Printfriendly

Tuesday 31 December 2013

UKCPS try new scam - handing out fake POPLA codes

The Parking Prankster has learned that parking operator UKCPS has been handing out fake POPLA codes. This is apparently a cynical move on UKCPS's part - handing out a fake POPLA code will mean it will be rejected by POPLA and may then mean a valid appeal cannot be lodged within the timescale or that the motorist will simply give up.

How to recognise a fake POPLA code.

All genuine POPLA codes are 10 digits long, and their format is described in a previous post. The fake POPLA codes are 9 digits followed by 1 letter. They therefore fit on the form, but will of course always be rejected by POPLA.


The last 3 digits are your place in the number of appeals UKCPS turned down that day. 'P' is therefore obviously invalid and there can be no justification for UKCPS trying to manipulate the system in this way.

It is noticeable that the instructions UKCPS provide for using POPLA only mention the online appeal service. Appealing online will of course fail to even get the appeal registered because the POPLA code is not valid. All rejection letters should also contain details on how to appeal by post - it cannot be expected that ever motorist has access to a computer. Appealing by post will at least get the appeal logged by POPLA.

As a further example of UKCPS's attempt to bend the rules, The Prankster has seen the full unredacted latter and can confirm that the POPLA code was generated several days before the rejection letter was dated and posted, thus eating away appeal time.

What you should do?

POPLA
If you have an invalid POPLA number, contact Richard Reeve, POPLA Tribunal Manager, on 0207 520 7202 and ask him to log the fact that you have attempted to appeal but have not been given a valid POPLA code, and that in any case the POPLA code was generated several days before it was posted. Richard Reeve and his team are well aware of this scam and will know the right procedures to follow.

To be doubly sure, write to POPLA with a copy of your UKCPS rejection letter and get a free proof of postage.

Parking on Private Land Appeals
PO Box 70748
London
EC1P 1SN

British Parking Association Ltd
The BPA Ltd are well aware of this scam but so far have taken no public action. To be fair to motorists they should require UKCPS to contact all motorists who have been given invalid codes and re-issue valid codes, properly dated with 28 days to appeal, and with instructions on how to appeal both online and via the post. Any motorist who has paid should still be given the chance to appeal even though POPLA do not normally allow this.

Email them at aos@britishparking.co.uk enclosing a copy of the UKCPS rejection letter. Ask them to explain why UKCPS are issuing invalid POPLA codes. Ask them to explain why UKCPS are also creating POPLA codes several days before they send them out. Ask them to explain why they have not required UKCPS to proactively already contact you, since the BPA are fully aware this is happening.

DVLA

The DVLA are responsible for letting the BPA Ltd police their members. As the BPA Ltd are not currently pulling their weight, you should email foi@dvla.gsi.gov.uk, enclosing a copy of the UKCPS rejection letter. Ask them to investigate why the BPA Ltd have taken no visible action so far to resolve this, and ask that as the BPA Ltd are apparently not regulating the sector correctly whether their ATA status should be investigated.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster








Tuesday 24 December 2013

Merry Christmas

The Parking Prankster is now officially banned from all parking related activities until Dec 27th by Mrs Parking Prankster.

Merry Christmas to all readers! Even Rachel.

The Parking Prankster is now off to indulge in a mince-pie and wine related activity from which he hopes to recover in the near future. Trivial Pursuit may also feature at some point.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Picture of the Week - Aldi release new product to help stop shoppers getting ParkingEye tickets

The Parking Prankster saw this product on the Aldi facebook page.


At £7.99 this is surely the must-have stocking-filler this Christmas.

Number Plate Blockers
Prevents Parking Eye ANPR cameras from recording your vehicle registration number upon entering or exiting an Aldi car park
Easy to affix and remove using elastic straps - a must have for regular Aldi shoppers
Prevents months of stress from dealing with threatening and intimidating letters from Parking Eye (and a possible court appearance)

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

PS: if you don't have one of these, then visit ParkingCowboys, moneysavingexpert or pepipoo. Currently they help get 100% of ParkingEye charges cancelled because they have been found to be legally unenforceable. With nearly 100 reported success stories and no failures, visit these sites and spread the word to your friends and family to make sure that the £100 stays out of ParkingEye's bank account and in your pocket.

