One Parking Solutions represented by QDR Solicitors - Damning judgement

[billybobyeeharrboy]

excellent news and very interesting reading!

 

[BankFodder]

I've now been approached by a journalist on a major national paper for information. They want to talk to the person involved – the defendant.

I still had no responses to my enquiries.

This is a great story which could really give the private parking industry a slap if the journalists could simply talk to the person involved.

Can anyone help?

[shamrocker]

Sorry, I haven't got any additional information on the case or defendant. Has the journalist got the URL for the MSE forum post? They could probably attempt making contact themselves, maybe.

 

Sham

[brassnecked]

Only issue with MSM is their propensity to call them fines, and fall into the trap many do by conflating with Local Authority PCN.

[brassnecked]

found this on MSE, my old account seems to have vanished as well

 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6136572/one-parking-solution-warned-by-a-judge-that-they-may-face-an-application-for-a-civil-restraint-order

 

Here is the thread leading to the judgment

 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6010750/one-parking-solution-nltd-zzps-ltd-qdr-solicitors

 

Seems that OPS are seeking Leave to appeal also

 

 

 

[BankFodder]

Yes I provided the URL to the thread and also directly to the account of the person involved.

However I've had no contact to suggest that the defendant has come forward to give information. You will be a great shame if this opportunity is lost

[lookinforinfo]

I see that the Defendant is planning to go to the Press once the judge has dealt with those summoned to his Court.

[ericsbrother]

OPC to appeal? On matters of fact or matter of law.

 

Simple Simon has often threatened this to try and bully the successful defendant into worrying about a full payment of costs aothers have done the same, the only example other than Beavis (and a company chasing lorries on an industrial estate) lost.

 

HHJ Hegarty had a thing about parking and commercial contracts hence the successes of a couple of companies who then got greedy and lost big time for applying the same methods to consumer contracts.

 

I dont see what OPC hope to gain as they were well and truly blown out of the water at Lewes and they had their opportunity to show up themselves to prosecute their claims abotu the validity of the contract with the landowner etc but decided not to.

 

I suggest that they may have been done there and then for perjury or contempt if they had so it goes back to a threat in the hope that they get the sympathy vote next time

[brassnecked]

They might be hoping an Appeal Judge will look more favourably on them as they might claim the (crooked) business model of the whole private Parking setup is at threat if they lose this one.

[lookinforinfo]

It will be interesting to see how the BPA handles any questions regarding their CoP 23.1b with the Judge.

 

  23.1b Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue and before Court Proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum (which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added for the debt recovery fees. This sum must not exceed £70 unless prior approval from the BPA has been granted.

 

I have always maintained that even at £60 [which I think the IPC used to suggest] that figure was over the top with regards to the OFT Guidance on Debt Collection  

Charging for debt collection

e. applying charges which are disproportionate to the main debt.

 

 DDJ Harvey  10 points

BPA                   0 Points

DVLA                 0 Points

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by lookinforinfo

[Gerald Gardner]

On 18/05/2020 at 17:40, BankFodder said:

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.

I've flagged it up for you 

https://www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?380171-One-Parking-Solution-warned-by-a-Judge-that-they-may-face-a-civil-restraint-order&p=9351868&posted=1#post9351868

[Guest Coupon-mad]

Hi all,

 

Glad to be here after all these years!  I tried posting here briefly once, for a while, but then settled on MSE

 

I was the lay rep in this case and Bank Fodder has been in touch, so I thought I'd come here. 

 

I was also the lay rep in the Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby & anor, where DJ Grand refused to reinstate multiple Britannia cases where £60 was added.  That transcript cost BW Legal £420ish then they didn't appeal but wouldn't share it (how selfish!) so I bought a copy for about £14 and it's now used by other Judges (Lewes, Skipton, Warwick, Luton, etc).

 

 

 

Glad you all liked the judgment about OPS.  We did!  It was achieved by a posse of five middle aged women who rocked up to Lewes court, three in watching at the back, and me and Ms W sitting facing the aggressive rep from LPC Law (sent by QDR). On the day, I wasn't sure I'd done enough due to having a lease sprung on me, and the rep stealing the floor & talking over me.

 

One thing the judgment missed was the fact the entrance signs have been twisted round to face the main CCTV camera for three years (check Google Street View, also I have half a dozen cases I've handled that prove it). The issue is, this place looks like a road, next to shops and thre is no appearance of a 'car park' if you are looking ahead and/or the sun shines on the white words on the road as you turn. 

 

So the twisted entrance sign means the CCTV operator can use the images, but drivers never even realise they are in a 'car park' let alone that it's managed by a BPA member.  This was covered in court along with everything else.  The lease was produced in court on the day, after I slapped an unredacted copy of the OPS-signed contract on the table, the rep did a retort along the lines ''I see your unredacted contract and I raise you this lease'' (not in those words, but it was played out like that!).

 

DDJ Harvey was unwell and said straight away he'd defer his decision, but that he was allowing both the ambush documents because he wanted to get to the bottom of it. 

 

Lewes & Brighton Judges have dealt with a number of Eastage Wharf cases and where a defendant turns up, we've always seen OPS lose.  I know someone who goes to watch.  But sadly we knew that there have been cases where OPS won due to the D not appearing , and I've sat in a case myself as lay rep six months earlier where we won on POFA arguments and unclear signage and the Judge didn't want to hear my next point, exposing the OPS contract.  He knew I had something to say about it because I'd listed my points at the start, but I had to bite my tongue that day.  In his summing up, that Judge was taken in by it, said he was satisfied with it (the OPS signatures were covered).

 

So I can say first hand, that document HAS misled at least one Judge and I know second-hand, of another.  It's also won POPLA cases for OPS - I've seen 2 such cases.  Couldn't wait to expose it this time. 

 

The landowner authority signed only by OPS,  also claimed they had authority over 'the site'. 

The lease doesn't say that, it states P&D bays only.

[brassnecked]

Great that the judge picked up on the Unicorn Food tax cannot be added as its a penalty, thought he was rather forensic unpicking misuse of beavis to justify charges over and above the Invoice amount.

[Guest Coupon-mad]

Yes he got it!  That was covered in the WS and at trial and going by reports on MSE, most Judges seem to get it now.

[brassnecked]

Would be nice for Simple Simon aka VCS/Excel get a similar tolchocking (nadsat for a kicking) for his Airport antics,  and lack of locus, one was someone stopped at a Zebra crossing to let people cross, passenger jumped out camera went kerching.

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you for coming on and explaining the case.

You must have been delighted with what the Judge said.

The ramifications i hope will rumble on.

 

I see that you will be writing to the DVLA who as ever are asleep at the wheel.

God alone knows what you can say to them to get them even into first gear.

 

The press are useful for one day but have the attention of a mayfly so we will be relying on bringing the case to all the Judges when our members are being taken to Court. It would be wonderful if at least one of those called in front of the Judge end up in court if even for a few days.

 

it would probably be a pity if it was the WS writer since I have seen a lot worse WS than hers but if it could be decided that those who write the WS must attend Court that would be a step in the right direction.

 

Perhaps Trading Standards and the ICO might weigh in against OCS too.

Breaching GDPR since OCS knew they had no case is one example, with a modicum of fraudulent misrepresentation thrown in.

 

I do hope you come back again especially to update us on the upcoming Court hearings as well as the response from the DVLA.

 

 

[Guest Coupon-mad]

Replying to brassnecked:

He got a kicking thanks to lamilad on MSE, who did a repeat of the Southampton judgment at Skipton in Feb. 

 

Both were N244 applications to set aside strike outs for adding what CAG calls the Unicorn tax.  I went to Soton (Nov 2019 v Britannia, and won v BW Legal's barrister) then lamilad went to Skipton (v Excel) and won v the barrister Jake Burgess sent, so that ALL parking cases in those areas remain struck out for adding £60.

 

Jake Burgess' reaction to the Excel loss was: 

 

When you want something doing you do it yourself springs to mind.

 

I will consider the Judgment carefully (as always) and see where we go with it.

 

On a separate note, I am told BW Legal have appealed their case in Southampton? Are you aware of this or is it white noise?

 

It was white noise.  There was no appeal by BW Legal or Excel, so unicorn tax cases are doomed in Skipton and Southampton.

 

Anyway sorry I digress, this thread is about OPS.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Coupon-mad

[lookinforinfo]

I would like to add that if the Solicitors cannot come up with genuine explanations for their dealings with regard to the alleged contract, then perhaps the SRA might become involved in investigations into yet another solicitor this year  [Gladstones being the other].

[brassnecked]

You have certainly strarted something Coupon-mad, about time the wheels came of their particular wagon, The press are a double edged sword as them calling them Fines are counter produxctive, and they have a habit of removing comments on an article that reies to explain what they are and that fines they are not.

[BankFodder]

I'm going to say now that I prefer to call them fines. I know they not fines – but I prefer the sense of public outrage that some private parking company can levy "fines".

I think it's important that the public see that these bounty hunting companies are really acting as a kind of private mercenary police force – and issuing "fines" fits in very well with that.

[brassnecked]

pros and cons to both approaches BF, the fact that they are Contractual in nature brings in confusion, and engenders fear of maybe ending up in jail, and the likes of Will & John, BW legal do nothing to reduce that assumption.  But for public outrage and to create the full on horror of how these invoices are unfair, FINE is more apt than invoice.

[shamrocker]

Thanks for coming on here to update us Coupon Mad.

 

It's a pity that DJ Harvey didn't give the entrance signage the same savage treatment as other aspects of the case. I can kind of understand why though, in the greater context of things.

 

Thanks again.

 

Sham

[brassnecked]

The visibility of signage is one to consider especially if there is dashcam footage of the entrance sign  from both directions.

[ericsbrother]

Because most of the amounts demanded via no stopping or other prohibitive signage plus the unicorn food tax is an unlawful penalty perhaps we could try and get the national on local press to refer to them as that

- penalty charges so there is a better comparison in people's minds to other parking fines( which arent fines but fixed penalties).

 

Years ago before parking matters were decriminalised a parking ticket had to be notified when you applied for a passport or explosives licence, to become a lay magistrate or a publican etc.

 

I forgot to dob them in to the ICO regarding the wrong registration level of data processing when I was dobbing in a couple of other companies. I shall go back to them tomorrow.

 

As for giving all of the things they didn wrong the same level of attention, in a perfect world that would happen but  the judge clearly decided their claim  was going to succeed or fail on a couple of very major points that OPC cant really argue about as they are absolute. They dont have the permission so they have nothing else to go on.

 

I hope that a couple of N244s are going into court along with a suitable complaint to TS. Deception, fraud, theft- call it what you want.

[Peter Parker 2]

Private Parking Companies are audited by the DVLA and the GIAA (Government Internal Audit Agency). They receive ratings of Green, Yellow or Red. These results can be found on WhatDoTheyKnow.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/list/all?utf8=✓&query=GIAA+parking+audit&request_date_after=&request_date_before=&commit=Search

 

OPS have been rated Green, but some PPCs, such as VCS, UKCPM and CP Plus have been rated Red since 2018, but are still allowed to obtain KADOE data from the DVLA. In the past, PPCs could be suspended or have their KADOE contract revoked, but this doesn't seem to be happening any more.