Printfriendly

Thursday, 29 December 2016

Heath Parade, Graham Park Way scam site

Heath Parade, Graham Park Way is a well known scam site. There is a lay-by which appears to be part of the the public highway but is not. There are signs but they are far too small to be read from a vehicle. The PCM UK parking attendant lurks nearby and when a car stops races out to get a photo. A PCN is issued even if the driver gets out, gets close enough to the sign to read it, realises no parking is allowed and immediately leaves.

This scam is actively supported by William Hurley, John Davies of the IPC/Gladstones Solicitors and Bryn Holloway of the IAS, and Gladstones are now assisting PCM-UK in taking motorists to court.

The Prankster suggests a defence on the following lines.


DEFENCE STATEMENT
Site Information

The site appears to be a layby and part of the public highway and there is no information close enough to be read by an approaching driver to suggest it is private land or otherwise restricted.


The parking warden “Mrs Sunglasses” lurks nearby continuously. When a vehicle enters the layby she approaches from the rear, takes a photograph and leaves without attempting to contact the driver. A parking charge is issued even if the driver gets out of the car, gets close enough to the sign to read it, then immediately departs. 


It is clear that the signs are so high and the writing so small it cannot be read from a vehicle or even by a pedestrian until right by the sign. Here is Ms Sunglasses standing underneath one of the signs.



“Mrs Sunglasses” is on site so often she even appears on Google Streetview.


It is clear then that this is nothing more than a scam. If the parking company genuinely wished to prevent parking “Mrs Sunglasses” could remain on site and politely ask drivers to leave immediately. They would also use large signs which can be seen from inside vehicles.

Defence

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1.      I was, at the relevant date, the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. On the material date, I stopped in the layby for a very brief period of time. I did not see any nearby signage prohibiting this.

2.      I subsequently received a Notice to Keeper from the Claimant, alleging that a charge of £100 was due to them. I did not send an appeal to the Claimant. or a further appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the Independent Parking Committee (IPC). My research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors, the individuals in question being John Davies, and William Hurley. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. As such, the Claimant does not come to this matter with clean hands.

3.      The Claimant’s signage with the largest font at this site states “No Customer Parking At Any Time”. A further sign with much smaller writing and higher up states “The loading bay is only for authorised vehicles actively loading & unloading when delivering to the commercial tenants of Heath parade”. It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.




           The above point was recently tested in the County Court at High Wycombe, in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), where District Judge Glen dismissed all three claims, stating in his judgment that:
 “If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”

While this is a County Court decision and therefore not binding, it is on all fours with the present case and may be considered as persuasive. A full transcript of the Approved Judgment for the above case will be provided in the event that this case proceeds to a hearing.

5.      In addition, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules that if signage has multiple interpretation the interpretation most favourable to the consumer applies. It is clear from this the signage with the largest font should apply.

6.      In the alternative, if it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the ‘contravention’ according to the Claimant is already committed.
7.      The above point was recently tested in several cases regarding Hayes and Harlington station. There a similar situation arises as the vehicles were charged for briefly stopping but the signs are far away from vehicles and high up

In all cases it was ruled that no contract was entered by performance as the signage could not be read from a vehicle. No transcripts are available but as PCM UK were the claimant in all cases they will be fully aware of the cases; C3GF46K8, C3GF44K8, C3GFY8K8  , 

8.       The IPC code of conduct states that a grace period must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be from 5-15 minutes from the period of stopping. This grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.

9.      Thus the signage is simply a device to entrap motorists into a situation whereby the Claimant sends them invoices for unwarranted and unjustified charges, for which motorists can have no contractual liability due to the terms and conditions not having been sufficiently brought to their attention. This activity is bordering on, if not actually crossing the boundary of, a criminal offence of Fraud By False Representation.

Additionally, the contract fails informational requirements for contracts established in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014.
Any alleged contract would be a distance contract for services as defined in The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

The regulations define three types of contracts; distance contracts, on premises contract and off-premises contracts.

