Parking firm’s “campaign of harassment”-Damages of £1,365 awarded against One Parking Solution.

Johnersh

Rinder ain't court, but a contractually agreed settlement process. 

You wouldn't be appealing the merits but rather the basis of the award made. Costs awarded for unreasonable behaviour are different to damages. Regrettably the journalism in the article is poor and fails to adequately explain the basis of the award (as is common). 

bargepole

Johnersh said:

Not clear how much of that is costs and how much is damages.

He got £200 for his counterclaim, plus the £25 court filing fee.

The Judge also found that OPS had behaved unreasonably (they discontinued their claim between the hearing and the reserved judgment), and the Defendant was awarded costs for unreasonable behaviour, summarily assessed at 60 hours of preparation time at £19 per hour Litigant In Person rate.

There are some gems in the handed down Judgment.:

''The letter itself conveys the impression that One Parking Solutions has conscientiously considered the Defendant’s appeal. It is headed “Appeals Department.” This conveys the impression that there is a diligent system of determine an appeal and that it is determined by a department of more than one person. However, when I explored the meaning of this expression with Mr Price the managing director, I understood that this is nothing of the sort. The “appeals department” is nothing short of sham language. It is designed, I find, to intimidate and unduly influence the appellant into paying up....I find that behind the façade of robotic communications, Mr Price acts as prosecutor, judge and jury in his company’s own cause.''

''I found as a witness he showed no sign of engaging with the real issues, was opaque and evasive.''

''Mr Price labours under the illusion that he occupies some sort of moral high ground. In fact, Mr Price’s witness statement is lacking in facts and is more argument than relevant facts.''

''Standard computer-generated letters are spewed out to silence defendants. I find this Defendant has suffered the same impersonal and discourteous treatment. He had been painstakingly careful at presenting his case in moderate, logical and proportionate terms. The Claimant’s computer-generated letters caused untold distress.''

Johnersh

@bargepole I'm obliged. So awarded the sum claimed and (rightly) the costs of the time spent were claimed. From the above, that was clearly 'pushing against an open door' at that point.

Those same criticisms can, of course, be levelled at most ppcs. 

Redx

My observations were based on behaviour I have read about it or seen , even if it is a contrived TV programme , I know that they bend it a bit but some of it is true and sometimes claims or counter claims are changed to reflect certain legal points like malicious falsehoods or DPA breaches

But OPS have been warned about their conduct by DDJ Harvey earlier this year , so not surprising that the door was open !! 

they were evasive previously regarding that beach car park. They have form !! 

I believe there is another location coming up on here regularly with contractual issues that some members know about !! Stanmer Park , Brighton

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6190054/appealing-pcn-stanmer-park-brighton-one-parking-solution#latest

Shady practices and the judge got it right , OPS are showing what many of them are like

We have a similar judge up here in Manchester , Judge Iyer

beamerguy

A very persuasive case for any judge to consider if OPS dare bring a case to their court.

The Times newspaper will be well read by the Judiciary.  And where are the BPA ? Still fast asleep as usual wrapped in their bubble of money collection

A warning to all parking companies who think ignorance is bliss

beamerguy

Interesting a Facebook member said this ....

Jack Neil 

29 October 2020

If any of you have had the unfortunate experience of having a parking ticket issued at St Peter and St James parking area opposite Laura Ashley see the attached.

I turned up there 18 months ago to pick up a TV from St Peters which was pre—arranged, getting a ticket stopping only a few minutes. I refused to pay this and have been taken to court by One Parking.

You will see the judge has savaged these people in his comments, earlier in proceedings it transpires that the lease is not signed correctly, they are supposed to have a waiting time 10 minutes, and claim to have a warden which they haven't. These tickets are not covered by the statute, at best they are a breach of terms and conditions for parking on private land. I have now been awarded £1365 by the judge for harassment, payable within 14 days. DON'T PUT UP WITH IT!

MothballsWallet

Umkomaas said:

Johnersh said:

Not clear how much of that is costs and how much is damages.

I'm uncomfortable with the notion of the court awarding more than the actual sum claimed. Not because I disagree, but because then its simply a free for all. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the claimant ppc seek to have it reduced on appeal to the amount claimed by the defendant. 

(Tongue firmly in cheek) .... maybe 'cos DJ Harvey don't like 'em! 😜

And the PPCs don't like it up 'em

Jenni_D

Is this the "other case" mentioned in the other thread about bias?

Snakes_Belly

Jenni_D said:

Is this the "other case" mentioned in the other thread about bias?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/parking-firm-that-harassed-a-veteran-hv3h7bt5h
Not sure if this case is about bias. It relates to a wounded veteran.

There is another case regarding VCS and a wounded veteran than is beyond despicable. That case is likely to go to appeal, 

Jenni_D

I'm referring to the comment by "Joke" (I think it was) that there was another case judged by DDJ Harvey that was going to appeal - I wondered if it was this one in this thread, as this one was also judged by DDJ Harvey.