Sunday 22 December 2013

How much does an ANPR camera cost?

Parking companies are fond of quoting the cost of ANPR cameras as justification for their parking charges. The Prankster wondered just how much an ANPR camera did cost, so typed 'buy cheap anpr' into google.

It turns out a high spec ANPR camera costs around £100-£300.

600 TVL less than 50 mph $103
600 TVL more than 50 mph $156
540 TVL $216
Camsecure Colour WDR ANPR £288

So basically, after the first 1-3 suckers* pay out, the system is paid for.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

*technical term for someone who pays a non-enforceable speculative invoice

Saturday 21 December 2013

Parking Prankster 2013 parking awards

The award for the most creative explanation for genuine-pre-estimate of loss goes to ANPR Ltd, for their explanation on how their signs devalue if motorists ignore them.

The carbon-credit award for the most trees chopped down goes to ParkingEye, who are now up to 50 pages for POPLA appeals, and over 100 pages for court cases. Their explanation of why they should not show their contract now uses twice as many pages as the contract itself.

They also get a minor award for creative redaction of contracts.



The two-hats award goes to Nick Lester, managing to be involved with both POPLA and the BPA Ltd while deftly managing any potential conflict of interest. Even the Prankster only has one hat.

The we-are-big-roughty-toughty-people-and-you-should-be-mightily-afeared-of-us award goes to Civil Enforcement Limited, for running away with their tails between their legs if anyone they filed a claim against looked remotely like actually turning up in court.

Runners up are Highview Parking and CP Plus for constantly threatening to spring into immediate action, but never actually doing anything.

The lifetime award for services to investigative accountancy goes to the BPA Ltd, for repeatedly refusing to recognise that if ParkingEye run their whole business on costs £53 per issued ticket, and they charge up to £100 per ticket, then a profit of up to £47 cannot possibly be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. As both ParkingEye's filed 2012 accounts and projected profit from the Capita press release show profits of over 30%, then the BPA Ltd's failure to seriously investigate ParkingEye's statement 'we only make a small profit per ticket' tipped the judge's votes, and the BPA Ltd are therefore worthy winners of this coveted award. Steve Clark, the BPA Ltd employee ultimately responsible for making the decision, and the man whose linked-in profile shows how qualified he is to do this with his extensive background in sales and publication, was not available to receive the award.


The award for the best off-topic post goes to magicbucks.


Congratulations on the award, magicbucks, and good luck with the wedding.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Friday 20 December 2013

Prankster falls at first hurdle

The British Parking Association Ltd recently advertised for board members to oversee the Independent Appeals Service, POPLA.


The Parking Prankster considered this to be an excellent position for his many talents, and as he was eminently suited to the job, applied for the post.

The Prankster considered that he could do more good for the motorist working inside the industry rather than outside it.

Although the Prankster's application was received and read with great interest, sadly the post captured the attention of many people more talented and more suited to the post then The Prankster.

The Prankster therefore recently received an extremely courteous rejection letter informing him that he has not made the interview stage.

The Prankster wishes the new IAS board well, and will no doubt be in touch in the near future with his ideas for continuing to improving the service.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Thursday 19 December 2013

Northumbria NHS stiffs patients for estimated £1 million parking fines a year to save £70,000

Dogged campaigner martmonk has unearthed figures showing that the Northumbria NHS has targeted the sick, the injured, the elderly, new mothers and the disabled (in other words, your typical hospital patients)  for an estimated annual figure of £1 million in parking fines to save the £70,000 it cost them to run a car park barrier system.

The hospital itself does not profit, but passes the money on to car parking company ParkingEye.

The system ParkingEye have installed uses a scattergun approach, issuing charges whether or not they are justified. Well over half the tickets issued have to be subsequently cancelled. In some car parking areas the figure is higher than 80%.

It is likely that most of the other tickets would be cancelled too, but many vulnerable people are scared into paying instead of appealing because the fines increase dramatically after 14 days.


