IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
PE no longer at Two Saints Ormskirk
jemgee
Posts: 36 Forumite
Did shopping as usual yesterday at Two Saints car park. Mr Blobby in a CP Plus jacket wandering around. All PE signs, cameras and ticket machines have disappeared since last weekend so I guess they left at the end of April. Lots of CP Plus signs cable tied at high level on lampposts but no sign of ticket machines as yet. Same 1 hour free parking.
Wonder what caused PE to sling their hook?
Wonder what caused PE to sling their hook?
0
Comments
-
NOT POSTED AS HELP OR ASSISTANCE
this is the second loss to them (probably more we don't know about) in the last few weeks.
Parking Eye , after the CC case are now seen as a liability , the publicity for them is not going well.
Owners of car parks are now worried that they will be liable to pay refunds to drivers if the Supreme court goes against them.****
there are also situations in Scotland where car park owners are simply killing the power to ANPR setups managed by CEL , until there court case is finalised.
page 35 of todays "independent" regarding PE http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chip-shop-owner-raises-6000-in-24-hours-to-take-parking-fine-appeal-to-supreme-court-10221661.html?origin=internalSearch
*** a quote from the independent , that must worry car park owners
"If victorious, Mr Beavis might set a precedent allowing millions of drivers to claim refunds from parking companies. Before one hearing Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, a transport research charity, said: “Tens of millions of pounds hang on this case.”0 -
It is interesting to see the effect this entire thing is having on the PPC's, Beavis was not as big a win as they seem to think.
It does seem to be coming crumbling down around them just as clamping did. Hopefully it remains on this course.
I know in our case the landowner did not seem too worried about the risks, kinda hoping they get stung for the costs eventually for taking such a back seat.
((I would PM you about your very interesting new signature Freddy but guessing you don't want/cant recieve PM's currently, you will have to tell the story some time))0 -
yes , PM service now turned off
shell2015 , the Bevis case is far from over , it is going to get as far as the supreme court shortly
must go , back to the good housekeeping and knitting forum:rotfl:0 -
enfield_freddy wrote: »shell2015 , the Bevis case is far from over , it is going to get as far as the supreme court shortly
Oh I am well aware of that
still hoping the RACF and CA put up their QC's for this one.
I always had you pegged for a knitter Freddy, it's those fantastical scarves you wear!0 -
PS the RACF , http://www.racfoundation.org/
not the RAC , just a small(er) motoring organisation
every person non related to forums think that the RACF is the actual , rolling in money RAC .0 -
PE no longer at Two Saints Ormskirk - GOOD
and the more landowners that wake up and chuck them out the better0 -
a nice and true readers comment on the indipendants page (scroll down)
"Parking eye are the company that the labour government gave £100,000 start-up loan , they then retained 8% of shares and profits until the sell off to capita
Alabepraised0 -
enfield_freddy wrote: »a nice and true readers comment on the indipendants page (scroll down)
"Parking eye are the company that the labour government gave £100,000 start-up loan , they then retained 8% of shares and profits until the sell off to capita
Alabepraised
If you read the full comment, he also claims it was Labour who introduced the POFA which is demonstrably untrue. So likely that the commenter was just a party stooge for either the Tories, Lib Dems, UKIP or the SNP.
Best to keep party politics out of this and stay united against the PPCs.0 -
Cygnus_Alpha wrote: »If you read the full comment, he also claims it was Labour who introduced the POFA which is demonstrably untrue. So likely that the commenter was just a party stooge for either the Tories, Lib Dems, UKIP or the SNP.
Best to keep party politics out of this and stay united against the PPCs.
I cannot see the person on the independent's comments page mentioning POFA,
lets go thru the words he wrote
""Parking eye are the company that the labour government gave £100,000 start-up loan , they then retained 8% of shares and profits until the sell off to capita
Alabepraised "
there , not one mention of POFA !
however his comments regarding the quango (regional development fund) , are clearly true and viewable online.
shows what any and all serving government's think of there voters, after being elected0 -
enfield_freddy wrote: »I cannot see the person on the independent's comments page mentioning POFA,
lets go thru the words he wrote
""Parking eye are the company that the labour government gave £100,000 start-up loan , they then retained 8% of shares and profits until the sell off to capita
Alabepraised "
there , not one mention of POFA !
however his comments regarding the quango (regional development fund) , are clearly true and viewable online.
shows what any and all serving government's think of there voters, after being elected
You are right he does not mention POFA by name but one of the replies is clearly alluding to it and claims Labour brought in it. Read it here and you'll see what I mean.
We should not bring party politics into it. We should stay united against the PPC.This law was introduced re DVLA, by Labour, as a trade off to stop the Clampers!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards