The open consultation document is here and closes 25th May 2015.
Evidence of bad practices can be sent by web form, email or letter
Post: Parking reform –
Call for Evidence
High Streets Team
3/NE Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
Please take this opportunity to influence Government policy.
The Prankster has a vast collection of evidence of bad practice, which he will be submitting.
The Prankster has identified the following bad practices and dodgy tactics used by ParkingEye. Here is a reminder.
- Pursuing cases when motorists break down, are injured or suffer medical emergencies
- Pursuing cases against mothers who overstayed due to breastfeeding
- Pursuing cases against disabled motorists who need more time to shop
- Pursuing cases against elderly motorists who need more time to shop
- Pursuing cases against motorists who are unable to leave the site due to congestion
- Pursuing cases against motorists who were unable to appeal because they were in hospital and seriously ill
- Installing sites without cameras on all entrances and exits, and then pursuing motorists for overstays if they left via an unmonitored route
- Installing sites where the cameras do not record all entrances and exits of vehicles, and then pursuing motorists for overstays when two visits were made
- Pursuing motorists for very short overstays, well within an acceptable grace period
- Shortening parking periods to the detriment of retailers to increase their income
- Aggressively pursuing tickets against the wishes of retailers served by the car park
- Using inappropriate and hard to use technology coupled with confusing signage to target hospitals to generate vast income to the detriment of patient
- Failing to take reasonable steps to mitigate transgressions by motorists
- Providing false information to judges, including in the Beavis case
- Charging motorists for POPLA, which the government has stated must be free to motorists
- Using the Protection of Freedom Act to pursue keepers to court when they knew the land was not covered by the Act.
- Charging motorists over £1 million in solicitor fees which were not actually incurred, making their court filings one of the most profitable part of the business
- Providing landowner witness statements to court without the knowledge or permission of the witness by using photocopied witness statements
- Providing landowner witness statements to court and POPLA containing information ParkingEye knew was not within the knowledge of the witness
- Providing contracts to judges, including HHJ Moloney in the Beavis case, which had pertinent information redacted
- Sending motorists false information to make them think they have no chance in appealing the ticket to POPLA
- Providing outdated and misleading information on their web site
- Not even bothering to defend large numbers of POPLA cases, causing motorists time and expense for cases ParkingEye knew they would not win anyway
- Providing false information to POPLA in order to win cases
- Pursuing through the court system even though they knew the motorist was neither the keeper or driver and was therefore not liable
- Pursuing their own customers for huge penalty clauses when they try to get rid of them
- Filing thousands of court cases without sending a letter before claim compliant with practice directions, or in some cases, without sending any letter before claim at all
- Filing huge, complicated documents in court, in violation of the prime objectives of the courts in terms of proportionality to the sums involved. A typical filing will be over 50 pages with 30 or more case references.
- Filing large numbers of documents after the filing deadline and without paying a fee
- Complaining when motorists file after the filing deadline and asking the court to charge the motorists a fee
- Refusing to reply to reasonable requests for information from motorists to allow them to defend their case
- Filing false information in witness statements written by their employees including documents referred to by the witness statements
- Filing deliberately misleading information in court documents, which while factually correct are not relevant, or are couched in terms to deliberately mislead
- Ploughing on regardless with court cases, despite having lost all known similarly defended cases, causing defendants distress and expense.
- Providing false information to and deliberately deceiving their own customers
- Failing to properly quality check parking charge notices sent out
- Pursuing cases where the landowner stated by ParkingEye in documents provided to court, was not the actual landowner and did not have the right to allow parking
- Using signage to create entrapment zones in car parks, so that although coverage is sufficient in some areas, it is not in all
- Getting CCJs by sending all the paperwork to the wrong address, and only establishing the right address once the CCJ is in place
- Using dubious sales techniques such as over-estimating the value of equipment they are providing for free
- Breaking government guidelines at hospital car parks
The Prankster will also be informing the Government of the circumstances surrounding the hoax phone call which caused the ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley hearing to be adjourned, along with the details of all legal persons involved.
The Parking Prankster