Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


shamrocker

One Parking Solutions represented by QDR Solicitors - Damning judgement

Recommended Posts

This may have been posted on here previously, but I picked it on Facebook this morning - it reportedly originated on MSE forums.

 

DJ Harvey, at Lewes County Court, dismissed the claim of One Parking Solutions and was rather scathing of OPS in their judgement. It's well worth a read if you've not read it before. There are some real nuggets in there that will be of use to us mere mortals.

 

Quote

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 hy 1 st June 2020
their explanation or observation as to why it appears that Miss Leering may have misied 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
20J 0 their observations on the authenticity of the commercial lease ref erred to in lhe 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 Comt 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 point one four in the sum of £528.90 payable within 14 days after service of this order
days after service of this order.

 


Dated 05 February 2020

 

 

  

Quote

49. All this then is designed to make the agreement look authentic and reasonable,
but in my view, it is nothing but a dishonest sham and fraud on the public. On
any view, the Claimant cannot be said to have acted reasonably when dealing
with this Defendant who overstayed by 12 minutes.

 

 

One Parking Solution v Ms W 5 Feb 2020.pdf

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oo that's gotta hurt QDR will have some explaining to do. maybe the Judges have woiken up to the overt naughtiness  of PPCs.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow what a fantastic summing up of the case by a Judge. One can only hope that if any of these parking crooks take one to Court that you have Judge Harvey or someone of similar experience in the chair. The 1st of June could be a very interesting day.

Wonder if it has been brought to the attention of the DVLA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the tide is turning, what was good, is the Judge forensically dismantled the Claimant  WS, and that even though the Defendant was there  as was not parked in such a way for as Contract to be formed, the Claimants interpretation of a 5 Minute Grace period was an egregious misrepresentation, and the WS was basically a RoboClaim.  Interestingly he used Beavis against the Claimant, and indicated that the so called extra charges on top the "Unicorn Food tax" was an unfair penalty. 

 

Wonder if Simple Simon of VCS will read this one, as it might apply to his Airport speculative invoices, for  averring a Contract was breached for No Stopping, especially as the Claimants locus was also challenged on the details of the contract and Lease they said they hold to control the land.  Don't think Simple's roboclaim airport WS would stand up to an examination by this particular DJ.

 

 


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And who is Shannon Leering - paralegal?  Doesn't look as if she has done a very thorough job.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No this one will have bad implications for RoboClaim WS that are CTRL C CTRL V jobbies, It was interesting how he told them how they perverted the use of Beavis and stated openly that the WS was more designed to make a Defendant  give up and cough up.

para 27 aand 28 are damning on Beavis

para 66 -68 dismiss the Unicorn Food tax as Unfair, an unlawful penalty, and blatant abuse of process. The paralegaland some other's might have a problem in june, better take their toothbrushes.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

49. All this then is designed to make the agreement look authentic and reasonable,
but in my view, it is nothing but a dishonest sham and fraud on the public. On
any view, the Claimant cannot be said to have acted reasonably when dealing
with this Defendant who overstayed by 12 minutes.

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad you seem to be enjoying the read! Just a word of caution, the person who posted this warned against naming individuals as it's likely the affected companies will lean on the forum to take the material down. I don't know how valid this is, but I'll say it anyway and leave it to admin to advise accordingly.

 

It's great to see these shysters taken to task though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be OK can make general comments and edit names out don't want a right hassle from this, it could potential;ly blow up in the PPC's faces now one has been robustly tolchocked by a DJ forensically picking their claim apart.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the Contract, it might be that people fleeced in that car park might be able to challenge if they Contract is void as the DJ intimates.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the impression that the judge was really enjoying himself, especially with the liberal use of Shakespeare!   I note the Defendant was connected to the Theatre, I wonder if this may have swayed his honour (not in terms of bias but in terms of doing a proper job?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shamrocker said:

Glad you seem to be enjoying the read! Just a word of caution, the person who posted this warned against naming individuals as it's likely the affected companies will lean on the forum to take the material down. I don't know how valid this is, but I'll say it anyway and leave it to admin to advise accordingly.

 

It's great to see these shysters taken to task though.

What will they do, sue the judge for libel?

I have come across a DJ Harvey in another matter at Hastings CC, if it is the same person then he is a very sensible and tolerant person so to get such a scathing judgement from him OPS really must have wound him up as he is very tolerant of people spouting forth etc. That is not the same as abusing the courts and telling lies though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the points that people have picked out as their favourites for kicking OPS

I offer a different one for kicking VCS and that is point 52 about what is a parking event and for the purposes of off street parking it means leaving your car so the death of "no stopping" claims?

 

Im sure others will like the para 62 about unfair charges being an unlawful penalty when the unicorn food tax is 60% of the original bill. DR+ like to ask for 70% so they will be out of business as soon as someone uses the courts to reclaim their money after reading this judgement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes EB that bit from 52 through to 57 regarding Parking, Simple needs to be careful with his airport no stopping, if driver doesn't get out its not parked according to that, whether a passenger gets out or in seems covered by 56 regarding reference to Jopson v Homeguard (2016) on parking seems to nail it.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Shamrocker for finding this case. I hope that you will be able to follow up with the respective meetings that the Judge has ordered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, lookinforinfo said:

Well done Shamrocker for finding this case. I hope that you will be able to follow up with the respective meetings that the Judge has ordered.

 

It's nothing to do with me. I just found it on a parking tickets group that I keep an eye on (albeit I far prefer the tone and content of CAG on this subject - by a long shot) and, as it had originated on MSE forum, I would expect there'll be some updates posted on there. I haven't had a chance to look yet, but I can't imagine it being too hard to find.

 

It's a good one though. I have to say, it all felt a bit surreal when I read it. You become accustomed to the constant fear of 'judge lottery' and then along comes this little beauty to brighten up your day. :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone contact me urgently please because I've been contacted by the press who would like to get hold of the original unredacted judgement – particularly in order to validate the entire document.

I've just had a conversation with the journalist and they have got an article ready to go but they would like to check the judgement to make sure that the entire document is genuine. They think it's a beautiful story but they are worried about publishing the fact that there was "a sham et cetera document" without doublechecking.

Also, I expect that they would like to talk to the defendant in the case of possible and also whoever it was who helped to organise the defence – because it was a very nice job.

If somebody could contact me urgently on our admin email address I'll forward the information to the journalist.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@shamrocker

 

Just sent you a sticky note message – if you refresh your page – top right hand corner


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they could ask the court for a copy as it is a public document

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. It seems as if it may be their member chelostar.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/profile/chelostar

 

If anybody has an MSE account, maybe they could send that person a private message and asked them to email me on our admin email address because a journalist would like to talk to them.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim number is on the judgement that shamrocker uploaded - I don't know if that would help to establish it's genuine? 


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my MSE account no longer exists so unable to help

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checked their ICO registration and they have paid the tier 1 fee. that is for CCTV for crime prevention use only, the same as you need for filming inside your own shop.

They seen to have forgotten that they run more than one company and what their activites are.

Still by lying they save £2850 a year or a lot more than thay if you consider that Val Capon has forgotten to register his other companies with the ICO so get a ticket from Sussex Security Solutions at another site in Lewes and he is breaking the law even sending you a demand.

However, the CCTV may be obsolete as the company owns ( well pays the mortgage on) a helicopter so they could hover over the car park and drop notices by hand.

they must have the same accountant as my son-in-law. You might get to read about him in the papers one day when the court cases have finished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...