The figures available show that for the three months August to October 3854 tickets were paid. The full fine is £70, reduced to £40 if paid within 14 days. This means the amount paid is somewhere between £154,160 and £269,780. With a further 2307 outstanding tickets, this represents a sum somewhere between £0 (if they are all cancelled) and £161,490


Extrapolating for a whole year of data gives us a minimum of (£154,160 + £0) x 4 and a maximum of (£269,780 + £161,490) x 4. This works out as  between £616,640 and £1,725,080.

The Prankster thinks the likely total sum will be more than £1 million.

The hospital trust chose ParkingEye to replace the previous barrier system which was costing £70,000 to run. ParkingEye promised free car parking management. It is now clear that the car parking management is not free at all, but that the entire cost has been passed on to the patients of the hospital, at a price around 20 times greater than it cost the hospital to run the system.

It is also clear this system is not fit for purpose.

Huge numbers of tickets are being incorrectly issued, and the vulnerable and sick are targeted. It is instructive to note that in the consultants car park 92 tickets were issued in August and all but 2 cancelled. Consultants are obviously well aware that these tickets are bogus and have no hesitation in getting them cancelled. Time after time The Prankster finds it is the more vulnerable members of society who are frightened into paying these tickets.

What do Northumbia NHS think?

It is instructive that the Northumbria NHS view the charges as fines. Parking charges on private land are not allowed to be penalties or fines; this therefore makes them unenforceable.


Rather than setting the charges as a true pre-estimate of loss, they have been set at the same level as council fines (which are legally enforceable)


The legal case the Northumbria NHS quote to justify their charges is extremely ironic.


This case was actually about ParkingEye suing Somerfield for cancelling their car parking contract. Somerfield had to pay ParkingEye £350,000  - something the Northumbria NHS will need to bear in mind.

Somerfield cancelled the contract due to the sharp practices of ParkingEye. Some other quotes from that case from Sir Robin Jacob  (quotes the NHS seem not to have used) are as follows.
6. Under the contract, ParkingEye provided all the equipment and were responsible for its operation. It received no payment from Somerfield for this. Instead it was entitled to retain all the “fines” collected. So of course ParkingEye had an incentive to operate the “fine” system aggressively.
7. This it did – too much so: some of the letters it wrote to motorists contained falsehoods.
9. The third letter was different. This was held to contain serious falsehoods.
11. This semi-literate letter was false in a number of respects:

13. The Judge not only found that the third letter contained falsehoods but that those falsehoods were deliberately made by the relevant ParkingEye executive, albeit without dishonesty. Hence the Judge found ParkingEye was guilty of the tort of deceit on those occasions when the third letter was sent on its behalf. ParkingEye does not challenge this decision.

The Northumbria NHS are apparently not too hot on legal issues. The quote from HHJ Hegarty QC was not relevant to the main issues of the case and therefore does not form a necessary part of the court's decision. The technical term is 'obiter dictum'. It is therefore not binding and not even relevant.

The Northumbria NHS quote several other cases from Combined Parking Solutions, but these are all cases to do with contractual issues, not breaches of contract. These are therefore not relevant in the slightest.

In short, the Northumbria NHS do not seem to have a grasp on the issues.

What should patients do?

ParkingEye's charges have all been found to be legally unenforceable by the industry standard adjudication body, POPLA. To date, over 80 verdicts have upheld this, with none in favour of ParkingEye.

Patients from Hexham General Hospital, North Tyneside General Hospital and Wansbeck General Hospital should therefore appeal first to ParkingEye and when their appeal is rejected, take the case to POPLA, quoting the reason for appealing is that the charge is for breach of contract but is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and ParkingEye have not provided a breakdown of their charges.

As ParkingEye are raking in £1 million for supplying a few signs and cameras it is obvious they are making vast profits here. POPLA see through them every time, and so far uphold all appeals on this basis.

It is obviously unfair that ParkingEye make patients go through this stress and effort when they know full well their charges are not enforceable, and therefore patients should also reclaim money for their time and effort in fighting the charge. The Prankster suggests adding the following text to appeals:
If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail.
As the landowner Northumbria NHS are equally liable, so the patient should also appeal to the trust, using the same wording.

