Sunday Times Article - One Parking Solution

BrownTrout

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/judge-awards-driver-500-over-parking-companys-abuse-of-process-5psqx2m27

A driver who was dragged to court over a £182 charge for pulling into a town-centre car park for 12 minutes has won more than £500 from a parking company in a quarrel that the judge likened to a Shakespearean grudge.

One Parking Solution, based in West Sussex, was ordered to pay the woman £529 by May 8 after its penalty was found to be an “abuse of process” by Judge Harvey at Lewes county court in East Sussex.

The deputy district judge said the dispute was one of thousands of “high-temperature” parking cases, typically “fought with the zeal of the mythical Fortinbras’s army portrayed in Shakespeare’s Hamlet”.

Some local residents attended court to watch the proceedings, which Harvey said “would give a field day” to the army of Fortinbras, the vengeful prince of Norway who gathers a large following and marches on Denmark to recover a trivial piece of land.

The unsuspecting driver — herself an expert in English literature — was driving her car in Lewes in March last year when she received a phone call about a job application to work at Shakespeare’s Globe theatre in London.

Not wanting to commit a driving offence, she stopped her car at a pay-and-display car park in Eastgate Wharf and left the engine running. CCTV footage showed she spent 11 minutes and 48 seconds there, leaving as soon as the call was over.

A week later she received a £100 charge in the post with the option to pay £60 if she settled early. She wrote to One Parking Solution to say she should have been entitled to a grace period.

The company argued that she became contractually liable for a parking charge on entering the car park, saying that a large sign pointed out its terms and conditions.

“I heard my phone ring and I pulled up in the first safe location to take the call. I neither looked for, nor saw, any sign,” the driver said.

One Parking Solution’s sign, containing 650 to 700 words in a variety of typefaces, was found to be “completely inadequate” by the judge, who said it would take three or four minutes to read it all.

Lyn Reeves, a mother of four from West Sussex, represented the woman in court against One Parking Solution’s lawyers, despite claiming to have no legal training or a university degree. “I have an eye for detail and a good memory for facts and policy, codes of practice and laws,” she said.

An estimated 8.6 million charges were issued by private car parking companies in the year to April, 26% more than in the previous 12 months, according to the RAC Foundation. Private charges are essentially invoices for a breach of contract, as opposed to an official penalty charge notice (PCN), or fine, issued by local authorities or the police. They are often designed to look like PCNs.

The number of parking cases reaching the courts is at an all-time high; Harvey said they took up valuable time for “trifling sums of money”.

Marc Gander, co-founder of the Consumer Action Group, said the case had been dealt with “wonderfully” by the two women, who faced down One Parking Solution’s legal team. “The bounty-hunting [private car parking] industry uses the taxpayer-funded court as a cheap way of enforcing small debts,” he said.

“This judgment raises very serious concerns about the behaviour of this company.”

One Parking Solution said many comments made in the judgment were “incorrect or mistaken”.

● 8.6m The estimated number of charges issued by private car parking companies in the year to April, a 26% rise

beamerguy

Great read BT.   The Times is the perfect newspaper and the sort of paper County Court Judges will read

And OPS said ... "One Parking Solution said many comments made in the judgment were “incorrect or mistaken”.

Comments from a known scam rogue trader .... piffle

Judge Harvey did a brilliant job . Let us hope that within the county court system, ALL judges get to hear of this and take action to kick all the scammers out

Fruitcake

She came here for help and certainly got it. Well done C-m and everyone who helped the victim.

It is nice to know that some members of the press actually correctly report the difference between a fine and an invoice as well. 

dan0116

Brilliant read and nice to see the parking companies being humble as ever in pointing out the judge's mistake in the national press.

Well done to Coupon-mad and everyone else involved, and thanks for all the help in defending my own case, which I hope will go the same way. 

chelostar

As the Defendant in this case, I can categorically say that everything DDJ H said in the Judgment is correct and he obviously did his homework and also used the facts and evidence that were presented to him.  A fair, balanced and extremely well considered Judgment. Facts though are facts.  I am very grateful for the help of Coupon-mad and all involved - there was and is a little team of extremely competent individuals behind the scenes.  You know who you are and you are stars. The help here is significant, knowledgeable and very supportive.  I am so glad that I decided to seek help here.  People power is incredible :-)

Coupon-mad

It's a disappointingly lightweight article, relying on the Shakespearean words and implying I was too busy having children to get an education(!), for its colour.  However, it is publicity about the case and that's good, to reach the wider public.

The comments are better!  Consumer Action Group were instrumental in getting the case into the press, and have commented with the full judgment:

Comments:
''Cagger:
The case is much more detailed and much more damning than the article suggests. Here is the judgement:

IT IS ORDERED THAT

Judgment formally handed down - see attached;

ORDER-

(1) The claim is dismissed as being totally without merit. (The Claimants are warned that they may face an application for a civil restraint order in the event that there are more claims which are dismissed in the same manner).

(2) Pursuant to paragraphs 32, and 37 to 42 of the judgment, a copy of the judgment is sent to the following persons or organisations who are invited to do as follows:

(a) The Claimants solicitors QDR Solicitors Limited are invited to report to the Court by 1 st June 2020 their explanation or observation as to why it appears that Miss Leering may have misled the Court in her witness

statement.

(b) Mayo Wynne Baxter LLP of 3 Bell Lane, Lewes BN7 lJU are invited to report to the Court by lst June 2020 their observations on the authenticity of the commercial lease ref erred to in the judgment, and whether their signature is authentic on behalf of the Debenham Property Trust.

(c) The Trustees of the Debenham Property Trust, Nicholas Debenham and Nicholas Charles Lear of the Managing Trustees Office, 1 Marylebone Mews, London Wl G 8PU are invited to report to the Court by 1 st June 2020 as to whether they authorised and instructed Mayo Wynne Baxter LLP to sign a lease on their behalf.

(d) The British Parking Association are invited to take steps to investigate OPS for breaches of its Code, in relation to the matters raised in the judgment including allowing 5-minute grace periods and whether this would be a breach of its code.

(3) The claimants pay the defendants costs assessed under CPR 27.14 in the sum of £528.90 payable within 14 days after service of this order.''


The full damning judgment explaining his reasons is on this thread - well worth reading for newbies:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6136572/one-parking-solution-warned-by-a-judge-that-they-may-face-an-application-for-a-civil-restraint-order/p1

Johnersh

Circumstances are such that I I'm not surprised it's "light-weight."  if the issue surrounding the misleading of the court *does* kick off next month, this is not the last article to be written.... 

JB111

This decision has now been overturned and DDJ Harvey has been found to have been bias in reaching his decision.

Umkomaas

Looks like Jake is out of the box!

D_P_Dance

... this now been overturned and DDJ Harvey has been found to have been bias in reaching his decision.

Is this recent or are you talking about the appeal several months ago?    I do not recall the appeal judge using the word "Bias".

BrownTrout

JB111 said:

This decision has now been overturned and DDJ Harvey has been found to have been bias in reaching his decision.

Odd how jake only comments on decisions which benefit him