The definitions concern themselves with how a contract is concluded (and in particular if face to face contact occurs during this process) and not where the contract is eventually performed. Thus, if a consumer books a hair styling appointment over the web, that is a distance contract even though they go to the salon for the actual styling. If they re-book at the salon, that will be an on-premises contract. If they meet their stylist in Tesco, arrange for an appointment and immediately phone the salon to confirm, that will be an off-premises contract. All these contracts are performed on-premises, but concluded in different ways.

The regulations define an on-premises contract as:
“on-premises contract” means a contract between a trader and a consumer which is neither a distance contract nor an off-premises contract;
Thus a contract cannot be on-premises if it is a distance contract.

The regulations define a distance contract as:
“distance contract” means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded;

• This is clearly an organised service-provision scheme (for parking)
• The contract is clearly concluded without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer.
• There is clearly the exclusive use of one means of distance communication (signage) up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded.

This is therefore a distance contract.

None of the exemptions in regulation (6) apply. No vending machine or automated premises was used to conclude the contract. Any contract would be concluded by parking and walking away.

Regulation 13 lists information to be provided before making a distance contract. The contract fails to provide the required information listed in Schedule 2. As per 13(1) the contract is therefore not binding.

Alternatively if the contract is on or off-premises, the information rules still apply and the contract is not binding as per either 9(1) or 10(1).

Additionally, the charge of £100 is a penalty and unfair consumer charge. The leading case on this matter is ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In that case it was ruled that the penalties rule was engaged but the charge was not unfair because the motorist had the bargain of 2 hours of valuable free parking in exchange for the risk of paying £100 for overstaying. The risk was clearly brought to the attention of the consumer in a huge font. Here, there is no valuable consideration on offer and no bargain for the consumer, and the charge is hidden in small print. It is submitted that no motorist would agree to pay £100 instantly on stopping and this is therefore and unfair consumer term in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015..


1     In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent, in this case Peel Land & Property Ltd. No evidence of such authority was supplied by the Claimant at any time, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.

1     In addition to the £100 ‘parking charge’, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £50 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report Gladstones Solicitors to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.


1     The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

Counterclaim

It is not possible that a valid parking charge exists for the following reasons
The signage cannot be safely read while driving. There can therefore be no meeting of minds and no contract by performance
The signage is forbidding and makes no offer to the motorist. There can therefore be no contract.
Even if there was a contract  the signage fails informational requirements for contracts established in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014, and so any contract would be non-bindng on the consumer
Even if there were a binding contract the charge would be a penalty and unfair consumer term as it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is not saved by the case law in ParkingEye v Beavis.

There was therefore no valid reason to apply for my keeper data from the DVLA.

Additionally the operator contract with the DVLA only allows them to obtain data for parking contraventions and not for briefly stopping.

My name and address information (together with other information) is classified as personal data within the meaning of s1(1) of the Data Protections Act (DPA). You are misusing this data by attempting to claim a charge is do when there is no possibility a lawful reason exists. Additionally you may only obtain and use this data from the DVLA for parking, and not for stopping.

This is therefore a breach of data principle 1 (data must be used lawfully) and 2 (data must only be used for the purpose provided).

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.

The case of VCS v Phillip, claim number C9DP2D6C Liverpool 07/12/2016, while not binding, concerns a motorist sent a parking charge for briefly stopping at Liverpool Business Park. The signage there has the equivalent forbidding wording to the signage in this case. The judge ruled that no contract could exist and therefore data had been wrongly obtained from the DVLA. This is therefore a persuasive case that a DPA breach occurs when a parking charge is not legitimately pursued, and that a sum of at least £250 is compensation for pursuing a purported parking charge when there is no reasonable prospect of success.

I therefore claim £250.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster




93 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you want to kick them where it hurts, don't forget to make a counterclaim. This will prevent PCM from discontinuing its claim at the last minute. There are other grounds for making a counterclaim that you could also use.