ParkingEye are breaking the industry code of conduct by charging amounts that are not a true-pre estimate of loss. The code of conduct can be downloaded here and states:
19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer
Patients should therefore also complain to the British Parking Association Ltd at aos@britishparking.co.uk, and to the DVLA at foi@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Both these organisations take a 'laissez faire' approach to enforcement, relying on consumer complaints to identify problems. They welcome complaints of this nature otherwise they would never find out about problems.

Patients who have already paid the fines should request a refund. As the landowner the Northumbria NHS is jointly responsible, so the patient should contact the Northumbria NHS to get their money back.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster




Wednesday 18 December 2013

Laying the groundwork prior to reclaiming costs from a parking company

The Parking Prankster has previously blogged about motorists successfully reclaiming costs when a parking company issues a charge which has no basis in law.

Yesterday The Prankster blogged about another such challenge which is currently under way.

If you are a motorist and have been issued with such a charge, you will be far more likely to be able to successfully reclaim costs if you have established a proper foundation from the start.

A suggested text to add to your appeal to the operator is as follows.
If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail.
Obviously it is not right that some parking operators continue to knowingly issue charges when they have no basis to do so, and when their charge levels have consistently been rejected by POPLA in every appeal since its inception in October 2012. This is unjustly causing motorists time and effort to fight charges which are bound to be cancelled by POPLA. Moreover, many motorists who do not know the charges are not valid may be frightened into paying up. The Prankster sees this time after time, especially with the more vulnerable members of society.

The Parking Prankster recommends that every motorist adds the above text to their original appeal to the parking operator. Once the POPLA appeal is upheld, the motorist can then decide whether to pursue the parking company for their expenses.

If you are currently have an appeal in with the operator, but have not yet received your POPLA code, send in the above text as soon as possible.

If you currently have your POPLA code but have not yet filed your POPLA appeal, send in the above text with the stipulation that they have seven days to cancel without incurring expenses, otherwise you will then file your POPLA appeal. Obviously make sure you still appeal to POPLA within the timeframes; you can check your POPLA code here.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster



Tuesday 17 December 2013

ParkingEye ignore PCN (Personal Costs Notification)

One definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same action, yet expect a different result.

ParkingEye have now contested over 80 cases at POPLA where their charge level was contested, and the score is currently Motorists 81 ParkingEye 0.

Motorists can therefore feel fairly aggrieved that they have to spend time and effort preparing a POPLA defence when ParkingEye have no chance of winning; ParkingEye's accounts show they make a profit of over 30% on parking charges and as they are required to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss this is an obvious impossibility.

One motorist therefore warned ParkingEye that if they refused to cancel his charge and that he was forced to continue to POPLA he would charge them for his time and effort if he won. ParkingEye refused to cancel the charge. The motorist appealed to POPLA and won, and duly issued his invoice to ParkingEye.


ParkingEye ignored the invoice and all subsequent communications and hung up the phone whenever the motorist tried to contact them.

This is surprising, because in all their court documents ParkingEye roundly lambast motorists for ignoring letters that they send.

In the end, as a last resort, the motorist has been forced to issue a court claim against ParkingEye.


The Parking Prankster will follow the case with interest. ParkingEye now have 14 days to acknowledge the claim or face default judgement.

Will ParkingEye finally spring into immediate action? Will they pay up? Will they attempt mediation? Will Capita send a few lawyers over to help out? Will ParkingEye use a photocopied signature on their witness statement or will they follow proper procedures?

Only time will tell.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Monday 16 December 2013

UKPC jump on LPC Law bandwagon

A post on pepipoo suggests that UKPC are considering following ParkingEye's lead and issue court claims in bulk.

This is an extremely profitable activity for parking companies because many people are scared by the mere threat of court and so pay up straight away. The parking company can add fictitious amounts onto the claim, vastly improving their profit margin. Most people are unaware that companies such as ParkingEye will actually settle the claim for much less than the numbers on the court claim form, because otherwise they lose vast amounts of money if the claim progresses to a hearing; money they cannot reclaim because the small claims court limits costs.

