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
    • richardcaseley
    • By richardcaseley 18th Apr 17, 7:16 PM
    • 5Posts
    • 2Thanks
    richardcaseley
    UKPC Parking Charge
    • #1
    • 18th Apr 17, 7:16 PM
    UKPC Parking Charge 18th Apr 17 at 7:16 PM
    Hello,

    I've read the Newbies Parking ticket FAQ and still have a few questions:

    My car was parked near Swindon School of Gymnastics around 9pm. It was dark. There are signs up which state "no parking at all times...", but no-one was around and the car has been parked there before and have seen others park there before (the trading estate is pretty much empty at this time). The car got a ticket at 9.50pm from UKPC. A ticket on the car, saying "parked in a roadway".

    As the keeper, I am, unsurprisingly, not happy with the ticket. The place was empty, so this is simply a money making tactic. However, there are signs up, not big signs, but several of them. And the car did park on the roadway (out of the way on the side). So, although the ticket is outrageous and (morally) unfair, I am not clear on what grounds I am going to clearly state the ticket is "wrong". The signage not being clear is a matter of opinion, etc.

    I am nearly at the end of the "discount" period. My question is simply, can I fight this succesfully? I can follow the guidance, but at some point I am going to have to state "this is unfair because it was late, no one was around, the signs aren't very big...". Is that enough?

    Thanks for any thoughts you have on the topic!
    Last edited by richardcaseley; 18-04-2017 at 10:04 PM.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 18th Apr 17, 7:22 PM
    • 14,725 Posts
    • 18,498 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 18th Apr 17, 7:22 PM
    • #2
    • 18th Apr 17, 7:22 PM
    edit the above to remove the drivers details

    simply say what the DRIVER or KEEPER have done , nothing more

    this is a game with no certainty on the outcome

    there is a post in the NEWBIES thread that deals with POPLA appeals, those should be studied as they give you the grounds for appeal , including signage etc

    and post #1 gives you the BPA template in blue text for the initial appeal to UKPC too

    so its all in that thread you have read , with examples

    bear in mind it is their task to prove their case , so you make them do so, or throw in the towel
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 18th Apr 17, 7:25 PM
    • 2,213 Posts
    • 3,297 Thanks
    fisherjim
    • #3
    • 18th Apr 17, 7:25 PM
    • #3
    • 18th Apr 17, 7:25 PM
    Hello,

    I've read the Newbies Parking ticket FAQ and still have a few questions:

    I parked near Swindon School of Gymnastics around 9pm. It was dark. There are signs up which state "no parking at all times...", but no-one was around and I've parked there before and have seen others park there before (the trading estate is pretty much empty at this time). I got a ticket at 9.50pm from UKPC. A ticket on the car, saying "parked in a roadway".

    I am, unsurprisingly, not happy with the ticket. The place was empty, so this is simply a money making tactic. However, there are signs up, not big signs, but several of them. And I did park on the roadway (out of the way on the side). So, although the ticket is outrageous and (morally) unfair, I am not clear on what grounds I am going to clearly state the ticket is "wrong". The signage not being clear is a matter of opinion, etc.

    I am nearly at the end of the "discount" period. My question is simply, can I fight this succesfully? I can follow the guidance, but at some point I am going to have to state "this is unfair because it was late, no one was around, the signs aren't very big...". Is that enough?

    Thanks for any thoughts you have on the topic!
    Originally posted by richardcaseley
    Yes you can fight this as per the newbies thread, but the excuses in bold will be laughed at as irrelevant.
    To quote the words of the great Count Arthur Strong "You Couldn't make it up"
    • Blibble
    • By Blibble 18th Apr 17, 7:28 PM
    • 127 Posts
    • 56 Thanks
    Blibble
    • #4
    • 18th Apr 17, 7:28 PM
    • #4
    • 18th Apr 17, 7:28 PM
    Send the BPA template in Newbies thread which will most likely result in a POPLA appeal code.

    Your POPLA appeal would likely revolve around the fact that the signs are forbidding and cannot form a contract with the driver, therefore how are you able to accept or reject terms of any parking contract?

    The BPA template will deal with a lot of the issues regarding insufficient signage etc. Send that for the time being, uneditted, and come back if needing assistance with POPLA appeal.

    Note; the PPC couldn't give a rat's backside if you believe the ticket is "outrageous and morally unfair". You'll have to quit that sort of thinking pretty sharpish I'm afraid.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 18th Apr 17, 7:33 PM
    • 13,571 Posts
    • 21,270 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #5
    • 18th Apr 17, 7:33 PM
    • #5
    • 18th Apr 17, 7:33 PM
    There are signs up which state "no parking at all times..."
    Not sure what's not clear about 'no parking at all times'. Parking where it's not permitted feeds landowners' haste to employ parking companies and why so many people roll up here every day asking us to get them off their ticket.

    Turning to your question.

    My question is simply, can I fight this succesfully?
    The answer is 'Yes'. Please start by reading the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1 only at this stage. It's not a 'quick fix' read, but needs to be digested slowly to understand that there isn't an easy way out, but there is definitely a way out.