      Delete
    2. I will be sure not to forget.

      Delete
  2. An admission here that the RK was the driver.
    I can't see a problem with that as it is easier to state categorically what happened if questioned in court by the judge. It also gives credence to the DPA breach.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The barely legible signage says "NO CUSTOMER PARKING AT ANY TIME". So, if I am not a customer (of "G" presumably) then this doesn't apply to me. The £100 charge on the PCM UK signage will be illegible to many people, even when standing close to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have worked out that "G" refers to Genesis Housing Association, the developer and manager of the site. There is a Sainsbury's just around the corner, so "customer" is probably intended to mean a customer of Sainsbury's. The question is whether Genesis or Sainsbury's contracted with PCM UK. A firm complaint to both companies and the DVLA is a good idea, not to mention the SRA about Gladstones.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wonder if the PCM UK signage has advertising consent. If not then this strengthens the DPA counterclaim because PCM UK's KADOE contract with DVLA requires PCM UK to abide by their ATA's Code of Practice, which requires PCM UK to act lawfully. Failure to obtain advertising consent when it is required is a criminal offence, and is therefore unlawful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have made an enquiry about advertising consent to the London Borough of Barnet.

      Delete
    2. No advertising consent for Cyclone Court, 5 Heath Parade, Grahame Park Way, London NW9 5ZN, according to the London Borough of Barnet.

      Delete
  6. Sunglasses looks like a MOSAD agent

    ReplyDelete
  7. I can confirm that her sunglasses are indeed MOSAD agents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have heard of Google Glass - this is MOSAD lass (geddit?)

      I'll get me cloak

      Delete
  8. Remember to use your Android phone with GPS. The history can show that you were just stopped not parked.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Actually the IAS is not a subsidiary; it is in fact the same company as IPC (now renamed as United Trade and industry Ltd), according to their website:-
    "The Independent Appeals Service is trading style of United Trade and Industry Ltd, Registered in England and Wales (08248531)"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, poacher and gamekeeper
      how useful

      Delete
  10. Live around the corner and have parked there before. Have seen her wait inside Sainsbury's to catch poeple out and also there's a door directly next to the bays where she waits for poeple to pull up. She doesn't wear a uniform either so you would never know. Hate the woman with a passion. I often pull up when passing by and wait for her to come out with her machine and then drive off just to annoy her. We also have the same signage where we live. Only genesis tenants can park directly outside or in the car park. I have caught her going around my car park and local resident car parks managed by the same PCN company as the one outside sainsburys.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please can you get in touch. prankster@parking-prankster.com
      There are some things I would like to discuss

      Delete
    2. "I often pull up when passing by and wait for her to come out with her machine and then drive off just to annoy her."

      This is the recommended way to deal with Sunglassers.

      Delete
  11. “None of the exemptions in regulation (6) apply. No vending machine or automated premises was used to conclude the contract. Any contract would be concluded by parking and walking away.”
    Well this IS an automated premises. The car drives up and automatically forms the contract. No machines needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If that were true then every contact would be an automated premesis. The example of an automated premesis given in the EU regulations (2011/83/EU) from which this is derived is "Automated gas stations without the physical presence of the trader's representative for the conclusion of the contract."

      Delete
    2. So what is the difference between a gas station and car park? My question is not hypothetical but a reply actually received from a parking company.

      Delete
    3. In an automated gas station there is a credit card machine to take your money. You cannot form a contract by "filling your tank and walking away", or by pulling up in the forecourt.