This is early days yet, so we still have to see what exactly will happen. The current situation is that UKPC have assigned debt collectors Debt Recover Plus to chase up old debts (from 2012) by writing threatening letters; they say the case will be passed to LPC Law to take further action on behalf of UKPC.

The Prankster wonders how this will turn out for UKPC - a couple of letters from LPC Law will soon see their charges swallowed up.

So, what should people who receive these letters do?

The Prankster does not know at this time.

If UKPC are bluffing then the letters could be ignored.

If UKPC really will do court, then they should send a Letter Before Claim first. However, as we have seen from ParkingEye, many of the letters they claim to send are never received.

The Prankster, in this situation, would take the initiative, write to the debt collector stating that any debt is denied, and write to the operator, appealing the charge and asking for a POPLA code; meanwhile also stating that any legal action should be preceded by a letter before claim complying with practice directions.

However, everybody will have to make their own choice until we see how things pan out.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

A Carol for ALDI

Tree up, presents wrapped, first mince pies eaten. Time for a festive carol...

Parking wenches last looked out,
From Aldi towers in Swindon,
Charges scattered all about,
Deep and crisp and even.

From customers queued at the pumps,
Gath'ring winter fu'el,
Queue was long, they got a charge,
ParkingEye were cru'el

Now they want their pound of flesh,
Canny folk appealed,
Aldi didn't want to know,
But POPLA soon repealed.

So the night is darker now,
And the wind blows stronger,
Capita are quite bemused,
Have they bought a ponger?

Merry not-Christmas yet

The Parking Prankster

Friday 13 December 2013

Amazing co-incidence. Two different parking companies have exactly the same pre-estimate of loss calculations

The Parking Prankster has seen the pre-estimate of loss calculations for two different companies, Vehicle Control Services and Excel Parking.

There are 12 categories of costs and amazingly each category comes to the same amount, calculated right down to the penny. Most of the amounts and categories can be seen in this post.

Aha, says the well-informed reader - VCS is 100% owned by Excel Parking. That surely explains everything.

Not so, replies The Prankster. Just because one is 100% owned by the other does not mean that they share the same books. Both companies file different accounts and have different methods of operation. VCS for instance, patrols several airports with periscope cars, and as has been reported, pays the airport for the privilege of issuing charges. Excel Parking manages centers like the Peel centre, and is paid a sum of money for doing this. Each company will have different rates at which motorists pay up, go to POPLA, and so on.

The Prankster can scarcely believe that the pre-estimate of loss calculation is the same for both companies.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Thursday 12 December 2013

Call for information - Predatory practices used by ParkingEye

The Parking Prankster is interested in any of the following information regarding ParkingEye predatory practices.

Refusal to allow your appeal for an overstay when you have informed them you or a passenger are elderly, infirm, or long term disabled and therefore need more time for parking than able bodied people.

Refusal to allow your appeal if you broke down

Refusal to allow your appeal if you or a passenger are a breastfeeding mother and had to breastfeed your child

Issuing a parking charge for an overstay within a grace period - this would normally be 5 minutes, but the Prankster is especially interested in overstays of less than a minute.

Issuing a parking charge when you visited a place twice, and they only recorded your first entry and last exit (double dipping)

Issuing a POPLA code which did not work.

Refusal to issue a POPLA code after an appeal

Failure to issue a POPLA code after an appeal

Issuing a Letter Before Action which is not compliant with practice directions. (As a guide, if it did not refer you to the government site on practice directions, it will not be compliant).

Claiming that they sent a letter which you never received

Claiming that they never received a letter or email you sent

Filing new information in a court case after the filing date

Filing new legal arguments or evidence in a court case along with their witness statement from Jonathan Langham. This will typically be legal arguments regarding pre-estimate of loss or why they are not producing a contract and are relying on a witness statement

Any untruths in a witness statement from Jonathan Langham

Any car park signage which creates entrapment zones where motorists enter the car park and park without encountering any readable signs.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Call for information - Complaints to DVLA about parking companies

The Parking Prankster has seen the figures the DVLA released regarding complaints about private parking companies. However, this does not seem to tally with the number of actual complaints made. The figures the DVLA release seem to be woefully understated.

