Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Beamengine

  1. TLT - I thought they were more closely linked to Barclays.
  2. Get in touch with the Manchester Evening News and get some more articles published. Start off with the lack of signs stating that it is private land as required by the IPC code. That should start a vigorous discussion with the Council
  3. Citizen's Advice have upgraded their public guidance and this is a brief but good source of informati0n that answers your questions: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Documents/Advice%20factsheets/Consumer%20Affairs/c-going-to-court.pdf In particular it states that either party can object to a decision based on the papers.
  4. ES Parking is a member of the IPC so have a look at their IPC code of practice http://www.theipc.info/resources/brandings/brandmedia_2_Code-of-Practice.pdf In particular section 14 refers to predatory tactics; the poor signage coupled with a claim for stopping could be regarded as predatory. Para 15 on page 13 states that stopping to read signs must be treated as a period of grace. The signage certainly does not comply with that shown in schedule 1 for an entrance to private land so a complaint to IPC under schedule 2 would be appropriate. You should also consider making a formal complaint to DVLA about their predatory tactics although they will refer it back to IPC.
  5. The request for a paper hearing was very sneaky as it would mean that you would not see the papers they have said will be provided with the evidence. That would mean that you would not have the opportunity to challenge it. My only experience of a hearing without the parties being present ended up with the defendant submitting papers to the court the day before the hearing but I only received them the day after. Not surprisingly the judge used the arguments their late submission to dismiss the claim. The lesson of this is that even if the judge decides that the hearing can be held in the absence of the parties there is nothing to stop you attending.
  6. HPH2 once again using Robway to handle all of the correspondence. I have set a LBA to HPH2 as I have at last persuaded ICO that their regitration was not in accordance with the DPA by failing to identify a representative within UK jurisdiction - they are based in Jersey. The response I received was from Robway addressing an earlier LBA against them! dx100uk, despite your previous comments about HPH2's status only Hoist Finance UK and Robway are registered with FCA. HPH2 are not listed as a trading name of Hoist who are their representatives according to the ICO register. It is of note that Hoist Finance claim that all of their income is derived for sources external to the UK (HPH2) according to their Companies Hours accounts. As they rely on UK debts this must be a question I will raise with HMRC.
  7. Ginger, You should send in your defence as soon as possible, there is little point in waiting in any case. It need only be the four points I set out as it is a skeleton set of points and the claimant will have to demonstrate that they can satisfy the judge on all four to succeed. They will struggle to do that even if they do have a basis that the road is private throughtout its length. I agree that it is best under the corcumstances that you do not counterclaim. My reasons and circumstances are different to yours as I believe that ES Parking deserve to be judged as vexatious which would mean that they would have to seek permission from a judge before they could launch any more claims. That would be a complicated claim which would be foolhardy to undertake, leave it to fools like me
  8. I will let you know the outcome of my current claim for £750 following an improprer PCN.
  9. I agree that Ginger should not counterclaim unless she feels that she would wish to pursue ES Parking for distress as she has indicated if they lose. Even then I would recommend that she simply puts it behind her and get on with the more important things in life. Letting go is difficult but there are times when it is best approach by far. File the defence and wait to see what happens.
  10. Not as ridiculous as their accounts for 2014 which show a profit of £28M but corporation tax of £0,169M. That a rate of 0.6% which makes the contributins from Amazon and Starbucks look generous. :censored:Of course Parking Eye are part of the Capita group which runs a large slice of the governement's contracted out services ranging from student loans to civil service pensions. It make the Supreme Court's ruling in the Beavis v. Parking Eye so much easier to understand. After all we all want our privatised NHS car parks to be available to those that can afford to pay for them.
  11. Once a claim has been withdrawn with the agreement of the court it is regarded as closed so it is not possible to make a counter claim – it would have to be a new claim. In this case the cause of action would be a breach of the DPA for which compensation for injury to feelings and distress can be claimed under section 13(2). The burden of proof would be on the basis that ES Parking unlawfully obtained the personal data because they had no reasonable cause. If they have already withdrawn their claim because of that defence they would struggle to explain that and it would be virtually impossible for them to defend if their claim was dismissed.
  12. A defendant can request a stay if, for example, there is an attempt at mediation but only a judge can order a claim to be stayed or struck out. A defendant can make an application for a claim to be struck out because it is vexatious and/or entirely without merit. While the claim is active this can be effected by a counter claim and in this case a claim for distress. The cause of action would be that the claimant did not have reasonable cause to request the keeper details which would be unlawful under the DPA. The claimant can withdraw the claim at any time and this would avoid the counter claim but the possibility of a new claim by the defendant would remain. Does the stay, rather than striking out, mean that a counter claim would still be possible?
  13. When does the clock start ticking for the 33 days? Is it from the date that both parties receive the allocation questionnaire, their responses or the date of the track allocation? What are the terms of an autostay? It would presumably need a court order to lift it but is there a time limit before an application to strike it out be made? I did find this official handbook which is equally useful for defendants: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person.pdf
  14. I agree, they will have to demonstrate they have cause for action which means all of these points would have to be covered. I too doubt that they will bother to pay the allocation fee. If they don't I would only allow the case to be stayed if they provide valid reasons and then I would request a deadline before the claim is struck out.
  15. Ginger, looking at the very impressive court buildings on either side of one end of Gartside Street to does look as though this is part of the Canary wharf of the Northern powerhouse. That indicates that the whole of the 22 acres will eventually become a pedestrian area. Google has a link to roadworks in Gartside Street starting next month but the MCC site fails to recognise the link and even the search on their site gives the same response. Whether the lack of publication on their website could be challenged is not important but it way explain why I can't find details of earlier applications. The road between the court buildings does contain tiny No Stopping notices at the side of the road and the masterplan shows a cafe area in the road at one end. All this means that you may very well get an evasive response to your FOI request. It is probably best to file your defence and see whether anything happens.
  16. Ginger must be getting very confused by our exchange so can I make it clear that it is not really part of the issues raised in her case in terms of the defence. I think we agree that ES Parking's approach is ultra vires on the basis that the street remained a public highway unless they can prove otherwise. The claim would in any case likely to fail on the other three issue in my list so I very much doubt that they will take it any further given their track record. I thought that the Royal Parks and other Crown Land were definitely not public highway allowing free access to members of the public. I would strongly advice anyone, for example, forcing entry into a park when the gates are closed or even more, attempting to drive into a military base on the basis that it is Crown land. The towpath is an adjunct to the river on which craft have a right of way similar to the highway although some river authorities may have regulations that govern use such as the requirement of a licence or speed limits. Just as with the public highway the adjacent landowner owns the land to the centre of the road or river and the towpath is a right of way to allow horses to draw boats on the river. Canals and their towpaths are slightly different as they were initially privately owned as were the turnpikes which eventually reverted to public rights of way largely though usage. I must disagree with the statement that High Court judgements create a legal precedent. They do create a precedent that other judges may follow but judges may disagree with that decision which is where the Court of Appeal comes in to decide on a point of law. In any case I am not satisfied that the judge in Dawood v Camden did make a decision that would count as a judgement on the facts, he simply decided not to allow a judicial review. In the absence of a transcript of the judgement I will not speculate on what it contains.
  17. Ericsbrother, I am far from convinced that the Dawood case is of general applicability as it is based on Section 15(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974. The PATAS review stated that the Act originally made it an offence for any vehicle to be parked with one or more of its wheels resting on any footway, land between carriageways, or on any grass verge, garden or space. This has been amended over time and was further amended subsequently but, at the material time, the position was that a contravention occurred if a vehicle was parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway. PATAS is only concerned with appeals on the enforcement of PCNs in London and the General Powers are only applicable to the area covered by the former GLC. In fact there was no High Court decision on the merits of the case as the application for a judicial review was not granted and this decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. I have yet to find the High Court decision (anyone know where I can find it?) but it appears that the High Court judge took the view that, whether it was a road or not, it was certainly a garden or space adjacent to and accessibly from the footway. That would be sufficient reason not to grant the review which was then upheld on Appeal. In that context it would then be correct to describe the area as part of an urban road other than a carriageway. Extrapolating that to a more general view would result in some bizarre scenarios. Supermarkets have large car parks where the entrances are rarely conspicuously marked as private land but invite customers to park under an implied contract. As such they would correctly be classed as part of an urban road other than a carriageway and this is supported by the change in the RTA to require third party insurance on such roads. If my local council implemented regulations similar to those of the GLC then they would be able to issue PCNs to all customers which would clearly be ridiculous. A distinction must surely be made between roads to which the public have access and public highways maintained at public expense . In an era of public spending cuts this begs the question as to whether a road which is repaired by residents remains a public highway which is the question that needs to be answered in the case of the Spinningfield development.
  18. Soon after this we had one case thrown out for this reason so the district judge wasn't convinced by the 1000's of claims. Robway's records are totally confused which is why they keep coming up with the same demands: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately attributed to incompetence. The good news is that Google's withdrawal of the Supreme Court appeal in Vidal Hall v. Google means that anyone can make a claim against Robway for breach of the DPA when they fail to correct errors in their records. The bad news is that action for incorrect reporting to the CRA is not Robway but HPH2 and they are registered in Jersey which is outside the jurisdiction of the English courts. ICO took four weeks to confirm this and implied that there was a UK agent for them but did not say who it was. If they take another four weeks to say the same thing the next approach will be through our local MP. HPH2 and Robway are a subsidiary of Hoist Finance UK who in turn are a subsidiary of Hoist Kredit. After the acquisition of MKDP and Capello they appear to have been taken aboard HPH2. MKDP were a favourite of Barclaycard but they did not register the default with the CRA but the change to HPH2 resulted in a still later date for the default. Robway claimed this was correct but gave a different date in the accompanying letter from BC. The real question is why HPH2 buys up UK debts, undertakes recovery action in the UK but the accounts for Hoist Finance which include HPH2 claim that all of the income is generated outside the UK. We wonder why as they only generate losses for the company and BC so they don't pay tax. Their business model is most entertaining as it involves large write-offs every year until the capital is exhausted when HPH3 will rise from the ashes. They can only apparently survive courtesy of a generous cash injection from Hoist Kredit.
  19. I am not sure that Dawood is relevant as that was whether parking restrictions could be applied to private land which was also a road. The question there was whether it was lawful to park a motorcycle on a strip of land outside his house. This was considered by the Parking Adjudicator who upheld the PCNs. Dr Dawood sought a judicial review which was refused and this refusal was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The court could find that it was both a road and private land where the owner could restrict its use. Their claim would then fail on the basis that it appears to be a public highway as it connects and A road to a B road with no clear signs to the contrary. As you point out the street furniture would make it appear to be one, especially the worn yellow lines and the poor condition of the surface!
  20. That is now on the other side of Gartside Street in the new Crown Court building. The Civil Justice Centre was built on the site of the old Magistrates Court so I am just our of date as usual
  21. Chancers is far too polite. It would appear that their is a familial relations with the now defunct ANPR Ltd run by Trev who had the distinction of being thrown out of the BPA . ES Parking appear to have stuck up their notices over a large section of Spinningfields including one at the entrance to the new Magistrates Court buildings. I can see no evidence of notices indicating the change of status to private land apart from the fly posters even when turning off a bus route . They have already received a lot of publicity in the local media for issuing a charge to a van driver who was waiting to gain access to the RBS building. Should they be reported to the Council for fly posting and see what their response is?
  22. My failure to find an entry in the London Gazette for an application to extinguish the highway for part of the road does not mean that the road is still a public highway. The first line of the defence I posted will ensure that ES Parking will have to demonstrate that they do have the authority they claim. Stopping up part of the highway would mean that there would no longer be a right of way for vehicles but the application may not include the footway so the right of way would remain. It would be a complex argument if the footway remained public but the roadway was not and vehicular access was subsequently restored. There is a distinct possibility that ES Parking have misinterpreted the legal status and will decline to defend their position in court. I have other evidence that may be difficult for them to counter but we must wait the outcome of the FOI request for clarification of the position. That does not prevent a defence including that basis as the burden of proof would be on the cliamant to demonstrate that they did have the legal right to make the claim.. As I suspected ES Parking are a new company and have only started issuing PCNs this year. According to http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/E_S_Parking_Enforcement.html you should ignore them until it gets to a court claim - that is most unusual advice. Apparently they have issued 6573 notices but none of them have got as far as a court hearing i.e. beyond the initial cliam.
  23. ES Parking are very careful about their web presence as their index page does not contain any obvious links. The domain name's registrant's details are hidden by a privacy company which is unusual for a puble limited company especially one that claims to be the UK number one in parking management. Using the seach facility take you inside the site with a numebr of options although on my browser most of them are black on a black background! This page https://www.espel.uk/about-us/ indicated that they act for MCR Manchester who just happen to be offering office accommodation in Spinningfields. Perhaps that are the landowners.
  • Create New...