Enforcing Court Judgments

Private Parking Appeals and its staff have an impressive record of court successes against parking companies, despite their claims that the Beavis Case makes their charges enforceable and fair.

This is for a number of reasons, but the main reason is that the parking companies do not comply with the law that allows them to transfer liability to the keeper.

There are a number of elements that must apply if Keeper Liability is to be relied upon:

  • The parking company must have proof that they have the right to operate on the land
  • The parking company signage must offer a clear and unambiguous contract
  • Notices must be issued in a specified way that complies with the requirements of the law
  • The Keeper details must have been sought from the DVLA
  • The notices must include required information

If these hurdles are not crossed by the parking company, it cannot claim Keeper Liability.

 

In two recent cases, VCS v Mr F, and UKPC v Dr A, keeper liability was not satisfied, and the judge ordered costs to be paid against both companies.

Unfortunately, as is often that case when parking companies are involved, they are very fast to run to court against those they claim owe THEM money, but very slow to pay their own debts.

VCS part of the Excel group, are famous for denying receipt of court orders, even when they attend court, but on this occasion have sent a cheque for £95 to our client, which has bounced. As a result, enforcement action will be taking place shortly, involving Simon Renshaw-Smith being ordered, under penalty of imprisonment, to attend court to explain why this occurred.

 

UKPC, by comparison, a company which has been suspended from DVLA access on more than one occasion, has been ordered to pay Dr A £455 in total, and hasn’t yet done so, despite the hearing being over a month ago. They also haven’t responded to a GDPR request, or to a Letter of Claim for their breach of the Data Protection Act in seeking keeper details for locations where they have no right to operate.

UKPC, on their website, says the following about court action:

If you receive a CCJ it can have a major impact on your credit rating and could severely impair your ability to obtain credit. When you contact the bank to apply for a loan or mortgage; for a store or credit card; rent property; lease or hire a vehicle, credit checks may be performed to ensure that you are not a high credit risk. If you have an outstanding or satisfied CCJ on your credit file it is significantly less likely that your application will be successful. Where an individual with a CCJ does manage to obtain credit, they can often end up paying a higher interest rate. Records of CCJs are kept for six years unless they are paid in full within a month of their issue.

Court action is always an option of last resort for UKPC. We always prefer to resolve situations amicably but unfortunately this is not always possible. UKPC feel it is important to make motorists aware of the potential enforcement action that may be taken to recover debts after a court has entered a judgment against an individual. Enforcement can include, but is not limited to:

  • Sending County Court bailiffs to recover goods in the amount of the debt
  • Obtaining an attachment of earnings order, whereby your employer must deduct an amount from your salary to be paid to us until the debt is cleared
  • Obtaining an order for the debtor to attend court and give a detailed statement of means which can include bank details.

UKPC have regrettably had to employ all of these methods previously to recover unpaid debts.

It appears that UKPC are likely to be on the receiving end of at least one of these methods of enforcement in short order, and John Wilkie is certainly looking forward to meeting both Rupert Williams of UKPC and Simon Renshaw-Smith of VCS at the debtor hearings.Of course, if the debtors officers fail to attend, they can be imprisoned for contempt of court.

Do you have a Parking court case? Private Parking Appeals are the unquestioned experts in handling these matters for you, and have a success rate which is second to none.

Don’t hesitate, contact us today.

Court Claim Success

Private Parking Appeals has been involved in court cases against Parking Companies since our first inception in 2014. Indeed, even before we incorporated, our directors were regularly seen in court assisting with parking claims. Alex Shipp, David Carrod and John Wilkie have become well known names in the industry, as well as in the courts with a number of cases having been reported previously by the Parking Prankster.

Many forums claim online that parking cases can be easily won, and one particular forum has a member who claims a 99% success record in court with claims where its members have assisted.  This is untrue, and provably so. Indeed, David Carrod, who keeps meticulous records of such things, has publicly stated that the average win rate in parking cases supported by forums or third party appeals companies such as ourselves is about 82%.

It’s therefore interesting to look at the last year from Private Parking Appeals point of view.