If you have made a complaint to the DVLA regarding a private parking company, please contact The Prankster at prankster@parking-prankster.com with as much of the following information as possible

Date complaint was filed; date complaint was resolved; Parking Company; one line summary of complaint;

The Prankster can then use this information to help the DVLA make their figures more accurate.

Call for information - Vehicle Control Systems and Excel Parking POPLA cases

The Prankster is currently collecting information on Vehicle Control Systems and Excel Parking POPLA cases, for reasons later to be revealed.

If you have a completed POPLA case with either of these two companies, and are willing to discuss it with the Prankster, please make contact at prankster@parking-prankster.com

Call for information - Civil Enforcement Limited cancelled cases

The Prankster is collecting information on Civil Enforcement Limited.

This company issues large numbers of court claims, but then discontinues if a sturdy defence is produced.

If this happened to you, The Prankster would like to know. Please email your claim reference number, the date of your hearing and the date CEL folded to prankster@parking-prankster.com. The Prankster can then collate this information with a view to analysing whether CEL are vexatious litigants or not.

If you actually made it to a hearing The Prankster would like to know as well, together with the outcome.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye - no longer enforcing maximum value at Queen's Hospital

This newspaper report tells the tale of parking at Queen's Hospital.

ParkingEye were bought in to enforce maximum value, but instead targeted vulnerable people causing countless complaints. The system required motorist to know how long they had stayed for, but provided no information allowing the motorist to calculate that. Countless people therefore either overpaid or underpaid.

The chief executive has now suspended all penalties while a review takes place.

She will find it a little difficult to get rid of ParkingEye; when Somerfield tried it cost them a pretty penny.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Were ParkingEye operating without written authority at Corporation Street Retail Park, Preston, PR1 2UZ?

The Parking Prankster has been made aware of a freedom of information request which suggests that ParkingEye have been operating without written authority at Corporation Street Retail Park, Preston, PR1 2UZ.

The FoI request asked the council for their contract with ParkingEye. The council replied. The requester noted that the contract was dated September 2013, and asked for previous contracts.


The council replied that there were no previous contracts, but that there was a letter of authority

The letter of authority also confirmed there was no previous contract...


...and it was written by Rachel Ledson, [job title redacted] on behalf of ParkingEye...


...and was signed on behalf of the Landowner by Stephen Moore on 15th April 2013

So The Prankster wonders, if there was no contract in place, as confirmed by Rachel Ledson, why were parking charges being enforced before 15th April 2013. Presumably there was also no written authorisation in place, otherwise there would be no need for new authorisation.

The Prankster wonders if no authorisation was in place, why Rachel Ledson has been busy issuing court claims for parking events that happened back in 2012.



The Prankster also wonders if no authorisation is in place, why Nicola Rawlinson, Principal Solicitor for Tyne and Wear Pension Fund has been busy signing witness statements for ParkingEye court cases saying that there is written authorisation.


Well, it's all very confusing, with a lot of contradictory statements from ParkingEye, the council and the pension fund.

No doubt the council can sort this all out and send The Prankster a copy of the missing 'authority' to his usual address, prankster@parking-prankster.com so that he can clear matters up on behalf of his readers.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

[If ParkingEye have filed a court claim against you in this car park for any parking date before 26th September 2013, please contact The Prankster for information about the FoI request. This also applies if you are appealing a parking charge either to ParkingEye or POPLA.]




ParkingEye target slow moving pensioners at the Range Barrow-in-Furness

The Parking Prankster has learned that ParkingEye have set times and grace periods so that disabled, elderly and other slow moving people are trapped into paying parking charges at The Range, Barrow-in-Furness. Moreover, their callous appeals process deliberately fails to respect that some members of society are not as able as others.

Luckily for the motorist, POPLA does take this into account, as the following verdict shows.

11 December 2013
Reference 6062483014
[redacted] (Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number [redacted] arising out of the presence at The Range in Barrow-in-Furness, on 5 July 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark [redacted]. 
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued,giving the reason as: ‘By remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable’. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking which state that parking is only permitted during store hours.
It is the Appellant’s case that he parked in order to use one of the shops located on site. Having got out of his vehicle and approached the store, he found that it was closed and so returned to his vehicle and left the site. The Appellant submits that, as he is 82, this took him longer than usual.
The Operator has produced evidence that the Appellant remained in the car park for 11 minutes.
What constitutes being parked is a question of fact which will depend on the circumstances of each case and an appropriate grace period must be granted in order to give drivers opportunity to read the terms of parking and decide whether or not to park. In this case the signs produced by the Operator are not sufficient to indicate to motorists before entering the car park that parking is not permitted outside certain hours, as I am not minded to accept that the text is large enough to be read from a moving vehicle. In this case, the car park does seem to be fairly large, and certain spaces are a long distance from the shops and the nearest sign. Given the Appellant’s age, and the length of his stay, only 11 minutes, I am minded on this occasion
to accept his evidence that he left the car park as soon as reasonably possible after becoming aware that he could not park.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Chris Adamson
Assessor

Well done Mr Adamson, and one happy pensioner is thanking you today.

As ParkingEye were fully aware that the motorist was a pensioner, The Prankster considers that their appeals team needs retraining.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Wednesday 11 December 2013

POPLA achieving economies of scale

The Parking Prankster has received new information from POPLA regarding costs and case-load.

The number of appeals is currently between 1,600 and 2,000 a month; lets say 24,000 a year. This is slightly higher than the initial BPA Ltd forecast of 23,000, but not massively so. However, the number is increasing. The POPLA annual report shows that in February and March under 1,200 appeals were received.

POPLA estimate this will cost around £820,000 in 2013-2014, or around £34 per case. This is substantially lower than the costs per case when POPLA first started, which were running at over £100 per case. The Prankster assumes that POPLA have achieved this saving via 3 methods.


  1. Greater economy of scale. POPLA now have many more assessors than before and so the cost of shared resources, such as building rent, goes down
  2. Greater experience. As the experience of the assessors rises, they can deal with cases more quickly. 
  3. Being less thorough. Evidence is emerging of assessors rushing through judgements without considering all the points raised.
Points 1 and 2 are good. Point 3 is not so good! The average case took 3 hours when POPLA first started. It looks as though each case is now being dispatched in around one hour. This is fine when an assessor can quickly dispatch a case because the parking company cannot justify the charge levels, but not so good when the case is more complicated.

These costs are of course estimates. The Prankster expects the number of appeals to rise as more and more people find out about the parking companies' big secret - if they are charging for a breach of contract, then the charge must be a true pre-estimate of loss. As the parking companies are all making huge profits, their charges are obviously too high and are breaking the BPA Ltd code of practice.

If you are appealing to POPLA and your parking charge is for breach of contract, you should always include the appeal text;

The charge is for breach of contract and therefore must be a true pre-estimate of loss. As the parking company makes a substantial profit each year on parking charges, this cannot be true and I therefore require the operator to provide a breakdown of their charges.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster






ParkingEye shows Christmas Spirit

The Parking Prankster has learned that ParkingEye has refunded £60 to an elderly couple in their 90s who fell foul of the time limit at The Range.

This is an unusual case. The appeal did not happen until after the £60 was paid, and parking companies are usually fairly hard hearted in these circumstances.

The Prankster commends ParkingEye for this action.

As ParkingEye currently uphold over 55% of appeals The Prankster feels it would be helpful for ParkingEye to be more explicit over the possible reasons for appeal on their charge notices and their web site. After all, if over half of their tickets are wrongly issued it would be helpful to all parties if all incorrectly issued tickets were cancelled, and if this was done as early as possible in the appeals process by encouraging motorists to engage as soon as possible. If ParkingEye are forced to cancel tickets later on, it causes costs and wasted time for all parties.

