressed that the notice to keeper was missing from the witness statement. All this time Mr H hadn't said a word and due to the legal jargon being used did not understand all the finer points of law that were being discussed.

The judge continued taking apart the witness statement and scolding the solicitor, sometimes stopping to mutter under his breath. He clearly wasn't happy with what had been put in front of him. It all ended with the judge stating 'You don't have a case so I'm going to have to dismiss this and with that he began to close his files.

It was at this point that Mr H piped up to say 'What about my expenses? The judge turned to the solicitor. 'Yes, what about his expenses?' There was some negotiation about costs and the solicitor argued that 5 hours at £19/hr was excessive but offered £8/hr. The judge asked if Mr H was happy with this, which he was so costs of £48 including travel, printing and 'refreshments' is due within 30 days.

Mr H and the solicitor had a brief conversation outside. He said that he had been employed directly by Mick Cook and not Gladstones. The solicitor left and Mr H popped into the nearest pub for some 'refreshments' courtesy of Mr Cook of Armtrac.

The Witness Statement

Mick Cook from Armtrac made the following statements which he claimed were true on his witness statement. Although the witness statement was a 'Gladstone's special', Mick Cook still signed it and is therefore responsible for its contents.

He stated that Mr H claimed not to be the driver and that he had been invited on numerous occasions to identify the driver but failed - This was untrue. Mr H had said he was the driver from the outset.

He stated that as Mr H was being pursued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which states 'The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid charges from the keeper of the vehicle'. However, as he did not comply complying with all the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 he could not pursue Mr H as the registered keeper.

He stated that the criminal case of Elliot v Loake was applicable. This case has no place in small claims courts, and has been laughed out of court by judges many times.

He stated that Mr H had failed to nominate the driver as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, The Act requires nothing of the sort. And of course, he had declared he was the driver.

He stated that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 presumes the registered keeper to be the driver unless proved to the contrary. This is incorrect.

He stated it didnt matter that a ticket was not left on the car as Mr H entered into a contract with Armtrac when parking. Obviously not being able to appeal or pay at a lower charge is irrelevant to Mick Cook as it is detrimental to hs business model. In any event, not leaving a ticket means that keeper liability does not exist. Witness statements were supplied confirming that no ticket was found on the windscreen.

He stated that Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is relevant even though the signage fails under Beavis. He claimed that the signs were clear and unambiguous even though they were dark and unlit  and in any case display logos from different trade organisations and advertise that clamping is in operation. 

The signage filed as evidence on the witness statement was different to the actual signage on site.

He stated that the particulars of Claim were compliant when they were not. Gladstones solicitor Helen Cook has explained why Gladstones particulars are so deficient:
'We issue on a vast majority of claims, majority of which are not defended and therefore it is time consuming and not financially viable to send further particulars of claim'.

He stated that he denies the contract constitutes 'a distance contract' with in the meaning of the Consumer Contracts Information Cancellation and Additional Charges Regulations 2013 because Mr H had parked on the land for the purpose of his trade, business, craft or profession. This is untrue, Mr H was on a social visit. (The Prankster fell about laughing when he read this. However, it has to be remembered that Gladstones in the past have argued that the telephone is not a method of distance communication).

He stated that he is claiming damages of £50 as is his right in addition to the parking charge incurred. This is completely false.

Also contained within the witness statement was a contract that stated  Armtrac can only pursue for trespass and to recover any monies due to the landowner. In cases of trespass only the landowner can make a claim not Armtrac. 

He stated that ParkingEye v Beavis justifies the charge of £100. However, Beavis makes it clear that a charge for trespass cannot possibly be viable, as in a trespass case only actual costs incurred or a nominal £1 can be sought. As Gladstones have now lost a huge number of cases on this point, it is surprising they do not know this. In one of their cases, Homeguard v Jopson, HHJ Charles Harris QC explained that Beavis did not apply in residential cases and awarded £2000 in costs under the unreasonableness clause (27.14(2)g) against Homeguard.

As there was no case to answer for against Mr H is now considering pursuing  Armtrac for a Data Protection Breach as his personal data was misused by Armtrac.

Prankster Notes

Mr H  would seem to have a viable claim against both Armtrac and the landowner for a data protection breach due to misuse of personal data. Normally a claim of £250 might be seen to be appropriate. However, due to MIck Cook's behaviour, a larger claim may well be appropriate.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster