Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    • 231Posts
    • 409Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    POPLA Decisions
    • #1
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    POPLA Decisions 9th Mar 13 at 5:49 PM
    MSE Note:

    Hi! Please don't post any private details (yours or other peoples) on the forum for privacy reasons. Thanks!

    MSE Official Insert:

    Read our MoneySaving UK Travel & Transport guides to save more including Fight Private Parking Tickets and Parking Ticket Appeals.

    Back to Aaron Aadvark's original post....

    ----------------------------


    This thread is intended to be a compilation of all published POPLA decisions.

    Please add any decisions you are aware of.

    Please do not post requests for advice on this thread.

    Please start a new thread if you are looking advice.
    Last edited by MSE Andrea; 28-10-2016 at 9:29 AM.
Page 129
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Feb 17, 2:25 PM
    • 48,929 Posts
    • 62,411 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    hi,

    My first posting but need help with getting 10 digit code for city of london council but they have sent me a notice of rejection email attached with appeal application. I have rang and asked if they can provide me with the code but they say they are not aware of this code.

    can you help please
    Originally posted by HCRIBA
    City of London Council are not a private parking firm! You have a real penalty charge there.

    Your next level of appeal is explained in their rejection letter AND on the back of the PCN AND on the CoL website about penalty charges.

    If you want help with a Council PCN, post on pepipoo in the right forum:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 24th Feb 17, 2:29 PM
    • 7,356 Posts
    • 7,383 Thanks
    pogofish
    hi,

    My first posting but need help with getting 10 digit code for city of london council but they have sent me a notice of rejection email attached with appeal application. I have rang and asked if they can provide me with the code but they say they are not aware of this code.

    can you help please
    Originally posted by HCRIBA
    This has nothing to do with POPLA - And you clearly agreed to not hijack threads as part of your signup.

    Post this in the main forum for more help.
    • HCRIBA
    • By HCRIBA 28th Feb 17, 11:57 AM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    HCRIBA
    can you help please
    • waamo
    • By waamo 28th Feb 17, 12:13 PM
    • 1,914 Posts
    • 2,299 Thanks
    waamo
    As Coupon Mad said you are better of asking here http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30

    There is no 10 digit code though.
    This space for hire.
    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 28th Feb 17, 1:17 PM
    • 7,356 Posts
    • 7,383 Thanks
    pogofish
    can you help please
    Originally posted by HCRIBA
    You have been given good advice already - take it!
    • Red_Firecracker
    • By Red_Firecracker 2nd Mar 17, 10:12 AM
    • 6 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Red_Firecracker

    Thanks everyone for your assistance.

    Decision

    Successful

    Assessor Name
    Samuel Connop

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that appellant had remained on site for longer than permitted.


    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that the operator has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedom’s Act 2012. The appellant believes the photographs provided by the operator are not compliant with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. The appellant does not believe the Automatic Number Plate Recognition images are accurate. The appellant does not believe that the operator has no landowner authority. The appellant claims signage is insufficient and therefore no contract was formed. The appellant believes the charge amount is not saved by the decision in ParkingEye v Beavis.


    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    Whilst I acknowledge that the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus solely on landowner authority, as this supersedes the other aspects of the appeal. The BPA Code of Practice under, section 7.1 “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.” Within the evidence, the operator has provided a copy of the contract in place between themselves and the landowner. However, the effective date has not been filled in. While the operator may have an active agreement in place with the landowner, I am unable to confirm whether the agreement was in place on the date of the parking event. From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the appellant exceeded the maximum stay period, however, the operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that it had the required authority to operate on the land at the time of the parking event. As such, I am unable to confirm whether the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 2nd Mar 17, 10:18 AM
    • 1,225 Posts
    • 1,593 Thanks
    Castle
    I am satisfied that the appellant exceeded the maximum stay period, however, the operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that it had the required authority to operate on the land at the time of the parking event.
    Originally posted by Red_Firecracker
    Congrats on your win; but how does the Assessor know that the appellant was the driver?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 2nd Mar 17, 10:23 AM
    • 14,024 Posts
    • 22,041 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Good result.

