Proserve and Ransomes get a spanking to

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2 · 21 February 2014 at 8:50PM

News report just in.
Its tagged on the end of this thread
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=86932

My apologies Mr Lasty705 but I have been rather busy advising a chap on a case between him and Ransomes/Proserve today in the Ipswich County Court. Ransomes case was dismissed as Broadsword has said.

As requested I have posted the Hamblion case and whilst you direct readers of this thread to paragraph 26 can we start with paragraph 22 please?

This states that "The issue firstly is as to whether the warning notice is a contractual obligation and I am satisfied that it is". So, there we have it, the Judge said that the nature of Proserve's operation means that there is a contractual situation and not one of trespass. So I think that that is one nil to me in terms of not misleading readers.

Shall we move to your hallowed paragraph 26. It starts by the Judge saying that she is only considering Trespass in terms of what the quantification of damages would be, if there was a trespass, and not whether any trespass took place. Shall we now move to a rather important set of nine words in paragraph 26? They read "I do find there to have been a contract". I think that that is fairly clear. Two nil and game over.

What has to be recognised is that Hamblion was business suing business such that Hamblion did not have the protection of a whole raft of consumer legislation that my man had this afternoon. Also, in the Hamblion case the judge was not afforded the benefit of considering the following key factors and which were placed before the Judge this afternoon:-

1. You can't add VAT to damages - VCS v Ibbotson. HMRC is investigation. In a skeleton argument submitted by Counsel today it was clear that any VAT collected was kept by Ransomes. HMRC is investigating. I think that is about £20,000 odd which appears to be due to HMRC.

2. Mr Robson of Ransomes admitted, under a Statement of Truth that they actually receive service charge income from the occupiers on the estate to cover their costs for parking management. What? I hear you say - they get paid for managing parking on the estate and then want to be paid by the motorist as well?

3. Mr Robson of Ransomes admitted, under a Statement of Truth, that if any damage is caused to the roads/footpaths by parked cars then the occupiers will have to pay to have that repaired. What? I hear you say - Ransomes don't pay for any repairs but the occupiers do? What? I hear you say. Does this mean that Ransomes don't actually suffer any loss? What? I hear again - how can you make a claim in the County Court to recover a loss if you haven't suffered a loss? Back in the day when I litigated in Courts you couldn't - perhaps they have changed the rules? Anyway, my man won.

4. Mr Duff signed an application to Court, under a Statement of Truth, on behalf of Ransomes, to say that Ransomes suffered a loss. I wonder if the Cambridge County Court, which granted Mr Duff his licence to operate as a Bailiff, would be interested?

5. The DVLA is trying to investigate Proserve and, as we know, Mr Duff has not been co-operating. The DVLA say that their understanding is that Proserve do not undertake parking enforcement services so do not have to be in the BPA to get data. The DVLA has now been passed a signed witness statement from Mr Duff in which he states, under a Statement of Truth, that his company is a parking enforcement company but do more than your everyday general parking enforcement company.

7. In the skeleton argument, submitted by Counsel on behalf of Ransomes today, it is clearly said that Proserve are under contract to provide parking enforcement services. OOps. This is on its way to the DVLA. So, as I see it there is no further need for the DVLA to seek to engage Proserve in discussion - Mr Duff's sworn statements, and Counsel's skeleton arguments are enough. Time to step up the plate DVLA

8. Mr Duff signed a declaration to the DVLA to say that he would only use data to pursue claims in trespass. He uses that data to pursue claims in contract and the skeleton argument did spend some time reminding the Court that the Judge in Hamblion had decided that they manage under contractual arrangements with motorists. Obtaining data for one purpose but using it for another incompatible purpose is a contravention of the second data protection principle and which the DVLA is trying to investigate. Do the DVLA need to engage Proserve in an investigation when they have Counsels' arguments before a Court? Probably not but that is up to the DVLA. I wonder if the Cambridge County Court, which granted Mr Duff his licence to operate as a Bailiff, would be interested?

Ransomes asked for the right to appeal todays decision and that was granted. It will be interesting to see what their grounds are. Could it be that the decision today has provided the Court with substantial evidence that it can refer to in the other 700 odd cases Ransomes/Proserve have in the pipeline such that they may also lose those cases? So the grounds of appeal are "we are going to lose well in excess of £100,000 if this decision stands and all our other cases are shot to pieces so we have to fight. It's not about the legals. As Jessie J said "it's about the money, money, money.".............But didn't they say that they had been paid service charges by occupier so nthe estate for parking enforcement? Oh yes that's right....I nearly forgot.

Now shall I post on here all the defence papers used so far, for this community to use? Should I post those witness statements as well? It's a conundrum.

I anticipate that by the time we get to an appeal hearing the DVLA should have terminated Proserve's rights to use the data already obtained, and suspended its right to access the DVLA data base, so all those cases should not be heard anyway. So the money money money may be lost. Ah well just have to rely on the service charge income.......

Mr Duff may wish to take advice on whether he can lawfully further process my chap's data, and everyone else's data in order to pursue litigation. Is it time for Ransomes to stop digging and to actually manage the estate according to appropriate legal protocols. We commented in court today that Ransomes approach to parking enforcement was legally dysfunctional. It's time to get it right. Is that too much to ask for?

According to today's decision the demands for money my chap received were not valid. You can form your own view on what demanding money you are not entitled to means in law. Lasty705 you sent me a personal message in which you commented that Ransomes/Proserve acted lawfully. You also indicated something that only, in my view, my chap and Mr Duff were aware of. Are you Mr Duff? If so, perhaps you would be kind enough to consider a review of the manner in which parking is dealt with on the estate so that this kind of mess does not arise again. Sometimes you just have shrug your shoulders, accept what has happened and get on with life -cut your cloth and all that. Sleep tight

4consumerrights · 21 February 2014 at 8:56PM

Could this be the end of Proserve then - about time too!

trubster · 21 February 2014 at 9:00PM

Fantastic news, Crazy that a "Lay Rep" can do a better job than a legal representative sent by the leading haulage union to defend a member company from 9 of these pathetic charges, AND RANSOMES/PROSERVE WON!

Well done Broadsword

trubster · 21 February 2014 at 9:01PM

4consumerrights wrote: »

Could this be the end of Proserve then - about time too!

I hope not, I hope HMRC has a good go at them first!

Stroma · 21 February 2014 at 9:05PM

They are scum, what is it they try and claim £350 or something ?

4consumerrights · 21 February 2014 at 9:05PM

Originally Posted by 4consumerrights
Could this be the end of Proserve then - about time too!

trubster wrote: »

I hope not, I hope HMRC has a good go at them first!

Perhaps I should have qualified that statement a bit better -

Could this be the end of Proserve operating as a parking company obtaining keeper details whilst not being an ATA member such as BPA .

I hope that HMRC have a good go too and then the company wound up!

trubster · 21 February 2014 at 9:08PM

Stroma wrote: »

They are scum, what is it they try and claim £350 or something ?

I think it is £300, just for stopping on a road for a few seconds, asking for directions etc.

The haulage company ended up with 9 charges, £2700 + all the court costs etc. It is pathetic.