      Delete
  12. Why not? The regulations do not preclude it. You drive up and form an automated contract

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why not? The regulations do not preclude it. You drive up and form an automated contract

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Automation: the use or introduction of automatic equipment in a manufacturing or other process or facility.
      There is no equipment involved in walking away

      Delete
  14. POPLAs template response to citing these regulations is as follows:

    The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 require that certain information is provided prior to the conclusion of the contract. However, under section 6 (2) it states that “These Regulations do not apply to contracts – (a) concluded by means of automatic vending machines or automated commercial premises”. In this case I have considered “automated commercial premises” to mean a place of business where little to no human contact is required for the conclusion and performance of a contract. Following my review of the evidence provided by the operator, I conclude that the car park in question is such a premises. Parking is managed by ANPR cameras and motorists park their vehicles without any assistance. Accordingly, I consider that there is no requirement for the operator to provide pre-contract information to motorists before a contract can be concluded, in this instance.

    http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/consumer-contract-regulations-2013/

    ReplyDelete
  15. Maybe if we go into the reasoning we may have a better understanding.

    http://www.journals.istanbul.edu.tr/iuafdi/article/viewFile/1023010295/1023009534


    (2) Concluded by Means of Automatic Vending Machines

    The Turkish Regulation, like the Distance Contracts Directive, regulate only the contracts concluded by using means of distance communication, and it thus seems logical to exclude both the contracts concluded by means of automatic vending machines and automated commercial premises.
    These are excluded by the Distance Contracts Directive art. 3 (1), and the reason for this is that it is not the conclusion of contract as such, which is to be regulated, only contracts concluded by use of means of distance communication(39). The consumer cannot be said to be in distance communication with the seller/supplier by inserting a coin, token or credit card in a hot-drink or gasoline automat, which must be considered the sellers/ suppliers business premise(40)

    (39) Micklitz, p. 11.
    (40) Begleitbericht zum Entwurf, p. 13.

    It apears to be the same as parking up without a two way comunication.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm inclined to agree with helpinghand in that a car park or area monitored remotely via ANPR would be an automated premises, as it removes the human element and for the purposes of the Regulations it more than likely falls under the exemption.

    However I'm not sure the contract can be automatically formed by simply driving up to the area. There's no such thing as a strict liability contract i.e the mere act of driving up will form a contract between the parties. The terms would need to be communicated to the driver for starters and secondly you have the intention of legal relations, so even if the driver got out of the car, read the terms and then got back in and walked away they would not have the necessary intention. On the other hand, if the driver walked away from the car and left it there then by the drivers conduct a contract would have been formed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This place doesn't have anpr cameras. It has no planning permission for it. That would mean it's not automated

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah yes I was making reference to helpinghand's comments. However, in this scenario, it may be arguable that the contract is not a distance contract. If you look at the definition it seems to apply in cases where the terms of the contract are concluded at a distance i.e. By email or telephone. However in this case, the terms are presented onsite but the trader is not physically on the premises. the elements of the terms communicated at a distance is not found and so it may be possible that the contract is construed as an on-premises perhaps - "a contract which is neither a distance or off premises contract"

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. It is not the ANPR that does the trick. The ANPR is no more than the proof and so is Mrs sunglass. They may just as well have an honesty box yet it will remain automated. Drive up (and remain) and an automated contract has been formed.

      Delete
    4. But there's no such thing as an automated contract. An automated premises for he purposes of exemption under the Regs is not the same as contract formation, hence suggesting that for the premises here it could actually be construed as an on-site premises because it fails to satisfy all of the elements of a distance contract. I can see where you are coming from but I wouldn't say that this place is an automated premises unless the process is automated by a machine or some other equipment

      Delete
    5. Even if you treat it as an ‘on-premises contract’ the following information is still required.
      * the geographical address at which the trader is established and the trader’s telephone number.
      * where applicable, the trader’s complaint handling policy
      The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013
      Information to be provided before making an on-premises contract
      9.—(1) Before the consumer is bound by an on-premises contract, the trader must give or make available to the consumer the information described in Schedule 1 in a clear and comprehensible manner, if that information is not already apparent from the context.

      Delete
    6. Of course, but then it raises further questions as businesses do not need to provide pre-contract information if it is considered a day to day contract that's performed immediately (Regulation 9(2)).

      There's no definition of "day to day" transactions but I believe there was some guidance on this saying that a day to day transaction is likely to be something of low cost, and perhaps parking in general could be considered as a day to day transaction, though falling under the umbrella of an on-premises contract, exempts the business from providing that information.

      Delete
    7. also to add, even if they are exempt under the CCRs then they are still obliged to provide certain information under other legislation such as the PSRs (Provision of Services Regs) if applicable

      Delete
    8. A day to day contract could reasonably be buying a pint of milk, where it is the same every time.

      With parking the situation is one of the most complex situations in consumer law, and every single situation has different terms and conditions and circumstances. The situation is so complex that even the Supreme Court could not initially decide where the Beavis charge was a contractual charge or for breach of contract, and had to ask for extra analysis from top lawyers. It can hardly therefore be classed as a typical day to day contract.

      Delete
    9. What is so complex about parking and paying for parking? Sure, the contents of the terms may be complex and require legal interpretation but the question is (1) whether parking in a spot (chargeable or not) is deemed a day to day transaction and (2) the contract is performed immediately.

      I would say that parking, just like buying milk or even a tank of petrol is an everyday transaction that customers make. I am sure the BIS provided guidance on this but it may have been a little while ago and don't have to hand, though if I can find it, i'll provide a link.

      In my opinion, there is no reason why free parking or payment for parking cannot fall under a day to day transaction. It is a regular transaction that the public does on a daily basis. Just like going into a shop for a pint of milk, they pay to park their car or in some areas, for free - there and then the contract is immediately performed - each party performs their obligations.

      Of course, you could get one court saying it is and another court giving the opposite opinion

      Delete
    10. The Directive Guidance can be found here (page 20): http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/files/crd_guidance_en.pdf

      They explain that even cinema tickets and shoe cleaning services are also considered day to day transactions, so to say that parking your car is not a day to day transaction would require some thought I think.

      Delete
    11. The point about shoe cleaning is you pay you money and your shoes get cleaned. Its the same every time and you dont have to think about it. Car parking typically involves reading, understanding and digesting a set of rules which can take 5-10 minutes to read and understand and are different every single time, and involve at least 3 very different areas of law. It is therefore not day to day. Also, £100 is above the 50 euro limit anyway.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. I park my car every day, sometimes free and sometimes I pay and I don't think about it. Regulation 9(2) doesn't concern itself with what the terms or areas of law the contract relates to, but simply whether or not parking is a transaction carried out on a daily basis. The contract is immediately performed when the customer inserts money into the machine and the ticket is printed or in cases of free parking, by leaving the car in the designated spot and walking away to do some other activity.

      Correct me if I am wrong but as I understand it, the £100 charge is not the cost of parking, but the penalty for overstaying? So a chargeable car park is a low payment cost for the ticket and and free car parks have no cost.

      Delete
    14. Its not day to day then, as its different every time. Sometimes its free parking. Sometimes its paid parking. Sometimes it otherwise. Every time it is different and never the same from day to day. And yoes, you are wrong. £100 is the cost of parking in the IPC model.

      Delete
    15. So applying your logic, the shoe cleaning services or purchase of a cinema ticket surely can't be a day to day contract then? If I go cinema on Monday at 8pm, then Saturday at 4pm and the following Tuesday at 7.30pm they are all at different times and on different days and probably different prices. Yet the guidance seems to suggest that a purchase of a cinema ticket qualifies as a day to day contract?

      That's because the common denominator with day to day contracts are concerned with the type of transaction not when, where and how much. I am doing the same type of transaction, but the amount I pay and the day in which I choose to park will vary.

      Can you give me an example of a car park that charges £100 for a customer to park their car? I'm just surprised to hear that people would be happy to pay £100 to park in a car park for a few hours as car park signs I have seen state the charges as £X per hour or free parking for X hours and overstaying amounts to a penalty of between £75-£100.

      Aside from parking spots that have both prohibited signs and contractual charges signs together (which the contractual signs would be void and unenforceable for lack of standing), I have yet to come across one myself.