    Now, time to complain to the DVLA and the BPA that the PPC is operating without landowner authority, as confirmed by POPLA (via an independent assessment of the evidence) and the DVLA should ban the PPC from pursuing any more charges at that site and the BPA should issue sanction points.

    Did the PPC acquire your details from the DVLA? If so there's the possibility of you making a claim against the PPC for a breach of the DPA. Early days in this strategy against PPCs, but keep abreast of developments via this forum, PePiPoo and the Parking Prankster's blog and see how they progress.

    There's no rush - you have 6 years to issue a claim. Current rate could be between £250 and £750, but see what emerges.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • sniper7
    • By sniper7 7th Mar 17, 9:04 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    sniper7
    Successful POPLA Appeal - Gemini Parking Solutions
    I received this email from POPLA today - thanks CM and everyone else who contributed to the running of this forum for your help, I really appreciate it.

    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name [Removed by Forum Team]
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant parked in a no parking area.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal which I have listed below: • The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedom’s Act (PoFA) 2012. • The appellant states the signage does not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • He explains the driver or the registered keeper entered into a contract with the operator. • The appellant states the operator has not shown who it is pursuing as liable for the charge. • The appellant states the parking amount was paid.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions of the car park which state “Vehicles are to park within a marked bay…All vehicles that are not authorised or not parked in accordance with the site terms and conditions will be issued with a parking charge notice”. The operator states it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant parked in a no parking area. In this instance the driver has not been identified and as such the operator is attempting to pursue the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle. As a result I must ensure the operator has met with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) in order for it to have transferred liability of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper. Schedule 4 of the PoFA, Paragraph 9 states: “(4) The Notice must be given by – (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period. (5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.” In this instance the operator has not provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper, therefore I am unable to identify if the operator has met the requirements of PoFA 2012. As a result I am not satisfied the PCN was issued correctly. I must allow the appeal. As I have allowed the appeal on this ground, I do not need to address the further points raised by the appellant.
    Last edited by MSE ForumTeam2; 15-03-2017 at 10:43 PM.
    • oldskoolforever
    • By oldskoolforever 8th Mar 17, 4:28 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    oldskoolforever
    Received from POPLA today, thanks to all for the help :

    Decision Successful

    Assessor summary of operator case

    The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued because the appellant remained at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant’s case is that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, or that there is sufficient notice of the charge. They say that the charge is out of proportion in relation to the Beavis judgement. The appellant says that there the operator has not provided evidence that they are liable for the charge. The appellant says that there is no evidence that the operator has authority from the landowner. The appellant says that the PCN does not clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving the car park. The appellant says that the signs do not specifically warn drivers what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) data will be used for, which breaches the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site that states, “Customer Car Park: 60 MINUTES MAXIMUM STAY: By parking in this car park you are entering into a contractual agreement and agree to comply with the Terms and Conditions of Use. You also accept liability to pay a Parking Charge of £100 (reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days) if you fail to comply with them. The operator’s case is that the PCN was issued because the appellant remained at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), the appellant’s vehicle registration XXXX XXX was captured entering the site at 09:23, exiting at 11:16. The total period of stay was one hour and 43 minutes. The appellant’s case is that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, or that there is sufficient notice of the charge. They say that the charge is out of proportion in relation to the Beavis judgement. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, the charge is allowable, as long as this is sufficiently brought to the motorist’s attention through the clear wording of the signage. Upon review of the photographic evidence of the signage, I am not satisfied that the charge has been sufficiently advertised to motorists. Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. The photographs provided by the operator show that the charge is printed in small writing along with other information. The main condition of the fact the site is a 60 minute maximum stay is in a reasonably sized font, however the charge is a lot smaller. The operator has provided actual images of the signage at the site and PDF files of the site. After reviewing the actual signage at the site, I cannot conclude that the wording of the notices to be clear, and cannot determine that the charge is conspicuous or legible. I acknowledge that the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal on this ground I do not need to look at these. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.