    I can follow the guidance, but at some point I am going to have to state "this is unfair because it was late, no one was around, the signs aren't very big...". Is that enough?
    'Late'? - 'At all times' seems to cover 'late'.
    'No one was around' - Unfortunately the parking attendant was.
    'The signs weren't very big' - You're making a start on getting there. But there will need to be so, so much more.

    Read the NEWBIES sticky to learn the process you now need to commence, including how you have to dismantle the entire case the PPC will level against you.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 18-04-2017 at 7:43 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.
    • richardcaseley
    • By richardcaseley 18th Apr 17, 10:07 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    richardcaseley
    • #6
    • 18th Apr 17, 10:07 PM
    • #6
    • 18th Apr 17, 10:07 PM
    Thanks for the replies. You've highlighted my concern, that my case is weak. I'll re-read the thread and see what can be done.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 18th Apr 17, 11:20 PM
    • 13,571 Posts
    • 21,270 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #7
    • 18th Apr 17, 11:20 PM
    • #7
    • 18th Apr 17, 11:20 PM
    my case is wea
    With the right application and research, very few cases are weak. If you think yours is weak, I'd be taking comfort that the PPC's is likely even weaker - but you've got to call them out.
    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.
    • richardcaseley
    • By richardcaseley 17th Jun 17, 7:52 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    richardcaseley
    • #8
    • 17th Jun 17, 7:52 PM
    POPLA appeal
    • #8
    • 17th Jun 17, 7:52 PM
    Hi again.

    I appealled the charge and, unsurprisingly, was rejected. I am now preparing a POPLA appeal. Is it of interest that despite me leaving the appeal until after the 14 day discount period, I am still being offered the discount (£60 instead of £100)?

    I have gone through various threads and put the following together (it's the various templates, plus some tweaks).

    I would appreciate any thoughts. I think there is clearly a case around poor signage since not only is the signage difficult to read and the fee is not clear, it was late at night and the signs are not illuminated.

    Draft appeal:

    As the Registered Keeper of <reg> I submit that there is no ‘parking charge’ liable. I appeal against the ‘charge’ for the following reasons:

    The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible at night and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    No contract or agreement for the 'parking charge' was made. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
    The driver could not read the signs because it was night time and the majority of signs had no illumination near them. Those signs that were near illumination were attached to street lights, but low-down so the light itself did not provide adequate illumination for the small, unclear and densely packed text.



    The example below is taken from UKPC’s parking charge evidence. The sign clearly has no independent illumination and is only visible because the UKPC representative who has taken the picture has illuminated it.
    <Image of parking sign, taken by UKPC warden - you cannot see any charge information. Please let me know if it would help to see the actual picture and I'll put it online>


    The next two pictures show the position of the car (again from UKPC evidence) and it is clear there are no illuminated signs anywhere nearby. The driver could only have read the signs as they drove past one that was near illumination, making the difficult to read signs more difficult. It should be noted that the most prominent words in the sign above are “NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING”, however it is not detailed what authorisation means; the driver was attending an event on the Trading Estate, indicating an implicit authorisation to be parked there.

    <Front view of car - it's dark, there are lights in the distance>
    <Rear view of car - still dark, lights in the distance>


    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    <link to tweet on subject>

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    <link to beavis sign image>

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas and mostly not illuminated. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print. Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    <link to sizing guide>

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    <link to signage guide II>

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''


    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    <another link - see templates>

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    <link to judgement - see templates>

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

    No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''


    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

    A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply

    This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time or if the document omits any prescribed wording then keeper liability simply does not apply.

    The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

    ''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
    4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

    (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’



    The NTK that has been sent to me is not compliant as:
    - - The “creditor” who is legally entitled to recover the parking charge has not been identified;
    - - The period the car was parked has not been detailed (only the time the ticket was issued).

    The compliant NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a compliant NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Jun 17, 10:08 PM
    • 48,019 Posts
    • 61,469 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 17th Jun 17, 10:08 PM
    • #9
    • 17th Jun 17, 10:08 PM
    Is it of interest that despite me leaving the appeal until after the 14 day discount period, I am still being offered the discount (£60 instead of £100)?
    A fairly common desperate bribe, to try to persuade you not to bother with POPLA!

    Please let me know if it would help to see the actual picture and I'll put it online.
    No need, we've seen UKPC signs in the dark before, and they are unreadable.

    Your POPLA appeal looks fine. I am curious that you talk about a NTK - did they remember to send one?
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • richardcaseley
    • By richardcaseley 18th Jun 17, 10:26 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    richardcaseley
    Yes, they did send a NTK. It covered most of the points in the guides (elsehwhere), but I felt the creditor and period stayed was not covered, so I though it worth adding that in.
    • richardcaseley
    • By richardcaseley 11th Jul 17, 8:20 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    richardcaseley
    An update on this: good news!

    "UK Parking Control Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

    Yours sincerely

    POPLA Team"


    In case it helps others: this related to a ticket issued on ISIS trading estate in Swindon.


    Thank you to all who helped out. And thank you for the FAQs/posts that outlines how to approach fighting these tickets.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jul 17, 10:07 PM
    • 48,019 Posts
    • 61,469 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yay! Another one bites the dust!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, 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

5,189Posts Today

5,195Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin