One Parking Solution + DCB legal - Residential Parking Defence

95Rollers

Hi I've just seen this - I went up against OPS earlier in the year in court although mine was an ANPR double dip in one of their poorly signed P&D carparks (Vantage Point, BN1) and I won.

Here is what I put in my supplementary statement when the new Code looked like it was going ahead - some of it may be of use in regards to the fact that the Gov had had to intervene with the way the PPC industry is behaving and operating without fairness or accountability - espectically in regards to poor signs, double recovery (£60/70 add ons).  Don't worry about the numbering. Some of this might be of use, some not...Feel free to pick the bones of what is relevant and disregard what might not be of use to your situation...

NEW GOVERNMENT CODES OF PRACTICE FOR PRIVATE PARKING

As of the 7th February 2022 the Government published their new parking codes of practice on what is a currently unregulated industry. Minister Neil O’Brien MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Levelling Up stated in the foreword of the published report into this unregulated industry:

“Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists.  Apart from their inherent unfairness, these practices damage our high-streets, our towns and our city centres. We are determined to bring them to an end.

Produced in close consultation with private parking experts, including consumer and industry groups, this Code sets out straight-forward rules for private parking companies to follow. It includes things such as clear signage, surface markings and compulsory grace periods so that people parking legitimately at the supermarket to do their weekly shop can no longer be hit with a heavy-handed fine for running a couple of minutes late.

The Code also bans the use of aggressive and pseudo-legal language that we’ve all seen on those yellow parking slips doctored to look like official Penalty Charge Notices.  Importantly, this new Code also allows drivers to challenge unfair fines through a new independent appeals service.

And there will be no wriggle-room for rogue companies who continue to flout the rules. If they fail to follow this Code, they will effectively be banned from issuing parking charges indefinitely.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice-explanatory-document-how-was-it-developed-and-what-will-it-change

Double Recovery – The Quantum

14. The claimant dismissed my claims of the charges being “unfair and unproportionate”. This was my response to their inflated add on costs which they failed to justify. It appears that the UK Government does not agree with the claimant since having their intervention to regulate this industry. Minister Neil O’Brien described the practise which I deemed as unfair as “aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists”. This is in the opening foreward on the new code. These added-on fees are now banned as a result of the government’s intervention and the British Parking Association has advised their members (both parking operators and debt collection agencies) to stop their adding and demanding of such fees.

 15. It can also be argued that if a matter goes to court - then why is the claimant asking for these added-on fees that they would of have never received had the matter been resolved by their debt agency? The debt agency has not delivered their side of the arrangement if a matter goes to court – so why is the claimant quoting Parking Eye vs Beavis (which bears no relevance to this case or their business model) then adding on an additional fee that the No-Win No-Fee debt recovery companies add on for themselves? This added on fee is a charge that is imposed onto the consumer which does not form any part of the original charge.  The parking company would not receive this fee themselves (as they would receive the full amount of their PCN) – but they are claiming this added on fee court which the Debt Company would keep.  This amounts to Double Recovery.  Mr Harry Green failed to provide answers for this when I emailed him enquiring about the claimant’s double recovery practises.  This can be evidenced in the Emails I exhibited in my original Witness Statement. I was not provided with a cost breakdown either justifying these add-ons by any of the companies involved in this claim.

 16. As Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') has published, as of 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking Operators are required to comply with. This states, as Section 9, that 'The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.' In the present case, the Claimant has added a vast amount onto their initial invoice - which is clearly contrary to the intention of the Code. Whilst it is accepted that the new statutory Code does not take full effect immediately, it clearly sets out the Government's intentions regarding private parking, and the Court is invited to strike out this element of the claim, irrespective of the determination of any other element. The BPA have advised their members (both parking companies and debt recovery agents) to follow and adapt to the code effectively as of 7th February 2022.

 17. Courts have shown that unfairly high bank charges are a penalty charge and therefore unjustifiable. The same principle applies here.

 

18. The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim. 

Parking_Nightmare835

So I lost in the end, due to me getting my dates muddled, my car must have been there for 2 weeks, rather than one (it was lockdown at the time and I thought it had only been there a week) and they had a photo of the car there before I said I'd parked it. Very frustrating, I explained that it was a long time ago and I must have been out by a week but the judge said he had to go with what was in the witness statement unless I could persuade the court otherwise, no idea what else he was expecting me to say there.

Disappointing, but at least I only have to pay the PCN and court charges, which is still less than what the 2 claims were originally for.

NB: he also said the primacy of contract didn't count because I'm a tenant and not a leaseholder and that I could take it up with my landlord for not notifying me (I'm not going to do that).

