Who is the Parking Pundit?

Private Parking Appeals has been made aware of a “new” blog, parkingpundit.co.uk but is curious as to who is behind this blog.

This domain was registered on 10 July 2017, using a Privacy Service, which is a breach of Nominet rules in the UK.

Parking Pundit’s apparent Author is DA1 Ltd, a company which went into voluntary liquidation on 3 September 2013, so it is unlikely to be anything to do with Kulasinam Niranjan.

The HTML behind the page doesn’t identify the authors or business behind the blog either. And the page itself doesn’t include any information required by the Company (Trading Disclosure) Regulations 2008

So lets do some more detective work.

The website is linked from ZZPS’s website, as is Know Your Parking Right, a BPA site. This is the same ZZPS who claim to be a BPA member yet act on the very edge of legality, and do not accept service of documents to their registered address. The same ZZPS who present witnesses to court  who lie about their identity and their workplace. The same ZZPS who only exist because their sister company, Roxburghe, was considered to be not “fit and proper” to act as a regulated debt collector.

ZZPS claims that Parking Pundit and Know Your Parking rights are “independent” yet we know this is also a lie. ZZPS, as a BPA Member, has an interest in promoting Know Your Parking Rights – we, as BPA members, have complained of this site.

So now, coming back to Parking Pundit, we find an introduction page where our author says “I’ll try to give you the full facts, so that you don’t make the same mistake many have done and end up in court for an unpaid ticket paying out more than just paying the ticket would have cost.” and then goes on to list a number of infringements, many of which has been argued and won by our team in court. Misrepresentation by the Pundit, we say.

So it is clear, even from the intro page, that the Pundit is associated with the Parking Companies. But this is even clearer when you review the posts.

Three post were made on 17 July 2017 – one about appealing, one about why Private Parking is regulated (even though it isn’t), and one about Barry Beavis, which we will come to later

The first posts are both precis of Know Your Parking Rights, all of which is BPA copyright. So it looks like the Parking Pundit is either stealing their content or passing off. The third option is too unpleasant to contemplate.

The Barry Beavis case being blogged here is interesting. The wording used is identical to that we have seen from BPA members – that the Beavis case decided that parking charges and fair and enforceable. However, this isn’t what the Supreme Court said, and the Beavis Case judgment extends to many pages. But, and more importantly, the Pundit posts this as News – this case was dealt with over two years ago, with the original ticket having been issued in 2013. Not news, by any stretch of the imagination. Misrepresentation, we say.

Two more posts, both about Scotland, follow. Scotland is an interesting place, and it is noted that the Pundit wasn’t present at either of those cases, and seems to be relying on hearsay. Misrepresentation, we say.

Finally, a post that the Pundit claims is about the Parking Prankster. He states that our John Wilkie was present at the hearing. That’s interesting, because according to our diary, John Wilkie was not working that day, so even if he was at the hearing, he certainly wasn’t there as our representative – another example of misrepresentation by the pundit.

So, what is obvious is that the Pundit is, at the least, associated with parking companies, and posting on their behalf, not independently. This could be dangerous for the Parking Companies, whether BPA or IPC. Under the Consumer Rights Act, an oral or written statement by a company, or a person associated with a company, can be incorporated into contractual terms, if it leads the consumer to make a transactional decision. It can also be an offence to make such statements without declaring your relationship with the trader – think of fake reviews on websites.

As a result Private Parking Appeals invites the Parking Pundit to reveal his/her identity, and stop hiding behind a Privacy Service. If the pundit is prepared to operate a fair and transparent blog, Private Parking Appeals will be more than happy to provide guest reports and information to provide balanced, independent information to the public.

Private Parking Appeals also invites ZZPS and the BPA to confirm that neither company is associated with, or operating, the Pundit’s website, and in the BPA’s case, to ask the Pundit to stop using its copyright web content from Know Your Parking Rights.

It will be interesting to see which companies respond to this invitation, which has also been emailed to all three organisations.

 

UPDATE – the BPA has confirmed that the site is not associated with them, and that they do no object to the Parking Pundit using their copyright material from Know Your Parking Rights.