DeVere Lose Court Case in Bournemouth

Coupon-mad

Edit - post removed.

esmerobbo

Funny handshake never worked this time then, much discussion in next lodge meeting me thinks.

BenefitMaster

esmerobbo wrote: »

Funny handshake never worked this time then, much discussion in next lodge meeting me thinks.

Oh Lord our God, is there no help for the Widow's Son? :rotfl:

4consumerrights

The BMPA is up and running despite my little faux pas with a typing error on this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5076115

4consumerrights

Parking Prankster now has his blog on this case:


http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014_10_01_archive.html

"The BMPA representative started the defence by questioning Devere's right of audience on the grounds that Devere was acting as agent of the landowner, and the landowner was not present. The judge, DJ Williams, ruled that as the claim was in the name of Devere there was no problem. The BMPA representative further argued that as the Devere representative was not a director and had no letter of authorisation he did not have standing. The judge ruled it was possible that he had oral permission.

The BMPA representative then mentioned that following a case against Devere earlier in the week he had since looked up ownership of the car park on the Land Registry, and that it was not owned by the parties to the contract. The land was owned by Key Properties Investment No 4. This company was 100% owned by Key Properties Investment. This company was 50% owned by St Modwen Properties, and 50% owned by a Saudi prince. The BPMA representative explained that for example if he himself owned land this did not mean his father, grandfather or daughter could use it without written permission, and the same applied to companies.

Devere argued that is was highly likely that St Modwen did have permissions in place, given that they were a billion pound company and would therefore know what they were doing.

The BMPA representative argued that this did not follow and without evidence showing the chain of authority that Key Properties 4 allowed Key Properties who allowed St Modwen to sign on their behalf, there was no evidence Devere could carry out car parking operations.

Thus, without written evidence the claim must fail.

The judge explained that the situation was even worse and that the claim would fail anyway even with permission because the contract was not in the name of the landowner. St Modwen could theoretically have permission to sign the contract, but even if they did, they would have to sign on behalf of the landowner, not themselves.

He dismissed the claim and awarded costs of £90 for loss of earnings and £3 for Land Registry fees."



Our BMPA lay Rep did a stirling job.

EHBA

BenefitMaster wrote: »

This was Discovery Point, Bournemouth.

It is actually Discovery Court in Wallisdown Road, Bournemouth and the location has surfaced a couple of times.


http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t88169.html


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?423939-Devere-Parking-POPLA-Appeal-Failed-Court-Papers-Now-Received.


This comment from the OP in the CAG thread


"I work in the caring healthcare profession and have experienced nought like this ever in my life, the man has been rude, bullying intimidating at every contact"

I don't think Devere Parking need or deserve any sympathy whatsoever. I would suggest that a fair number of people are due a refund one way or another.


The Prankster's notes on this blog continued:-


It is encouraging that Devere are taking immediate steps to put things right. Any parking charges paid at Discovery Court may well be unlawful and motorists should claim them back from Devere and possible St Modwen Properties.

It is not so encouraging that Devere has been audited by the DVLA and the BPA who failed to pick up on this. The Prankster wonders if the audits are largely a rubber stamping operation with no great diligence shown to investigate potential issues.

This also demonstrates that that POPLA's habit of allowing landowner witness statements instead of contracts, and the IPC's refusal to allow sight of any evidence are both fundamentally unsound. Without sight of the contract the motorist is unable to point out the flaws.

It is also necessary for the contract to be unredacted - one only needs to note how ParkingEye misled HHJ Moloney in the Beavis and Wardley case into thinking they were acting as principal by redacting the parts that showed they were acting as agents. If a senior judge can be fooled in the most high profile parking case for years this shows how careful the courts need to be.

Well done to all concerned.

peter_the_piper

""Without sight of the contract the motorist is unable to point out the flaws.""

Is this really surprising, they will fightt tooth and nail against this, they would go broke otherwise.

Parking-Prankster

Update. I forgot to add this bit:

Devere asked if the judge would order that the result be kept confidential, as otherwise this would appear on the Parking Prankster's blog to Devere's detriment. Judge Williams explained that it was not within his power to make such an order as the case was held in open court.

The BMPA representative explained that it no doubt would appear on the Prankster's blog, but that as Devere had conducted themselves with decorum in the case, (Prankster - unlike, for instance the typical behaviour of ParkingEye representatives who are happy to win at all costs and mislead the court wherever possible) this would no doubt be represented in the write up. In any case, Devere would have the right of reply the Prankster affords to all parking companies by emailing prankster@parking-prankster.com.

Northlakes

[QUOTE=
The judge explained that the situation was even worse and that the claim would fail anyway even with permission because the contract was not in the name of the landowner. St Modwen could theoretically have permission to sign the contract, but even if they did, they would have to sign on behalf of the landowner, not themselves.

.[/QUOTE]

I wonder how many parking contracts are offered by the leaseholders rather than the landowners e.g. councils without authority?

Guys_Dad

Northlakes wrote: »

I wonder how many parking contracts are offered by the leaseholders rather than the landowners, councils etc?

Precisely! I believe that ALL POPLA/IPC should demand that the PPCs' clients prove that they are either the landowner or that they have the landowner's permission.

Way back almost a year ago, before C-m wrote her excellent Newbies thread, I began this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

In post #1, I included the following recommendation

Additional paragraph where the land is not owned by the client(e.g. ALDI land where they are not the landowner)
"I note that the parking company has not been engaged by the landowner, but by a lessee or tenant of the land. I require proof from the actual landowner that their contract with the lessee/tenant gives authority for any form of parking restrictions or charges to be brought in. (There are VAT implications when a car park is a revenue generating business that may impact upon a landowner and that is why it needs to be established that they need to have granted permission in their lease.")

Actually, I believe that a version of this should be in all POPLA/IPC appeals demanding that the PPC either confirms that their client is the actual landowner or that the landowner has granted the leaseholder permission to contract with a PPC, and the Bournemouth case should be quoted as the reason why, once we know the case name . At the moment, we have neither the defendant's name nor the judge, but I am sure that could be forthcoming.