To be clear, Private Parking Appeals is NOT a regulated law firm, and we cannot conduct proceedings, we can only advise and assist. We also cannot represent you in court, though we do have a number of staff who are competent Advocates, including John Wilkie and Julia Morgan. Wherever possible, we will offer the services of a Lay Representative if one is available.

In the last year, we have had a number of claims where either John or Julia has attended court with our clients, and these are listed below. In all cases, our client(s) have consented to our use of their name in this blog.

MIL Collections v George -Truro County Court. £750 costs order due to MIL’s unreasonable behaviour – transcripts are available of both the Judgment and the cross-examination of Christopher Barrett by John Wilkie.

UKPME v Hunter – Manchester County Court – Mr Hunter was not driver or keeper of the vehicle, and so the claim was dismissed, with Unreasonable Conduct costs against UKPME. UKPME has failed to pay in excess of £1000 of court orders as a result of this and other claims against Mr Hunter, and are no longer a member of an Accredited Trade Association despite claiming to still be IPC members. Despite several threats to do so, UKPME has never appealed or sought to set aside any of the judgments against it.

PCM v Pine – Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed.

UKCPM v Birbeck (1) – Swindon County Court – Mr Birbeck was not driver or keeper of the vehicle, and so the claim was dismissed, with Unreasonable Conduct costs against UKCPM.

Euro Parking Services v Maddox – Stoke County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed.

Link Parking v Pattendon – Bodmin County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed.

Parking and Property Management v Watkins – The claim was discontinued following an abortive first hearing at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court.

SIP v Robinson – Manchester County Court – Agreed settlement of less than 60% of the claim value at the courtroom door.

UKCPM v Gornell – Reading County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed.

Link Parking v Hopgood – Truro County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed.

Civil Enforcement v Elia – Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed. with unreasonable conduct costs.

Vehicle Control Services v Nur – Sheffield County Court. VCS did not attend this hearing at their local court. Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed.

MIL v JP Consultants – Truro County Court – MIL Collections had no standing to collect the debt, and Keeper Liability had not been complied with. This matter took three hearings, and as such the Defendant was awarded substantial costs.

Civil Enforcement v Morrisey – Bristol County Court – Claim set aside and dismissed, with £295 costs.

PCM (UK) v Gluck (1) – Edmonton County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed.

Total Parking v Work – Worcester County Court – Settled for £40.

Civil Enforcement v Birbeck – Swindon County Court – Discontinued

Civil Enforcement v Clare -Liverpool County Court. CEL did not attend this hearing at their local court. Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed, with unreasonable conduct costs

Horizon v Statham – High Wycombe County Court – The Claimant did not attend or give notice, so the Claim was struck out.

Civil Enforcement v Higgs – Bedford County Court – Discontinued on the day.

ParkingEye v Bentley – Discontinued

UKPC v Gafita – Discontinued

ParkingEye v Mullins – Discontinued

Civil Enforcement v Darvill – Bournemouth County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed with unreasonable conduct costs.

UKPC v Akhtar – Burnley County Court –  Default judgment set aside and listed for trial.

UKPC v Cohen – Discontinued

ParkingEye v McGoldrick – North Shields County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown. Moreover, in “free parking” for 1 hour period, PE failed to allow grace periods at the start and end of parking. This case defined the “pre parking” grace period as at least 5 minutes.

PCM v Battye – Watford County Court – The Claimant did not attend or give notice, so the Claim was struck out.

UKPC v Brooking – Reading County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown. Moreover, the signage did not offer a genuine contract to park. Claim dismissed with costs.

Horizon v Gluck – Edmonton County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown. Moreover, the signage was contradictory. Claim dismissed.

PCM (UK) v Gluck (2) – Edmonton County Court – The Claimant did not attend or give notice, so the Claim was struck out, with unreasonable conduct costs.

UKCPM v Birbeck (2) – Swindon County Court – The Claimant did not attend, but had given notice, so the claim went ahead. Ultimately, Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed with unreasonable conduct costs.

Britannia Parking v McPherson – Chelmsford County Court – The signage was not sufficiently clear that a parking ticket was needed for a “free” parking period, as the signage required a ticket to be purchased, so the Claim was dismissed.

Vehicle Control Services v Mills – Coventry County Court –  Ms Mills, a monthly permit holder, tried to renew her pemit, but the VCS staff member claimed to be unable to renew this, He directed her to park on the restricted area, then, the court found, issued her a ticket, having entrapped her into parking at that location. VCS admitted that this person was their staff member, but did not produce any witness statement from him, replying as usual on a statement from a paralegal. VCS sought over £400 in costs. The claim was dismissed.

It’s interesting to note that in 14 of the 34 cases above, the claim turned on the stringent requirements of Keeper Liability. It is clear that the Parking Companies, their solicitors and the advocates they send to court do nto understand how to comply with Keeper Liability, and this continued to be their downfall. This includes, ParkingEye, Civil Enforcement, and all but one IPC Company. It is of note that a BPA member has recently approached us to ask advice on Keeper Liability compliance – make of that what you will.

Additonally, on a number of occasions the courts have agreed that bring a claim using Keeper Liability when the requirements of law have not been complied with is unreasonable, and have awarded costs against the Claimant as a result.

If you have a court claim from ANY parking company, we are the experts in beating parking firms, and we do have a 99% record of wins against all IPC companies represented by Gladstone Solciitors, Civil Enforcment Ltd, UKCPM, MIL Collections, PCM (UK), Link Parking, UKPC, NCP and Britannia. We guide you throught the whole court process, right to the courtroom door, and if we can, we will find you an appropriate advocate for the day.

BBC Radio 4 Moneybox

Some of our customers will be aware that John Wilkie, our Head of Legal, was recently invited onto the BBC Radio 4 Moneybox programme to discuss paring tickets.

The podcast linked to this can be found here.

Always remember that a parking ticket is most easily beaten at the first or second stage of the appeal porcess, as soon after you receive this as possible. Once you get to later stages, including court proceedings, your chance of winning reduces from over 99% at first appeal to around 85% at a court hearing.

John Wilkie will also be appearing on a number of local radio programmes across the UK in the coming months, ensuring that as many people as possible are aware of the issues with Private Parking, and during the approach of the very welcome Single Code of Practice being intriduced as a result of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, where we are one of the organisations being consulted, together with our BPA and BMPA colleagues.

 

The Radioactive Spider Bites Back

The Parking Prankster, as all will know  was bitten by a radioactive spider, and, despite being informed of this when He appealed a Highview ticket on the basis of not being parked then, they refused to cancel until POPLA showed them what for.

Prankster, rightly, considered that, as the ANPR at Yate Shopping Centre regularly appeared in his postbag due to “double dip” errors  where a motorist has visited a site twice, but been charged for a single long visit, it was likely the system was faulty.

As a result, he decided to pursue Highview, for the Data Protection Breach involving his own vehicle, on the basis that they ought to have known that the ANPR was faulty, and had no reasonable grounds to process Pranky’s data.

An LBA was sent, not replied to and a claim was issued, to which Prankster ended up in court on 25 July, with John Wilkie in counsel’s
chair. The other side sent Real Counsel, Neil Berragan

Highview and their counsel introduced themselves before the hearing, and the District Judge made clear at the start that the claim was going to take no more than its allotted time. And it didn’t – both sides dealt with the case in submissions.

And unfortunately, Prankster lost, but did not have any costs awarded against himself or Mr Wilkie due to “unreasonable conduct” – Indeed, The Prankster commented that Mr Wilkie conducted himself as expertly and professionally as the Prankster has, from long experience, expected.

Following the hearing, Russell Corin of Ranger Services for Highview was very amiable to a discussion with Prankster’s party, and it is considered that this involved goodwill and humour on both sides – Prankster is fully aware that most people in the Parking Industry are not bad guys.

All in all an interesting day in court – this Radioactive spider did come back to bite again, giving Mr Wilkie one of his rare losses..

General Data Protection Regulations

As a result of the GDPR, we have made some minor changes to our terms and conditions. These identify the basis for our processing your data. These changes do not have any effect on the day to day service we provide and merely clarify your and our mutual rights and obligations.

We process our customers data under three lawful bases:

  1. Contract. We process your data under our terms and conditions for the contracted service so that we can contact you, appeal your ticket, and further assist you up to and including defending legal proceedings
  2. Legitimate Interest. We process your data for our own records including accounts and tax reasons, and to fulfil the legitimate interest of our business, such as Feedback, Marketing and protecting/enhancing our reputation.
  3. Legal Obligations. We process your data to assist us in supporting you in complying with your legal obligations, and to ensure that we can pursue, or defend, legal proceedings if required. We also process your data for our own records including accounts and tax reasons.

 

Because we have identified lawful bases for processing customer data, we do not need to seek customer consent, however, our application form includes a consent clause so that we can identify to third parties that we are lawfully entitled to require them to process your data in a specific way, such as dealing with our appeal to them, or pursuing complaints etc on your behalf. Most companies require us to supply explicit authority for these actions.

 

Our Data Protection Officer is John Wilkie. He will be continuing in this role for the foreseeable future.

 

If you have any concerns about our GDPR statement, our Lawful Basis for processing data, or our privacy policy, please contact us.

MIL Collections fail to pay their debts – again, instead attack PPA – again.

It appears that the less-reputable side of the Parking Industry, and particularly our good friends MIL Collections, is yet again seeking to attack Private Parking Appeals, this time by focussing on the bona-fides of John Wilkie.

As reported by Cornwall Online, and the Parking Prankster, our Head of Legal clashed with MIL Collections Head of Legal in court recently, and partly because of Mr Wilkie’s “astute and persistent questioning” the judge found against MIL Collections to the tune of £750 to be paid by 24 April, an order which had not, as of 2 May 2018, been settled. MIL are well known for not paying court orders.

Update – following a threat of enforcement, this was paid at 11:15 on 3 May 2018, a full 10 days late.

Additionally, the DVLA has confirmed that MIL Collections are not entitled to pursue parking charges.

Has this stopped MIL Collections in their tracks. Of course not. We have had sight of correspondence which accuses the journalists involved in reporting the previous case of lying, and states that the reason for the win was nothing to do with MIL’s conduct, and everything to do with a Flipped Ticket.

This is the same MIL Collections who have lost over 35 court cases, and only won one claim where John Wilkie was involved, and that only because the judge made a finding of fact on another matter. In the meantime, we have had numerous claims either struck out or discontinued due to MIL discovering our involvement in the claim. Even the advocates they send to court admit that MIL lose most of their cases

This is the same MIL Collections who have tried, a number of times, to have Private Parking Appeals directors thrown out of court, instead to find that our staff are acting entirely legally, and it is MIL who have used advocates from Elms Legal without right of audience, again, and again, and again.

This is the same MIL Collections who imply that Private Parking Appeals is breaking the law by providing legal services, yet has never made any report of criminality, instead relying on snide innuendo on its website about SRA regulated companies and accusing people who criticise them of being dishonest and trolling.

This is the same MIL Collections who continue to consort with a known criminal, making allegations about PPA staff and directors, but only in private, never having the courage of their convictions in court or public.

Just a few days ago, Coupon-Mad on Money Saving expert pointed out that the parking companies, and their debt collectors, employ a number of unsavoury individuals. One of these is Christopher Barrett of MIL, who used false statements and letters, had no evidence to support MIL’s claim, and was found to be entirely unreasonable in his conduct of the claim. Essentially he was prepared to lie on the stand and had it not been for the cross-examination by Mr Wilkie, he would have got away with doing so.

Mr Wilkie is more than happy to assist with an MIL claim by providing defence advocacy services anywhere in England and Wales. While he does not charge for representing any individuals, he does ask that his expenses for attendance are paid. Mr Wilkie is legally entitled to provide his services under Schedule 3, paragraph 1(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007, but the right of audience of any MIL representative should always be challenged in court.

Do you have a Letter of Claim, or a County Court Claim from MIL? PPA are the experts in dealing with this company, so please complete our Enquiry Form today.

 

MIL are known to illegally purchase disputed debts from Llawnroc Parking Services, Parking Awareness Services, Local Car Park Management, Norwich Traffic Control, Car Park Management Services, North West Parking Enforcement, New World Facilities Essex and other smaller firms.

University Hospital of Wales staff forced to pay £26,000 in legal fees over parking tickets

It is with some regret that we found ourselves reading this newspaper report this morning. The Cardiff Indigo case has been well-reported as a significant loss for the staff of UHW, and it is both a massive loss and a travesty of justice.

During the hearing of this case, as reported by the Parking Prankster at the time, the witnesses for the claimant lied, obfuscated, and deliberately sought to mislead the court. Witnesses were produced who do not exist, and ultimately, the Judge found for the Claimant on all points – which is unsurprising since Elizabeth Coates used to be Senior Counsel for the NHS in Wales, a point that should have been sufficient to recuse her from her role as the District Judge hearing the case.

Much has been made, on MSE, Pepipoo and elsewhere, of the costs order that was allegedly made against John Wilkie, our Company Secretary. And we would now like to take the opportunity to put the record straight.

  1. As soon as it was made clear that Indigo would be seeking a costs order from John Wilkie, he recognised that this meant there was now a conflict of interest between himself and his client, and retired from the case.
  2. As a matter of courtesy, Mr Wilkie provided Indigo’s counsel and solicitor with his address for service, and confirmed that he would not evade any orders simply due to being based in Scotland.
  3. As a matter of law, Mr Wilkie was not present as a party at any further hearings.
  4. Neither the Court, nor the Claimant has in any way sought to contact Mr Wilkie or serve any document on him about this matter since Friday 14 July 2017.
  5. Likewise, none of the 79 staff members affected by this costs order have contacted Mr Wilkie.

It is a basic tenet of law that a party is give the opportunity to defend itself or respond to any allegations against it. Mr Wilkie has never received notification that he was a party to these proceedings, and has never been pursued by the Claimant other than in their initial threat to do so before the court on 13 and 14 July 2017.

It is regrettable that not every court case can be won, and it is also regrettable that companies like Indigo, ZZPS and their ilk will lie and cheat to wring every penny out of the motorist, regardless of the damage this might do.

Private Parking Appeals remains committed to assisting our customers in fighting these unfair tickets, and supports the BPA position on the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill which would prevent unscrupulous companies like this from continuing their barely legal pursuit of these spurious charges.

Private Parking Appeals welcomes the comments of Indigo Park Services Ltd, ZZPS Ltd and the Defendants in this case, and will happily grant a right to reply for this post, however, as a company we stand by our comments, all of which are provably true and in the public interest.

Calls to Private Parking Appeals

Here at Private Parking Appeals, our staff work hard to appeal your private parking ticket, whether this is at a first appeal, at POPLA, at court or by other means. As a result, we are always very busy, and our case handlers are not able to answer calls.

We have previously had complaints about our telephone number always falling to voicemail, when people would rather speak to a real person. And since December 2015, we have had staff directly associated with the business, answering calls. As of 2 April 2018, we have now increased this team threefold to deal with the increase of calls we are receiving.

Needless to say that even with this increase, some calls are not able to be picked up, and will be going to our answerphone. Currently a little over 1/3 of our calls cannot be connected to an operator in time, and we are taking further steps to reduce this, with interviews for new staff this week. Our lines are open from 9am to 9pm every single day of the year, so please consider calling outside traditonal “Business Hours” or at the weekend, to ensure you get connected.

However, we’d like to remind customers that the staff on the telephone cannot do any of the following over the phone:

  1. Take details of your case, or assess your appeal chances
  2. Provide you with the details of your appeal, or respond to letters you have received
  3. Take or make payment for an appeal or refund
  4. Deal with a court claim, or give you legal advice on how to proceed
  5. Put your call through to your appeal-handler

 

We always respond to emails, and your appeal handler is always the best person to advise and assist you. And if we need to contact you urgently, we will always ask you for a contact number, and call you directly.

Please note that all calls made to, from or by Private Parking Appeals are recorded for training and legal purposes.

The IAS fails ADR Reporting requirements – again

Last year, the Parking Prankster reported on the failure by the Independent International Parking Committee Community’s so-called “Independent Appeals Service” to abide by the requirements of The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015.

Given that the IAS is closely watched by people like Parking Prankster, the Online forums and ourselves, you would have thought that Will Hurley, the sole director of United Trade and industry Ltd, T/As the International Parking Community T/As the Independent Appeals Service would have ensured this year that the report was out on time, and actually complete when published.

Quoting the Parking Prankster:

Ongoing information obligations of an ADR entity

11(2) An ADR entity must, within a month of the first anniversary of the approval date and within a month of each subsequent anniversary, publish on its website a report (“an annual activity report”) relating to the preceding year which contains the information in Schedule 5.

SCHEDULE 5 Regulation 11(2)
Information to be included in an ADR entity’s annual activity report

a) the number of domestic disputes and cross-border disputes the ADR entity has received;
b) the types of complaints to which the domestic disputes and cross-border disputes relate;
c) a description of any systematic or significant problems that occur frequently and lead to disputes between consumers and traders of which the ADR entity has become aware due to its operations as an ADR entity;
d) any recommendations the ADR entity may have as to how the problems referred to in paragraph (c) could be avoided or resolved in future, in order to raise traders’ standards and to facilitate the exchange of information and best practices;
e) the number of disputes which the ADR entity has refused to deal with, and percentage share of the grounds set out in paragraph 13 of Schedule 3 on which the ADR entity has declined to consider such disputes;
f) the percentage of alternative dispute resolution procedures which were discontinued for operational reasons and, if known, the reasons for the discontinuation;
g) the average time taken to resolve domestic disputes and cross-border disputes;
h) the rate of compliance, if known, with the outcomes of the alternative dispute resolution procedures;
i) the co-operation, if any, of the ADR entity within any network of ADR entities which facilitates the resolution of cross-border disputes.

The annual report was due on the IAS website on 1st November 2017.  As of the 2nd November 2017, the report was not available on the IAS website. Indeed, it is not available even now as the website only has a link to the 2015/16 report, unless you know exactly where to look.

The IAS is therefore in breach of its statutory requirements for the second year running. Not the conduct you expect from a business run by a Solicitor. As a result PPA will be complaining of this second failure, to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute.

But even better – do take a close look at the report, and especially at Section G: The average time taken to resolve domestic disputes and cross-border disputes.

The average time taken to settle disputes during the relevant period was 22 days (says 18 in Biannual report – might be worth restating the reason for the difference? e.g. no limit on number of representations?

Oh dear, looks like someone forgot to proofread before sending out the report. We’d like to see that Bi-Annual report too…

However, given the remaining content of the statutory report, you Dear Reader will be unsurprised to discover that Private Parking Appeals does not accept that the International Parking Community operates a fair and transparent appeals process, and that while the IPC continues to refuse to engage with us to resolve our concerns, we are supporting the BPA in their lobbying of Government for there to be a single, demonstrably independent and transparent appeals service for all private parking companies.

 

Our thanks to the BMPA and Bargepole for their hard work and research on this matter.

Happy Birthday to Us

How appropriate that the news of a Royal Engagement came as we celebrated our third birthday…

Private Parking Appeals was formed by six friends online – having seen the impact of the Protection of Freedoms Act on consumers, and having been involved in a number of forums, they collected together and formed a business intending initially to just deal with appeals at the first and second stage of the process, that is with BPA parking companies and POPLA.

Of the original six, only two remain with the business now, and honourable mention goes to Angus Gill, our founding Secretary, who now operates the BMPA website and David Carrod our founding chairman and CEO, who took the time to complete an Open University degree, win more than 75% of court cases he was involved in, and move onward to his own business, Small Claims Advisor.  Additionally, the business could not have got to where it is without the initial support of Bob Jameson, and his directorial replacement, Mark McAlear.

In it’s first year, having launched on a shoestring, the company achieved turnover of £48,000, increasing this to £56,000 in 2016. Invited to join the British Parking Association, we made this beneficial move last year. We have taken over a number of our competitors, expanded our staff and our services, and successfully navigated the seas of three years in business.

We have also been supported throughout by both Parking Cowboys and the Parking Prankster, and have plans to grow and develop our business both into consultancy for landowners to extricate themselves from abusive and restrictive parking contracts, and also to seek to “write off” older tickets to prevent customer being pursued for 6 years (or more) over tickets that may never have been valid in any case. News on this in the New Year.

So, happy birthday to us, and may there be many more.