Parking stories in the News/media

Coupon-mad

Yet another 'double dip' case where a victim was ripped off (reportedly) by a gaggle of Group Nexus, POPLA and the BPA all saying Lawrence Carnie left his car at a retail park overnight (...oh no he didn't!):
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/angry-driver-vows-to-whatever-29477455.amp

"Lawrence Carnie was slapped with a £100 car parking fine after he went to the Tower Retail Park in Crayford, but has said he is willing to spend thousands fighting the claim, even after he's lost two appeals"

Perhaps worse in terms of shocking rip-offs, is the quote from a person from some firm calling itself 'CCJ REMOVAL SERVICES LTD' who this hapless victim has pointlessly 'reached out' to, despite NOT EVEN HAVING A CCJ.

CCJ REMOVAL SERVICES LTD

Company number 14104820 is NAMED AND SHAMED for reportedly saying that to defend a daft PPC court claim, victims should engage a BARRISTER and spend an unnecessary sum of money.

I am aghast at the misinformation quoted here:

"Paralegal Luke Memory, who specialises in challenging parking fines, has taken the case and said that whilst most cases don’t end up in court, “Mr Carnie is an exception to the rule.”

“Once a claim is made against Mr Carnie we would instruct a barrister to draft a defence statement which costs £500 and this would lead to a court hearing at which Mr Carnie would instruct a barrister and this would cost approximately £1000.

The paralegal said the companies were “very clever” as the cost to fight a case in court was often much higher than the fine, meaning people usually didn't bother challenging them and paid up."

Jeez. IMHO, what MISLEADING TWADDLE.

Come here, Lawrence Carnie and we'll see off the court claim without a hearing and free of charge.

And...I wonder if that paralegal at CCJ REMOVAL SERVICES LTD realises that it looks like he might sometimes be involved in the Conduct of Litigation, and if he's read this current case?
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/paralegal-was-unaware-she-was-conducting-unlawful-litigation/5115386.article

Maybe this paralegal is working under direct Supervision of a solicitor and can instruct barristers.  Hope so, for his sake...but from the info in the public domain recorded at Companies House, this company seems like more of a tin-pot firm comprising a couple and their son, and this guy has loads of companies:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14104820/officers

Looks VERY questionable to me.

Perhaps CCJ REMOVAL SERVICES LTD would like to come here and reply to their naming and shaming, and explain why they are saying parking firms are 'clever' (wrong) and that it "costs more than the claim" to defend properly because you need a barrister (absolute scaremongering rubbish, IMHO) and do they have a solicitor supervising their litigation work?

I wouldn't be gobsmacked if @Grizebeck stops by to tell us he has rung up this fledgeling company to find out what they are doing...

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Perhaps CCJ REMOVAL SERVICES LTD would like to come here and reply to their naming and shaming, and explain why they are saying parking firms are 'clever' (wrong) and that it "costs more than the claim" to defend properly because you need a barrister (absolute scaremongering rubbish, IMHO) and do they have a solicitor supervising their litigation work?

I wouldn't be gobsmacked if @Grizebeck stops by to tell us he has rung up this fledgeling company to find out what they are doing...

Looking forward to it already and popcorn ordered (even though I hate popcorn!)

Grizebeck

@Coupon-mad do you think i have time on my hands 

pinkelephant12

Not directly about parking but drawing this report by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee to your attention.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmpubacc/735/report.html

"Between April 2020 and March 2022, due to a surge in calls, around 60 million calls to the DVLA about driving licences went unanswered, 94% of the total it received."

It is interesting the DVLA appears to have prioritised issuing keeper details to PPCs (my assumption as my Notices to Keeper were issued during this period) rather than answering the phones to drivers enquiring about their licences. Perhaps this is evidence of DVLA getting their priorities wrong? 

B789

Coupon-mad said:

And...I wonder if that paralegal at CCJ REMOVAL SERVICES LTD realises that it looks like he might sometimes be involved in the Conduct of Litigation, and if he's read this current case?
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/paralegal-was-unaware-she-was-conducting-unlawful-litigation/5115386.article

Maybe this paralegal is working under direct Supervision of a solicitor and can instruct barristers.  Hope so, for his sake...but from the info in the public domain recorded at Companies House, this company seems like more of a tin-pot firm comprising a couple and their son, and this guy has loads of companies:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14104820/officers

Looks VERY questionable to me.

Perhaps CCJ REMOVAL SERVICES LTD would like to come here and reply to their naming and shaming, and explain why they are saying parking firms are 'clever' (wrong) and that it "costs more than the claim" to defend properly because you need a barrister (absolute scaremongering rubbish, IMHO) and do they have a solicitor supervising their litigation work?

I wouldn't be gobsmacked if @Grizebeck stops by to tell us he has rung up this fledgeling company to find out what they are doing...

A quick look at their website doesn't seem to show any "supervision" by a solicitor. In fact they appear to shun any solicitors:

CCJ Removal Services Ltd are a Paralegal Business, and as such we offer a streamlined mediation service that delivers a very comparable service to that of a Solicitors at a vastly reduced price. Due to the relationships, we have developed with the claimants. We ONLY assist with CCJ Removal and offer a specialist niche service which means we can deliver a much more cost-effective solution. 