      Delete
    16. It's a fair arguement but I think you are missing the point here. A loading bay on a public highway, should be just that. A private loading bay on a public highway should also be just that. The key word missing on the ground is PRIVATE to avoid people stopping to answer phone calls at this privately owned spot. Because the sign is on a wall from a distance from the actual loading bay, one needs to get out of their car and read the signs on the wall. The sign "no customer Parking at any time" still requires one to get out of their car. Most people who have been issued with a parking charge have not been a customer which means the sign doesn't apply to them. You then need to further read further to understand what it means on another sign. By then it's taken 5 minutes, and Mrs Sunglasses would have taken a picture on her uncalibrated portable camera. If this signs was at the beginning and end of the road maybe your point could stick but it's not so it won't.

      Delete
    17. Hi Khadja, I don't think I am missing the point, I am not disputing that this particular place for parking is prohibited and any driving onto the prohibited space is trespass. The defence posted by PP has stated that but in the alternative that the court finds there was no prohibition but a contract, then the contract fails for lack of pre-contract information as it is considered a distance contract. It is the distance contract part that I am commenting on.

      The type of contract (if a judge found there to be one) would not be a distance contract and would most likely be an on-premises contract. As Helpinghand also said there is certain information to be provided under an on-premises contract but the said information is not required if it is considered a 'day to day' transaction. My comments are only hypothetical because any common sense judge would know that a sign which says 'no customer parking' is a prohibited sign and it shouldn't really get into the discussion of the type of contract for the purposes of the Regs.

      But just to answer your question, yes you are right and regardless of whatever code of conduct or guidance says about 5-15 mins leeway, a contract could not have been formed without the terms being communicated. So if the driver has to get out of the car to read the small print properly there is still no contract at that time as there is a lack of communication of terms and also lack of intention to create legal relations. Only when the customer leaves the car in the bay and wanders off would a contract be created.

      Delete
    18. Thank you for clarifying your point. It's sad that companies such as PCM and Gladstones seem to think they have the right to misuse people's information for their own monitory gain. What ever the situation I'm not legally trained to comment on the different types of contracts however everyone has the right to interpret things in a different way! That's the beauty about arguing a case in front of a judge. Whoever brings the best case forward wins

      Delete
  18. The issue at this particular spot is they are using a "Loading Bay" which one would at first glance assume is part of a public highway not private land. One would need to stop and get out of their car to see the signs attached to on a wall. One cannot enter into a contract without reading the terms. Secondly the issue here is do they have the right in less than 10 mins of waiting to quickly take pictures of your car? The answer is no, the IPC states a grace period should be allowed for at least 5-15 minutes. PCM have never done this. Instead they slyly take pictures of your car while you are sitting in it and send you a parking charge in the post! If someone is physically on sight they are meant to ask you to move to mitigate any loss or parking charge

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The loading bay in question is disguised as a council loading bay with exactly the same road markings. You would then read the parking conditions attached to a pole and then decide not to stay. There is one round the corner where the High Street joins the A1.

      Delete
  19. Can we not do a house of comoons petition on this parking site and similar dodgy ones around the UK?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What.....
      and spoil all the claims for damages for a breach of the DPA?
      2017 could be a fun year if we all went with claims against the PPC's

      Delete
  20. Hi Parking Pransker, I just wanted to say big thanks to you and your site. I hope you dont mind i have used the wording in your post for a defence against a parking co also being represented by gladstones. It is also for a no stopping situation so was very relevant. As a layman who didnt have the faintest how to tackle this your points helped me loads to understand the points and prepare my defence. I have the court date on 17th Feb - i will submit details to you via email if its interest to you or your readers. But mainly just wanted to say big thanks :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, please email me prankster@parking-prankster.com

      Delete
  21. Interestingly, from the IPC code of conduct manual. Surely the above conduct is 'predatory' by nature.
    14. Predatory Tactics
    14.1 You must not use predatory or misleading tacics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the Code.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Also, the BPA code of practice states this for any of us who stop there for only minutes, as I have.
    8.5 If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is an IPC site. Their CoP states. 15.1
      Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.

