Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 12th May 14, 6:22 PM
    • 1,960Posts
    • 5,519Thanks
    bargepole
    ParkingEye Get the Chop in St Albans Court: No Standing
    • #1
    • 12th May 14, 6:22 PM
    ParkingEye Get the Chop in St Albans Court: No Standing 12th May 14 at 6:22 PM
    St Albans County Court
    12th May 2014
    Case no. 3JD04329
    ParkingEye (represented by Mr Taylor)
    V
    Dom Martin (represented by myself)

    This was a claim for £235 for two alleged overstays of the 3 hour limit at Borehamwood Shopping Park, in Dec 2012 and Jan 2013. Mr Martin was adamant that on both occasions, he had visited that site once at lunchtime, and again after work. PE’s photos only showed the rear number plate for both incidents, never the front one, so we were confident this was a double ‘double dipping’ error. However, the hearing never got as far as that.

    There had previously been a hearing in Jan 2014, at which Mr Martin had challenged whether PE had authority to bring a claim in their own name. As only 1 hour had been allocated for that, the Judge ordered an adjournment, and ordered PE to submit evidence of authority, as well as a properly indexed and paginated trial bundle. The next hearing (today’s) was listed for 2.5 hours.

    What PE actually submitted was the usual mish-mash of irrelevant waffle, not page numbered, and containing a ‘witness statement’ from Jones Lang LaSalle, the managing agents, in their standard non-CPR compliant format.

    We spoke to Mr Taylor before the hearing, and he is an experienced solicitor who also previously qualified as a barrister, but didn’t get a pupillage, so has gone back to being a freelance solicitor. He said that he had represented PE in half a dozen cases at various other courts, and had won them all. So both advocates’ 100% records were on the line.

    Judge Cross (I thought I was pedantic, but could take lessons from him) started off by saying that he was going to look in depth at the issue of standing, and decide on that first. If the Claimant had standing, the case could continue, and if they didn’t, it would fail.

    Mr Taylor presented the Claimant’s case on that point, and relied on the Appeal Court Judgment in VCS v HMRC, as well as the landholder witness statement. I argued that because VCS involved pre-arranged parking permits, it was a different type of contract to the present case, and could be distinguished. I also pointed out the lack of compliance with CPR of the witness statement, and suggested that it could not be relied upon.

    The Defence case, still just on standing, relied on various County Court transcripts we had submitted (PE v Sharma, PE v Gardam) and also the Court of Appeal Judgment in PE v Somerfield, where it was ruled that PE could not sue in their own name, and that the monies were due to Somerfield.

    We were then sent outside for 20 minutes while DJ Cross considered his decision.

    His first observation, was that the claim, on the particulars, appeared to be on the basis of trespass, but in fact it was for breach of contract. He was disappointed that PE had not complied with his previous order regarding the trial bundle and evidence.

    He then addressed the witness statement issue, saying that their witness statement was ‘sloppy, and a disgrace’. It failed to comply with CPR 18.1 (no full name and address), 18.2 (not all from the witness’s own knowledge), 32.19 (not an original document), and since it was just signed A. Bloggs, there was no way of knowing whether the deponent was male or female.
    He decided that, as this was small claims, he would allow the statement, but that didn’t help the Claimant, because paras. 5 to 12 related to another document (the landowner contract) which had not been served or produced. These clauses were therefore hearsay, and not admissible.

    There was another document they had sent, on PE headed paper, which appeared to relate to a continuation of a contract. However, the same comments applied to this, namely that it was about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

    The Judge then went on to talk about VCS, and in essence said that the case could be distinguished because of the way in which permits were issued, and because VCS sued for trespass, which was not the issue here. His analogy was that if his neighbour put up a sign and charged people £1 an hour for parking on the Judge’s driveway, he couldn’t enforce payment through the courts if someone decided not to pay. (He also, in passing, rubbished the bit in VCS about forming a contract to sell you Buckingham Palace).

    He mentioned that he had dealt with other PE cases before, and was constantly amazed that they don’t produce the landowner contract in their evidence pack. He wondered what it is that they might have to hide.

    History scholars will know that the City of St Albans, known in Roman times as Verulamium, is named after Alban, widely believed to have been the first English Christian martyr, who was beheaded by the Romans after being found guilty of harbouring a priest in around 250 AD. By now, Mr Taylor may have thought he was going to suffer the same fate.


    So the claim was dismissed, with costs of £108.50.