    This was a 'MET' PCN for parking over 60 minutes at McDonalds near Heathrow : http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5589916
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Mar 17, 5:47 PM
    • 48,929 Posts
    • 62,411 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Nice! MET deserved that decision for this narky paragraph in their evidence pack:

    Whilst we cannot account for the driver’s apparent limited vision it certainly could not have been from fog as our cameras are located 10 to 20 metres from the vehicles as they enter and exit the car park and as you can see from the images below and in Section E there does not appear to be any fog obscuring the vehicle...
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 8th Mar 17, 5:56 PM
    • 14,024 Posts
    • 22,041 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Nice! MET deserved that decision for this narky paragraph in their evidence pack:
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Cheeky gits. Seems that POPLA are now (very slowly) getting to grips with some of this stuff.

    Perhaps nail technician training has more going for it than I gave due credit!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • rob84
    • By rob84 10th Mar 17, 2:42 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 26 Thanks
    rob84
    Decision
    Successful
    Assessor Name
    [Removed by Forum Team]
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant exceeded the maximum stay allowed.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: • No evidence of Landowner Authority • The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. • The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. • No keeper or driver liability.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site which terms and conditions state “1 ½ hours max stay; this car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £90 parking charge notice; (£50 if paid within 14 days)”. The operator has provided images from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, which shows the appellant’s vehicle XXXX XXX entered the site on 3 December 2016, at 18:46 and exited the site at 21:45. The appellant remained at the site for a period of two hours and 59 minutes. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant exceeded the maximum stay allowed. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: • No evidence of Landowner Authority • The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. • The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. • No keeper or driver liability. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. In this case the operator has provided a copy of the signed agreement between the landowner and the operator. However the agreement does not state an effective from date or the term of the agreement. I am not satisfied that the agreement within the operator’s evidence confirms that is has written authority to operate on the land. The operator has failed to demonstrate that it meets the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal, however as I have allowed the appeal I do not need to look at these. I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
    Last edited by MSE ForumTeam2; 15-03-2017 at 10:42 PM.
    • Mr Benn
    • By Mr Benn 14th Mar 17, 4:05 PM
    • 254 Posts
    • 136 Thanks
    Mr Benn
    PCN from Euro Car Parks


    Institute Road , Kings Heath


    "Decision Successful "


    They said that the appeal was successful because the
    photographs provided by the operator show that the charge is printed in small writing along with other information. The terms and conditions are in a reasonably sized font, however the charge is a lot smaller than the rest of the information. Which was one of the points I made.
    Bizarrely it was strange winning on that point as I was sure it would be won on the fact they had also used info from someone elses case ! But they didn't even have to go that far down my letter before throwing the case out of the parking window. Surprised that Euro Car Parks lost on that technicality , but I guess it may reflect how many people actually challenge them.


    I spent ages on this , and it does show that the hard work, and help from people on this site , can win the day.
    • MontgomeryBurns
    • By MontgomeryBurns 15th Mar 17, 1:15 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    MontgomeryBurns
    This relates to Empark at Stansted