There are a number of Solicitors that offer this service, but they are more expensive, and this is just a “side-line” to their main business and more often than not the work is done by Paralegals, so you end up paying more for the same job – So don’t be fooled! We are members of the Institute of Paralegals. Members of the Civil Mediation Council and we hold Professional Indemnity Insurance for £1M.

We are here to help you navigate the court procedure and processes. Unlike Solicitors we help you to go through the process yourself. We do not act for you but we do assist you in an administrative capacity and hold your hand through every step of the way. The team have successfully delivered this service for many years and our service provides excellent value for money for the level of service. There are a few Solicitors firms that have very recently entered this market and of course using a Solicitor’s firm is fine, but for most cases of CCJ Removal it is unnecessary to use a Solicitors firm. We often find that they over complicate the process and as such it can then take longer to get the CCJ Removed.

Also, their small print says:

WE ARE NOT SOLICITORS and we are NOT REGULATED by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). We are a Paralegal Business and we are members of the Institute of Paralegals (IOP) and the Civil Mediation Council (CMC). We hold Professional Indemnity Insurance of £1M and we are Licensed by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) to Instruct Barristers. We assist clients in an Administrative Capacity Only. Our team is made up of ONLY either Qualified or Experienced Paralegals. We can provide you legal assistance as a litigation friend. We cannot go on the Court Record and you will remain a Litigant in Person (LIP) throughout your case. We can arrange Court representation for you via a Regulated third party Court Advocacy Provider, Barristers Chambers or a Barrister directly. We can help you to complete court paperwork, assist you with drafting documents and guide you through the Court process. You do not need to use a Solicitor for this type of service as they are usually significantly more expensive. We pride ourselves on providing an excellent service at an affordable cost and always do our best to exceed clients expectations. You cannot make a complaint about us to the Law Society, The Legal Ombudsman or the SRA as we are not regulated and fall outside of their jurisdiction. If you have any questions about our service and how we work we welcome you to contact us so we can explain in full and email you full details of our services.

*My emphasis.

patient_dream

Coupon-mad said:

Yet another 'double dip' case where a victim was ripped off (reportedly) by a gaggle of Group Nexus, POPLA and the BPA all saying Lawrence Carnie left his car at a retail park overnight (...oh no he didn't!):
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/angry-driver-vows-to-whatever-29477455.amp

It just shows these 3 are not fit for purpose and are complete fools.

Remember on BBC WATCHDOG, the current BPA CEO started talking absolute DRIVEL but did admit that ANPR was not perfect.  

WHY DO GOVERNMENT ALLOW A "NOT PERFECT" SYSTEM TO SCAM MONEY FROM PEOPLE ?

ANPR is corrupt and must be banned.  Get rid of these "jobs worth" outfits like the BPA and POPLA, there is enough information and evidence. that they have failed government and the public
THAT INCLUDES THE SCAM IPC/IAS

Those who have seen this video, skip to 8.30 to watch the BPA CEO WAFFLE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIaKMkO3YVM

Mouse007

Same story, different paper but analysis of the data is funny

"After looking through all 9,920 entries, he claims there are even more anomalies.

According to Mr Carnie 135 cars arrived or left the car park twice, and while 67 entered two times, 68 left twice.

There was also a single entry where one car exited the car park three times without even entering.

Along with this, Mr Carnie says that 96 cars were recorded going in on June 10 but were not spotted leaving that day.

On June 11, 100 different cars, that hadn't arrived that day, were seen leaving, according to Mr Carnie. This would mean that a maximum of 196 people could also have been fined on just that day.

Mr Carnie said: 'That one night they had 196 cars left unchecked meaning at 3am that car park should've been half full."

Half_way

I can never understand why people appear to put some trust in the BPA limited.

 

As for Double dips, any double dips that are a result of using ANPR system on their own should be treated for what they are - Breach of GDPR , failure to ensure accuracy of data/failure to take reasonable steps to ensure the data gathered is accurate.

 If a PPC is not cross checking overstays - ie with a foot patrol/staff on the ground to check the vehicle that the ANPR system  has flagged as an overstay is actually on site  then no reasonable steps are being taken to verify the data from an automated system.

Get all evidence lined up, google maps/apple maps location history dashcam footage and any witness statement etc and  then the more someone engages with the likes of POPLA/IAS/IPC/BPA limited etc,   and the more they reject the more  this will show the "industry" up for what it really is

The simple answer here is to come down like a ton of bricks on not only the PPC, but (in most cases) the car park owner as well whenever a double dip is encountered - the only exception with the car park owner would be if its a small independent business, or a charity/community group - and even the you should let them know that they are jointly liable ( the liable word will be enough to spook some community group committees )

Snakes_Belly

CCJ Removal Services Limited

"Due to the relationships, we have developed with the claimants"!

Boat_to_Bolivia

Grizebeck said:

@Coupon-mad do you think i have time on my hands 

I hope so