To get ParkingEye started, here are some suggestions

  • if the vehicle broke down
  • if anybody with mobility issues was involved
  • if more than £30 was spent in the store
  • if a breastfeeding mother was involved
  • if anyone needing more time under the equalities act 2010 was involved
  • if the car park was visited twice, but the ANPR was faulty and only recorded one visit
  • if the vehicle was sold and no longer belongs to the motorist
  • if the car park was badly designed and it is possible to enter and exit without passing the ANPR cameras
  • if an accident or medical emergency caused the delay
  • if the overstay was not more than 10 minutes and therefore within the grace period
  • if the pay and display ticket machine was faulty
  • if the signage was not clear and visible
  • if ParkingEye do not have a contract dated before the parking event
  • if the charge is not a true pre-estimate of loss

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Tuesday 10 December 2013

Premier Park Solutions forget to turn up for court case

Proving that ParkingEye are not the only incompetent parking company when it comes to actually turning up for court cases, The Parking Prankster heard that Premier Park Solutions chickened out of appearing at today's hearing.

Many moons ago, the motorist decided to take a ferry and park at Hull Docks. The motorist paid for the correct parking charge and the ticket machine screen confirmed this, but there was an error with the machine which printed a receipt for 2 hours worth of stay instead of 48 hours.

The motorist appealed, showing a copy of his bank statement to prove he had paid and that the machine was faulty.

Bizarrely the parking company refused to accept this, so they refused the appeal and issued a POPLA code.

Bizarrely, POPLA also refused to accept this. Apparently if the machine swallows your money without giving you a correct ticket, then according to POPLA that is tough luck!

The motorist did not agree, and decided to get a court ruling on the issue.

The bungling buffoons at Premier Park Solutions started court action without issuing a Letter Before Claim compliant with Practice Directions, and against a person who was neither the driver nor registered keeper of the vehicle. Carrying on throwing good money after bad, the bird-brained boneheads then paid for a hearing.

Eventually someone came to their senses, and rather than waste travel and time they pulled the eject lever and stayed skulking in Premier Palace.

They didn't get off scott-free though. The motorist attended the County Court, and the judge immediately struck out the case due to no-show by the claimant and no witness statement by the claimant. He awarded considerable costs against them. The motorist reported that the judge was clearly irritated by their spurious claims.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

ParkingEye results at POPLA where costs are called into question

The Parking Prankster has been looking at the list maintained on MoneySavingExpert to compile this easy to use guide to ParkingEye's results at POPLA where the level of charges is questioned.

The magic phrase to use in your appeal is:

The charge is for breach of contract and so must be a pre-estimate of loss; I do not believe it can be as ParkingEye publish they make more than 30% profit on parking charges, and therefore require them to provide a full breakdown of the charge.

To save counting, the totals are:
Motorist: 67
ParkingEye: 0


Post date
Post number
Operator
Reason
23 Apr
18
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
18 Jun
68
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
21 Jun
77
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
5 Jul
93
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
15 Jul
121
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
18 Jul
138
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
19 Jul
144
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
19 Jul
149
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
19 Jul
160
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
22 Jul
166
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
26 Jul
177
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
31 Jul
181a
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
31 Jul
181b
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
2 Aug
182
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
8 Aug
193
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
10 Aug
194
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
12 Aug
199
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
30 Aug
210
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
3 Sep
212
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
8 Sep
235
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
9 Sep
240
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
11 Sep
243
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
17 Sep
254a
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
17 Sep
254b
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
17 Sep
255
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
21 Sep
262
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
21 Sep
263
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
24 Sep
272
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
26 Sep
288
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
27 Sep
291
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
30 Sep
298
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
30 Sep
299
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
3 Oct
317
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
10 Oct
321
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
10 Oct
347
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
11 Oct
332
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
12 Oct
348
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
14 Oct
359
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
15 Oct
377
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
18 Oct
390
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
15 Oct
379
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss.
27 Oct
434
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
28 Oct
435a
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
14 Nov
523
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
18 Nov
535
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
22 Nov
542
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
22 Nov
547
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
23 Nov
550
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
25 Nov
561
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
26 Nov
567
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
26 Nov
568
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
27 Nov
571
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
27 Nov
572
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
28 Nov
573
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
29 Nov
590
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
2 Dec
598
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
4 Dec
609
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
4 Dec
612
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
4 Dec
613
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
4 Dec
614
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
4 Dec
619
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
4 Dec
624
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
7 Dec
630
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
8 Dec
631
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
9 Dec
637
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
9 Dec
638
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss
9 Dec
639
ParkingEye
Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster