Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


shamrocker

One Parking Solutions represented by QDR Solicitors - Damning judgement

Recommended Posts

The DVLA's auditing of their activites is dire, and they know it but they are adicted to the cash they get from about 3 parking co million requests a year  and half of those are from PE, who merely have to show 1 example of thir work without having to justify whether the contract is valid etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunday Times this weekend


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drat Paywall.


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 the article has been published in the Sunday Times - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/judge-awards-driver-500-over-parking-companys-abuse-of-process-5psqx2m27 if you have a subscription.

I'm afraid it is very disappointing  Highly specific to this incident – omits  most of the issues including the allegations of sham/fraudulent documents produced either by the parking company or by the solicitors. Absolutely no reference to the BPA to apply the code of practice. I've seen no reference to the fact that some of the fact that the solicitors are required to attend court and to give explanations. Absolutely no reference to the way that "grace times" should be calculated or to when the "parking event" actually begins – and what "parking" actually is.

 

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

 

 

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.

 

In fact the article is unhelpful to anybody who wants to understand some of the intricacies of private parking-practice and the sham dishonest practices there are two common amongst the British parking industry.

I'm afraid that the article is rather a lost opportunity


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comments on the Sunday Times article so far

 

Quote

Comments on the Sunday Times article so far

As this would appear to be civil case rather than a criminal prosecution, the losing party has the option to appeal to a higher court.  Watch this space.


Reply

Is there any punishment more disproportionate to the offence than parking fines?
Reply
2

People should start asking themselves what sleight of hand has been used to persuade supermarkets and shopping centres that their own customers are such a dangerous enemy that is worth fining them a week's shopping money to go into the pockets of private parking companies rather than being spent over-the-counter in shops and businesses which are struggling to recover from the current crisis. 
I understand that the company One Parking Solutions may even have a mortgage on a helicopter! – Needs checking but I've heard it from more than one source. 
For a few minutes overstay – maybe because you forgot or because your kids were difficult to get back into the car, you can end up with a devastating shortfall on your family budget for that week. 
I think you need to decide whether you prefer this money to go into the hands of the Bounty Hunting industry or into the tills of small businesses which want to reopen and to employ their staff and put an end to the tax payer funded furlough system which has been so necessary recently.
Reply
1
Delete
The case is much more detailed and much more damning than the article suggests. Here is the judgement:


IT IS ORDERED THAT
Judgment formally handed down - see attached;
ORDER-
See more
Reply
3
Delete
Fantastic result. Well done to those two, standing up to a bullying company.
Reply
5

What a story!! A Deputy District Judge (woohoo) orders £500 costs (wow) in a disputed Parking ticket case. Fascinating.
Reply
1

Think you've missed the point, SPBB. Something similar happens to loads of people all the time up and down the country, but they are too intimidated and concede defeat. Maybe they won't be in the future. Bad news for the evil aggressive cowboy parking companies.
Reply
1

It was a nice story; one that while small, touches many.
Reply
2

Legalised bandits! Well done that lady!
Reply
2

If you get a parking ticket on private land, bin it, and every letter that follows.
Reply
2

Your logic being?
Reply

I know someone who did that and the bailiffs came calling. Illegally as it happens but still hugely stressful.
Reply

Quite right. We should all be allowed to park on private land for free. By the way, where do you live and do you have a drive?
Reply
2

A trite comment which ignores the issues. 
Have a look at the more serious discussions above
Reply
Delete
Very bad advice - I’ve successfully fought 3 parking invoices from PPCs and it’s vital that you engage with the process in good faith.  You need to have a moral high ground and look like the bigger guy should it ever go to court.  In my experience if you sound like you know what you are talking about and make it quite clear you are prepared to go to court they bottle it more often than not.
Reply
2

I'm sorry but that's the wrong approach. If you ignore correspondence, the parking company will sense an "easy kill" and are more likely to issue proceedings against you. You should send at least one letter making it clear that you will defend vigourously and that any victory won't come easily. You should then seek help from the Consumer Action Group or some other consumer help Forum.
Reply
4
Delete

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than individual cases, would it not be better for journalists to look at this from other angles ?

 

Example headlines could be

 

Parking companies killing off British High Streets costing the economy £x billion !

 

Parking companies earn revenues of £x billion while British High Street shops are forced out of business !

 

Government tends to only act if the numbers indicate something is bad for the economy. Individual cases might be interesting, but probably won't lead to the change people want to see.

  • Like 2

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

Strangely enough The Sunday Times ran a story almost exactly a year ago today about another OPS case where a boxing coach got a default judgment withdrawn because OPS broke an agreement for the defendant to file his defence a week late. 

 

Quote

Most mornings, boxing coach Neil Donohue would stop at his favourite coffee shop in Worthing, West Sussex, on his drive to work. Neil, 52, who owns a boxing and bodybuilding gym in nearby Lancing, would regularly leave his vehicle in a six-space private car park operated by One Parking Solution, paying the minimum 50p for a ticket while he popped into Starbucks for five minutes.

And a few days later, more often than not, Neil would get a £100 fine in the post.

One Parking Solution, a private firm, operates CCTV cameras to record the numberplates of cars entering and leaving the car park, which included Neil in his Volkswagen Tiguan. In his case, the company would then go onto a government database, lawfully, to find his home address and issue him with a fine for, it claimed, failing to pay and display.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/one-parking-solutions-sucker-punch-didnt-knock-me-out-vcttbnjzt

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Simple Simon will be caught out soon with an egregious roboclaim and get a severe tolchocking, using this and some other  judgment.  He is on borrowed time, hopefully before he finds himself doing time for his abuse of process etc.


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 too found it a very poor article-for virtually the same reasons as you Bankfodder. Perhaps the Thunderer doesn't think that its readers get parking tickets or if they do, they just pay up without question so nothing to get their readers interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very lightweight and disappointing but that's the press for you.  Missed the main point.

 

For a judgment that was so damning, they've only quoted the Shakespeare from it and the money she was awarded.  And apparently I was too busy having children to get a education (LOL!).   I guess they needed a bit of colour.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly the MSM these days, Coupon-mad are not fit for purpose, even the sensationalist News of the World might have done a better job on this one. 


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 agree,  a trashier paper might have been brave enough to quote more from the judgment than Shakespeare references!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perversely The Sun or Mirror might have been more scathing of the PPC, and looked more closely at the implications from the Judgment.


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 am busy tearing a hole in another dodgy company at the moment and it has somehting in common with this lot, no ICO registration for processing of data.

 

So, like a lack of planning permission means you cant form a contract because it would be a criminal compact anyone else having bother with this Co can use that regardless of the legitimacy of the contract with the LL

 

As always I wouldnt have that as my only bullet but one to start off with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, any data processing is automaticvlly illegal  as you say EB in the case of no ICO Registration.


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'm not too familiar with the tiers, so excuse the question - but haven't they paid tier 1 due to annual turnover? 

 

I just did a test on the ICO website to see what a company has to pay and it doesn't seem to say anything about what sort of processing they do, it just asks about how many employees a company has and what turnover.  

 

Did they need to do more than that?  Is it not about the fee tiers?  I see APCOA, for example, is also tier 1.  ParkingEye are tier 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, the different tiers will also apply to the type of processing and any registerd company has to say what they get up to, for example a company processing the personal data of employees cant suddenly start spying on the general public without notifying a change.

This lot dont have the necessary permission for their activities. I wish that the ICO made their site easier to navigate as you come across different things according to where you start

 

Bit like the COSHH regs, you need to assess any new chemical( for example)  and publish a new page on your database about its properties and handling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the test doesn't ask those questions.  Try it, pretend you are an OPS sized company. 

 

It then tells you tier 1 is correct if their turnover is under a certain amount.

Edited by Coupon-mad

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...