Coupon-mad

Oh dear, @Parking_Nightmare835  I'm so sorry to hear that.

Did OPS turn up? Or a legal rep?

The Judge is surely wrong about primacy of contract; you had a reasonable expectation of parking and had done for two years (grant handed down to you by the flat owner) before OPS were unnecessarily inflicted on residents.

I'd move if I were you.  If you can help it, NEVER live where a PPC infests the car park, and especially not an ex-clamper like OPS.

Was this a Judge at Brighton Court - which Judge?

Do you mean that he wasn't persuaded that you parked the car and left it (untouched and unused) BEFORE the signs were put up?  Weren't all their photos showing the car in the same place, unmoved?  Or did it look like you had come and gone past obvious signs? Not sure what you mean about muddling up the dates.

Taiko

Really unfortunate by the sound of it. Would be interested to know which judge also, as one I am aiding on got moved from Horsham to Brighton for a few months time. Always handy to know if it's going to be a judge you need to hold the hand of a little more! 

95Rollers

Again commiserations on this bad judgment. At least their unlawful add-on fees were knocked off and they would have most likely made a loss from this case as the court costs go back to the court, and if they had DCBL doing papers and a legal rep they've probably shelled out the best part of £300-500 to gamble on this "win" for themselves. I would be interested to find out more. I went up against OPS in Luton court this year (for a Brighton carpark) and won - again some courts and judges are clued up to the scam. Normally most of the Sussex Courts are aware of their scams from reading through this forum and the local papers.

Half_way

If this is your own space, then you should get onto the management company as it's clear they are subletting it to a third party for the sum of £100 (or whatever) a day, and as such you want the money from this unauthorised sublet .

Multiply the cost of a days  parking charge notice by the number of days the PPC has been there

Parking_Nightmare835

"Do you mean that he wasn't persuaded that you parked the car and left it (untouched and unused) BEFORE the signs were put up?"

@Coupon_Mad Yes this is what I mean, there is a sign in front of my car in the photos. And yes there was a rep for OPS there, I think it might have been his first case, he seemed just as nervous as me! I haven't used the spaces since this happened, I am actually looking to move as well :-)

"At least their unlawful add-on fees were knocked off and they would have most likely made a loss from this case as the court costs go back to the court, and if they had DCBL doing papers and a legal rep they've probably shelled out the best part of £300-500 to gamble on this "win" for themselves."

@95Rollers Yes, this is some consolation at least!

I think DJ Pollard was the judge, I haven't seen the judgement or any paperwork yet.

I'm mainly glad it's all over with!

Coupon-mad

"DJ Pollard"

OMG you had next to no chance.  Eek - Judge Pollard...most consumers lose, as he has set ideas. Poor you. I feel your pain.  Luckily, I've always avoided him when at Brighton court!

You will do the upcoming public Consultation, yes?

Parking_Nightmare835

"Nervous Harry?  He's not new to court hearings." Haha, oh dear, maybe he should consider a different career path, I'm not sure he's cut out for it!

"Eek - Judge Pollard...most consumers lose, as he has set ideas." Ahh, well I guess that explains why he seemed to ignore a lot of my defence.

Yes, definitely, I've bookmarked the sticky thread so I'll hear when it's coming up. I'll pass the message on to friends too.

95Rollers

Parking_Nightmare835 said:

"Nervous Harry?  He's not new to court hearings." Haha, oh dear, maybe he should consider a different career path, I'm not sure he's cut out for it!

I don't get the impression he's the sharpest knife in the drawer looking back on my emails to him when he was acting as their DPO. He didn't really have a clue about Data Protection principles even though its kind of his job as a DPO because people's Data isn't exactly contentious is it!? I wonder what DP school he went to! 😆  he refused Data I was entitled to, contradicted himself and/or lied when challenged about the discrepancies between the site contract, signs, BPA CoP and the contradicting "rules" OPS and DCBL made up for their WS!!!  I put his refusal to answer, contradictions and lack of cooperation. I guess he didn't want it enough. Him and Clamper Gav didn't probably fancy court as their names, lies, contradictions, losses and boasts were all over my WS so they hired a "pro"! 🤣

He's clearly experienced at court because he's written hundreds of WS!!! But strangely gets an amnesia attack when you ask him to clarify something hes written and signs to be his own true words! 😆 

Clearly not the sharpest tool, a tool nonetheless- but then why would an intelligent person work for a bunch of ex-clampers in their converted garage office (bolted onto the side of a shabby house) in a greasy spoon café's carpark!?!