      Delete
  23. Ms sunglasses hasn't been there for weeks, nor has anyone else as far as I can see. There must be some reason for this as the parking company are losing potential profit. Can anyone correct me if they have seen her there in the last 3 months?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi all,

    I received a county court judgement from PCM and feel clueless on how to form a defence. Ms Sunglasses was seen yesterday by me talking to someone via earphones on her mobile. I felt rage inside at how arrogantly she walks by. I wanted to find out whether we actually go to a court or is this all done online? I honestly don't know how I can get the time off to attend. I am struggling to put a defence together in legal terminology. I read the defence statement and this was really good to read and learn from. I did park for 2 minutes on 6th Sept 2015 but had no idea we were not allowed to park as I saw no signage and it did not come to my mind that it would be a prohibited area I am going to complete the defence tonight and send off tomorrow. Upsetting times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Email me your defence and I'll take a look. prankster@parking-prankster.com

      This all happens at your local court. However, PCMUK are currently chickening out of cases where this type of defence is used.

      Delete
    2. Thank you I will do. Have any cases actually gone to court and PCM have lost? Would be interesting to know if so.

      Delete
    3. Thanks h&c, thought she might have gone back to eastern Europe with her bonus, unfortunately not. I'd like to see people's reaction if I did her job where she comes from!

      Delete
  25. Hello all

    Absolutely over the moon to find all relevent information and defense for nw9 heath parade. On a very wet nov 2015 afternoon the paparazzi got my car. Even as a driving instructor I failed to notice those micro signs, my pupil was behind the wheels and stopped for a couple for minutes. I am planning on sending the defence and counterclaim here to northampton asap as time is running out. My question is should i include any more information, obviously i wasnt driving so i will write as a third person and it would be great to know if any one has won their case against these goons?

    Thanks all

    ReplyDelete
  26. Mine just came through over the weekend but without any photographic evidence (Error! Filename not specified) and no arrival/exit times, just that I 'parked' there at 14:40 (I was there for about one minute)

    Does the lack of evidence mean it's a none starter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lack of evidence in a parking company mindset is no problem. Bearing in mind the IAS is a kangaroo court you can either go through the appeal route or consider an immediate claim for breach of the DPA

      Delete
  27. Hi all - update so far is that I submitted my defence statement last week. Today I got an e-mail from Gladstones stating that they feel it would be disproportionate to take the claim to an "oral hearing" and want it to go via small claims court on paperwork only. Do you think it is worth attending the court instead? Wonder what happens if I disagree to take it to small claims court like they want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a typical gladstones trick. At this point they have not even contacted the parking company so know nothing about the claim. Their statement is therefore BS. You should oppose this, and include the following text in D1: “The Defendant opposes the Claimant’s request for special directions, and requests that the case be listed for an oral hearing at the defendant’s home court, pursuant to CPR 26.2A(3)”.

      Delete
  28. Do you agree that the small claims track is the appropriate track for
    this case? - The form already has an X on Yes.
    If No, say why not and state the track to which you believe it should - this is where I will put the reasons why not which hopefully indicates I do not agree, despite the form already having a X.

    I will pursue with going to court. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. small claims track is the one you want. Otherwise you open yourself to huge costs.

      Delete
  29. Oh? I thought small claims meant paperwork only. They want this route rather than an oral hearing which is going to court? So going paperwork only is the best route?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paperwork is the worst route. You want a hearing so you can point out the usual gladstone errors. They absolutely dont want this

      Delete
  30. By Gladstones don't want an oral hearing. They want the paperwork small claims route.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. You should ask for a small claims hearing rather than small claims paperwork.

      Delete
  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  32. How do we know 100% that the layby isn't part of the highway... is it maintained at the public expense? I find it hard to believe that when the road is swept, the layby isn't swept by the LA at the same time...