    Decision Successful

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The vehicle stopped in a no stopping zone.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised landowner authority. The appellant states the signage does not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has raised Section 14.3; 18.3 and 20.5a of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has raised the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states the evidence is corrupt. The appellant states there was no grace period.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    Having considered the evidence provided by both parties, it is clear that the operator has issued the charge for stopping/waiting in an area that does not allow for this type of activity. Furthermore, the operator has subsequently issued a parking charge for failing to adhere to the terms and conditions at the location. However, if no contract were formed, there would be no basis under which to seek payment of the charge from the motorist. As such, I must examine the signage in place at the location to establish if a contract has been formed between the operator and the appellant. Specifically, I note that the signage in place at the location simply states: “Restricted Zone no stopping at any time to drop off or pick up. WARNING ENFORCEMENT CHARGE OF £75”. From this, I acknowledge that the operator has made it clear that motorists should not stop at any time. However, it is my belief that the wording used on the signage is a statement of the restrictions in place and does not amount to an offer of a contract with the motorist in question. Additionally, I have considered the signage in place at the location and note that this refers to an “enforcement charge”. I consider this to be a misrepresentation of authority in accordance with Section 14 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within this, it states as follows: “14.1 You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority. You will be breaching the Code if you suggest to the public that you are providing parking enforcement under statutory authority”. 14.2 You must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority. This includes using terms such as ‘fine’, ‘penalty’ or ‘penalty charge notice’.” From this it is clear that parking operators who are approved by the British Parking Association should not misrepresent its authority to the public. Having considered the use of the phrase “enforcement charge”, it is my belief that motorists could mistakenly believe that the parking operator is carrying our enforcement work “under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority”. From this, I can only conclude that the operator has failed to adhere to the minimum requirements of the BPA Code of Practice also. As I am not satisfied that the appellant entered into a contract with the operator, I can only conclude that the operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence to POPLA to document that it issued this PCN correctly.
    • Treehugger321
    • By Treehugger321 15th Mar 17, 2:36 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Treehugger321
    Should assessor names be allowed on the forum?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Mar 17, 3:03 PM
    • 14,024 Posts
    • 22,041 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Should assessor names be allowed on the forum?
    Originally posted by Treehugger321
    MSE staff got a bit sniffy about showing them a few months ago, so they tend to be left out now.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Treehugger321
    • By Treehugger321 15th Mar 17, 8:03 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Treehugger321
    Quite rightly I think, they are only doing a job. There are some on this page an the previous page with names on.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Mar 17, 8:28 PM
    • 14,024 Posts
    • 22,041 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Quite rightly I think, they are only doing a job.
    Not very well in many respects. The background and experience of the current cadre of POPLA Assessors is in somewhat sharp contrast to the legally qualified backgrounds of previous London Councils' managed POPLA Assessors.

    Don't forget that this is a complex area of contract law (as admitted by the Lord Justices of the Supreme Court in the Beavis case) that POPLA Assessors are dealing with. One wonders what former nail technicians, soft porn authors and call centre staff bring to this particular party?

    This is real legal stuff, not some 'guess and go' on Twitter. The original purpose of naming the Assessor was as a reference where 'precedents' were set, which could be subsequently requoted, but seemingly there appears to have been a complaint made to MSE from wherever, possibly the PPC network, the BPA, or POPLA itself. Who knows?
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 15-03-2017 at 8:31 PM.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Mar 17, 9:16 PM
    • 48,929 Posts
    • 62,411 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I understand it was POPLA who most likely complained.

    Should do their job better then, and stop swallowing what the BPA tell them, as if the BPA are some sort of authority and not just their paymasters and a body run by their member operators, with their member operators very, very clearly at the heart of their thinking.

    It was utterly astonishing (particularly in the first months of this 'service') when no-one had bothered to teach the Assessors that without POFA compliance, an appellant can't be held liable to pay the money, if not shown/known to be the driver. It is hardly difficult stuff yet they were telling people to pay the charge when they weren't even driving and no NTK at all was served! The statute is one set of (generally in most cases) ten main points, where #10 isn't in play...nine mandatory rules in most cases, that's all.

    Then we had the person who said they were satisfied that a Harbour car park wasn't under statutory control of byelaws, because the PPC's signs didn't mention them. Even though the appellant had shown POPLA those very byelaws and the map including the car park...

    Then the bright spark who read some similar byelaws and decided a car wasn't on the list of the motorised vehicles covered in the section of those byelaws about leaving/parking a vehicle.

    The we had the gobsmacking decision that the very obviously WRONG timeline of 'within 29 days' was suddenly compliant when 'within 28 days' had not been, in a certain PPC's NTK. And when challenged on that (because the statute's timeline is several days different from either of those phrases) POPLA actually protested that they were right. Suggestion being that (never mind trite law - contra proferentem) they could and would interpret 'ambiguous' words in their way. Even though that wasn't the most favourable to the appellant because it meant people lost appeals over that issue.

    And still the POPLA website has those horrendous choices for appellants to slip up on ('I didn't see the signs' - oh come on, stop assuming the appellant is the driver, POPLA. Stop telling clueless people to appeal 'in your own words' - BPA speak, perhaps). And it tells appellants that using the appeal reason 'OTHER' is less successful, even though that very clearly cannot be true, not least because that statement was there from day one.

    To earn respect across the board, POPLA has to be independent and be SEEN to be independent.

    LondonCouncils version of POPLA managed it.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 15-03-2017 at 9:24 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

151Posts Today

1,145Users online

Martin's Twitter