    Mr Taylor requested permission to appeal, which was refused.
    Last edited by bargepole; 12-05-2014 at 8:46 PM.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 22. Lost 7.
Page 1
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 12th May 14, 6:58 PM
    • 8,901 Posts
    • 13,562 Thanks
    trisontana
    • #2
    • 12th May 14, 6:58 PM
    • #2
    • 12th May 14, 6:58 PM
    Once again proving that PE's legal eagle (who I won't name in case the post gets deleted) is no good at her job. She can't even put together a decent court bundle.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
    • Parking-Prankster
    • By Parking-Prankster 12th May 14, 7:08 PM
    • 305 Posts
    • 1,137 Thanks
    Parking-Prankster
    • #3
    • 12th May 14, 7:08 PM
    • #3
    • 12th May 14, 7:08 PM
    I'm debating whether to show ParkingEye's efforts at producing the indexed bundle ordered by a court. However, someone mentioned they broke three ribs reading Hill Dickinson's letter to me because they laughed so much. I am worried that if they see this as well it might prove fatal.
    Hi, we’ve approved your signature. It's awesome. Please email the forum team if you want more praise - MSE ForumTeam
    • Nodding Donkey
    • By Nodding Donkey 12th May 14, 7:15 PM
    • 2,318 Posts
    • 1,939 Thanks
    Nodding Donkey
    • #4
    • 12th May 14, 7:15 PM
    • #4
    • 12th May 14, 7:15 PM
    Serious question. Do you think DJs are getting bored of no GPEOL and are looking for other ways of getting rid of these cases?
    • Annie1960
    • By Annie1960 12th May 14, 7:45 PM
    • 2,535 Posts
    • 1,441 Thanks
    Annie1960
    • #5
    • 12th May 14, 7:45 PM
    • #5
    • 12th May 14, 7:45 PM
    Great result.
    • SevenTowers
    • By SevenTowers 12th May 14, 9:14 PM
    • 414 Posts
    • 698 Thanks
    SevenTowers
    • #6
    • 12th May 14, 9:14 PM
    • #6
    • 12th May 14, 9:14 PM
    Well done once again Mr. B, it's particularly nice to see this;

    Private Parking Court Cases: Won 6. Lost 0. Adjourned 2

    As for Mr. Taylor, a qualified barrister, telling you that he had previously beaten 6 unrepresented members of the public, who probably had very poor defences, he must be proud. It's a bit like a premier league team saying they had beaten local factory/works team.

    But then Mr. Taylor hadn't reckoned on being up against someone who actually knew what they were doing, cue Bargepole.....

    Respect!
    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797).
    • Stroma
    • By Stroma 12th May 14, 9:30 PM
    • 7,919 Posts
    • 8,408 Thanks
    Stroma
    • #7
    • 12th May 14, 9:30 PM
    • #7
    • 12th May 14, 9:30 PM
    Great result , and it just shows that the parking eye BS is exactly that .
    When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
    We don't need the following to help you.
    Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
    Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member
    • Ivor Pecheque
    • By Ivor Pecheque 12th May 14, 10:06 PM
    • 710 Posts
    • 1,308 Thanks
    Ivor Pecheque
    • #8
    • 12th May 14, 10:06 PM
    • #8
    • 12th May 14, 10:06 PM
    ‘sloppy, and a disgrace’.
    For gawd's sake, don't let the Judge post on here, it'll upset the moderators.

    Fantastic days work :-)
    Last edited by Ivor Pecheque; 12-05-2014 at 10:10 PM.
    • bazster
    • By bazster 12th May 14, 11:06 PM
    • 7,326 Posts
    • 9,448 Thanks
    bazster
    • #9
    • 12th May 14, 11:06 PM
    • #9
    • 12th May 14, 11:06 PM
    Fantastic work, so much more so because it was in my local court and concerning a car park about which I've been making a bit of a fuss locally.

    Having just been told that I can't use the term "cowboys" here (see my "new" signature, so much for Martin's assurances), I'd just like to quote Judge Cross again: "sloppy and disgraceful"
    Je suis Charlie.
    • Parking-Prankster
    • By Parking-Prankster 13th May 14, 12:03 AM
    • 305 Posts
    • 1,137 Thanks
    Parking-Prankster
    Some background to the case
    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/parkingeye-ignore-judges-directions-for.html
    Hi, we’ve approved your signature. It's awesome. Please email the forum team if you want more praise - MSE ForumTeam
    • Stroma
    • By Stroma 13th May 14, 2:19 AM
    • 7,919 Posts
    • 8,408 Thanks
    Stroma
    A very interesting read there Prankster, any plans on getting the transcript for this one ?
    When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
    We don't need the following to help you.
    Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
    Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member
    • bazster
    • By bazster 13th May 14, 8:33 AM
    • 7,326 Posts
    • 9,448 Thanks
    bazster
    A little birdy tells me that the Borehamwood Times, which delights in reporting on ParkingEye's and Jones LaSalle's behaviour at this site, has received a tip-off about this case.

    The same little birdy tells me that the MPs for Hertsmere and St. Albans will also be receiving details of this case, with a query as to the appropriateness of the DVLA's actions in providing keeper details to a company which behaves in such a cavalier fashion.

    I guess we'll also find out shortly whether Martin's new-found enthusiasm for "robustly defending our rights" extends to being allowed to describe ParkingEye as "cavalier".
    Je suis Charlie.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th May 14, 8:49 AM
    • 12,723 Posts
    • 19,590 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Well done BP and PP. Seems the word is slowly breaking through and sooner or later the dam wall will be breached.

    By bringing all these hopeless cases, what a disservice PE are giving their fellow PPCs who are merely trying to earn a crust.

    I'm sure there's going to be a big backlash before too long!
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 13th May 14, 9:06 AM
    • 8,901 Posts
    • 13,562 Thanks
    trisontana
    Another aspect of this case, highlighted by Parking Prankster, is yet more failures of PE's much vaunted ANPR system. According to the motorist, this was a clear case of double-dipping but PE are adamant that the system is foolproof . I would rather believe the motorist instead of PE
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
    • born_3
    • By born_3 13th May 14, 10:29 AM
    • 45 Posts
    • 30 Thanks
    born_3
    A little birdy tells me that the Borehamwood Times, which delights in reporting on ParkingEye's and Jones LaSalle's behaviour at this site, has received a tip-off about this case.

    The same little birdy tells me that the MPs for Hertsmere...
    Originally posted by bazster
    I would take both these comments with a huge dose of NaCl (all articles about PE mention "...fines...". I really can't see James "24 houses" Clappison getting involved in this.

    But, does this ruling mean that anyone who's been "done" by PE in B'wood retail park (or whatever they're calling it this week) can appeal and claim back any money they've given PE?
    • hoohoo
    • By hoohoo 13th May 14, 10:42 AM
    • 1,637 Posts
    • 3,005 Thanks
    hoohoo
    Another aspect of this case, highlighted by Parking Prankster, is yet more failures of PE's much vaunted ANPR system. According to the motorist, this was a clear case of double-dipping but PE are adamant that the system is foolproof . I would rather believe the motorist instead of PE
    Originally posted by trisontana
    Perhaps it is foolproof, but not idiot-proof?
    • Hot Bring
    • By Hot Bring 13th May 14, 11:09 AM
    • 1,508 Posts
    • 2,614 Thanks
    Hot Bring
    A little birdy tells me that the Borehamwood Times, which delights in reporting on ParkingEye's and Jones LaSalle's behaviour at this site, has received a tip-off about this case.

    The same little birdy tells me that the MPs for Hertsmere and St. Albans will also be receiving details of this case, with a query as to the appropriateness of the DVLA's actions in providing keeper details to a company which behaves in such a cavalier fashion.

    I guess we'll also find out shortly whether Martin's new-found enthusiasm for "robustly defending our rights" extends to being allowed to describe ParkingEye as "cavalier".
    Originally posted by bazster
    Be careful, Parking Eye might accuse you of a vendetta against them
    It's the PALACE pier !!!!!!
    Albany Assistance - live in Albany WA ? Google us for help.

    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." - Dante Alighieri
    • Prothet of Doom
    • By Prothet of Doom 13th May 14, 11:58 AM
    • 3,123 Posts
    • 3,766 Thanks
    Prothet of Doom
    describe ParkingEye as "cavalier".
    Originally posted by bazster

    An insult to a particular breed of Dog perhaps?
    • princeofpounds
    • By princeofpounds 13th May 14, 1:02 PM
    • 7,676 Posts
    • 10,100 Thanks
    princeofpounds
    Can I ask - does the court system not have a procedure for getting rid of litigants I would almost call vexatious, like PE?

    They must be wasting an awfully large amount of court time and the costs clearly aren't being covered.
    • bod1467
    • By bod1467 13th May 14, 1:04 PM
    • 14,799 Posts
    • 13,458 Thanks
    bod1467
    Civil Procedure Rules, Practice Direction to Pt.3 3CPD.2.1 according to Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation#England_and_Wales

    http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/vexatious-litigants
    Last edited by bod1467; 13-05-2014 at 1:06 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

883Posts Today

7,240Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Beware the hidden £1,000s parents aren't told they must pay for University fees. My new FT column https://t.co/gDOyZDMCr9 (free to read) RT

  • Who do you think came out best in the Corbyn v May battle tonight?

  • Clever by Paxman; subtly testing out "strong & stable" by focusing on u-turns on Brexit view, social care, self employed tax & election date

  • Follow Martin