    ReplyDelete
  33. I found redevelopment plans on the barnet.gov.uk website that indicate the loading bay is private land.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It's interesting because I have Barnets Planning Enforcement Team looking into this particular loading bay. As it's private land disguised as public land i.e. Loading bay, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This has been since before Christmas. Just contacted the officer dealing with it, and in cases where it's "involving a breach of planning control often take a considerable amount of time to resolve" I assume this is one of them, as I should have gotten an answer by now if this has the nesscessary planning applications and permissions to operate this as a cash generating loading bay.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The driver of my vehicle was visiting from South Africa & has since returned home!!! What should I do ??? The PCN is from Heath Parade NW9

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Discharge your responsibility by providing the name and address of the driver.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the advice I shall do that immediately

      Delete
  37. I have commented that as a senior litigation solicitor who stopped in this layby to make a phone call I wish to be served with a county court claim at the firm where I am a consultant. I have asked Barnet Council who has authorised the words LOADING BAY to be painted upon what is clearly the public highway. This has been passed to their parking department by the Highway Department. Bizarre? I am told to expect a reply in 10 working days from 16 March. I have also complained to those who disclose information under Statute on the basis that because there is no charge for parking, no charge has been incurred which is the trigger for a request for my registration number.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dear Parking Prankster
    I have received a PCN on feb 9th 2017 from PCM as parked just for a few moments to adjust my my mobile phone on my front window. subsequently I sent a representation to PCM which was rejected. they have asked me to go to IAS to appeal. can I use what you have posted in this site as my appeal? I am absolutely clueless. and need help. Please come back to me urgently. Many thanks.

    ReplyDelete

  39. Dear Parking Prankster
    I have received a PCN from PCM on 9th Feb 2017 for stopping only for a few moments to adjust my phone on front window in Heath Parade Grahame Park. Subsequently I made a representation to PCM which was rejected! In their rejection letter I have been asked to either pay or make an appeal to IAS. I am totally clueless!! What do I do should I appeal to IAS which seems as part of their scam or ignore their letter and wait for their action. Please help! Many Thanks M

    ReplyDelete
  40. thank you so much for getting back to me. Should I appeal through IAS which to me seems part of their scams or just ignore their letter and wait for their action against me then prepare defence? thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gladstone's have just discontinued their claim against
      Me. I used prankster's defence on this blog, it has took 18 months though!

      Delete
  41. Opinions differ. I personally would write stating that the IAS has been exposed as a kangaroo court and suggesting the the Consumer Ombudsman be used.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I have a court date for 3 May at Clerkenwell, from the time of the 1st picture to the last is 87 seconds. They have refuted every defence i have used from this site. Has any one gone and lost? How much did you have to pay?
    Has anyone gone and won and have any advice?
    I've never been to court before and feel totally out of my depth!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  43. I have received a letter before claim from gladstones relating to a ticket from August 16. Up until now I have ignored. Will I receive any further correspondence or will it go straight to court now and cost more that the £160 they are asking for. Not really sure what to do now. Any advice appreciate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Katclo, they will issue another letter and the costs will increase. Mine increased to £202 but I am disputing this as they originally give 14 days to pay it, however within 4 days of that letter I received the 2nd letter asking for £202. The costs are broken down and includes the legal costs.

      Delete
  44. Hello all,

    I have a hearing for 6th June 2017 against PCM. Today, they sent me a witness statement from what I presume is the ticket woman who walks up and down heath parade. There is also confirmation from Genesis that they allow PCM to conduct this behaviour and let it go to court.

    I am concerned as I have not been to court before, I have never represented myself and I do not even know what evidence I should be bringing. I don't have any original documents from 2015 as I do a yearly shred and in September 2016, because I never heard back from anyone after a year I presumed the case had fallen through. But then in December 2016, I got hit with the court action letter.

    Does anybody know what evidence I need to bring? I have been trying to get in contact with someone at the court but they are becoming impossible to get hold of. I don't want to turn up without any evidence.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete