Counting the cost of justice

Rohan Krishnarao of BW Legal Services sets out the time and costs parking operators face when seeking redress from erring drivers

The private parking sector has once again come under renewed pressure, more recently following a story in the Daily Mail which reports on large salaries being paid to owners and leaders of parking management companies.

The article, and other associated articles in other publications, fail to recognise that 39% of all parking charges are issued to people who have had three or more tickets, and that 99.77% of parking events result in a seamless journey. The constant negative rhetoric and misreporting is creating a hostile and challenging environment for operators, who offer a valued service to motorists and private landowners seeking to ensure such services remain viable.

Companies like Napier Parking are appointed by landowners to prevent abuse on private land, which includes motorists parking in resident bays, or parking on pathways which are meant for pedestrians.

The case of Napier Parking v Mr H is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the length some individuals (such as Mr H, who was not just avoiding the charges, but causing damage to property) are willing to go. Even though Napier was awarded costs in the instant proceedings, it was only a fraction of what they had incurred through the sheer amount of time they had spent in not only locating Mr H, but also BW Legal’s time and costs in preparing Napier’s evidence and legal arguments.

Whilst the government and trade associations such as the International Parking Community (IPC) and the British Parking Association (BPA) continue to negotiate a clear way forward for motorists and operators alike, recognition has to be given for the invaluable service this industry provides to the various stakeholders, such as the 99.77% of compliant users, residents, owners of retail parks and private landowners in general, and the fact that if parking sites are withdrawn, this will only add to the inflated costs being faced by all motorists.

Rohan Krishnarao is operational head of legal at BW Legal Services www.bwlegal.co.uk

Case study: Napier Parking v Mr H

Legal proceedings were brought by Napier Parking against ‘Mr H’ in respect of four unpaid parking charge notices (PCNs) for breaching the terms and conditions of parking at a residential site in London, which was managed and operated by Napier.

The offending vehicle continuously parked on a pathway which obstructed pedestrians and also caused a hazard. Mr H was also persistently misusing a loading bay.

Napier Parking was represented by its solicitors, BW Legal Services, and counsel at the final hearing.

Background

In December 2019, Napier Parking was notified by one of its employees that someone had torn down a number of its signs at the residential site, where they had implemented a parking management scheme for the benefit of the residents.

The site in question was known as Colindale Gardens estate, located in London. Napier reported the fact that its signs were torn down to the estate manager, who was asked to help identify the individual responsible.

Upon receiving the CCTV footage and with the help of the estate manager, the individual was identified as Mr H who was, according to the estate manager, a resident tenant of Colindale Gardens.

In early 2020, it came to Napier’s attention that someone was repeatedly parking in breach of the terms and conditions of the site. A great number of parking charge notices (PCNs) were issued, but they were simply being ignored. In order to issue the PCNs, Napier made a request to the DVLA to provide details of the registered keeper of the vehicle, as the identity of the driver of the vehicle was unknown to them at the time.

When the DVLA returned the registered keeper information to Napier, it transpired that the vehicle was registered to a limited company that had been dissolved, however, one of the directors of the former business was in fact Mr H, being the same individual responsible for tearing down Napier’s signs.

With no prospect of recovering the unpaid charges from a dissolved company, Napier’s only option was to locate the driver of the vehicle.

Napier had instructed BW Legal to recover the unpaid PCNs and as part of the debt recovery process. BW Legal traced Mr H to an address where legal proceedings could be served.

Mr H was sent a number of pre-action correspondences at this address, but failed to respond or engage in the process. Ultimately, Napier was left with no option but to commence legal proceedings in the County Court against Mr H.

The proceedings

When proceedings were issued and served on Mr H, it finally prompted a response from him. Mr H filed a defence to the claim, denying all responsibility and also claimed that he had never lived at the flat address provided by the estate manager, nor did he receive any of the pre-action correspondence sent by BW Legal.

The court gave both parties directions to file and serve evidence and listed the matter for a full day hearing.

At the first hearing, the judge took into account submissions made by both Napier and Mr H, however, there was not sufficient time to deal with the matter in one day and therefore, the claim was part-heard and adjourned to a later date. This was also due to the fact that Mr H sought to raise new points of defence at the hearing, when he had previously failed to do so.

On 23 November 2022, the part-heard trial resumed before Deputy District Judge Helen Bell. The defendant attended in person.

The judgment

Napier’s claim was successful. In her judgment, the judge found that it had indeed been Mr H who had been caught on CCTV damaging signs and also that he had lied about not receiving preaction correspondence at his address at Colindale Gardens.

On the basis of the findings of dishonesty, Napier were able to successfully argue that the defendant should pay costs on account of his unreasonable conduct.

The judge’s order was as follows:

• Judgement for claimant in respect of claims 35DP5W63 [‘claim 1’], claim H6DP754G [‘claim 2’] and claim H3DP356Y [‘claim 3’].

• The defendant is to pay the claimant damages and interest of £662.98, being the sum of £164.94 (claim 1), £164.06 (claim 2) and £333.98 (claim 3).

• The defendant is to pay the claimant’s costs, assessed as follows: i. Issue fee £85 (claim 1 £25, claim 2 £25 and claim 3 £35) ii. Application fees £550 (£275 x 2) iii. Hearing fee £75; iv. Legal representatives’ costs £150 (£50 x 3) v. Witness expenses £95 vi. Further costs on account of unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to CPR r. 27.14(2)(g), summarily assessed in the sum of £3,500.

In total, the claimant’s is liable for £5,117.98 (made up of damages and interest of £662.98, and costs of £4,455.00).