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
    • Mattmason999
    • By Mattmason999 13th Jul 17, 9:16 PM
    • 15Posts
    • 9Thanks
    Mattmason999
    Help With POPLA Appeal - Ethical Parking
    • #1
    • 13th Jul 17, 9:16 PM
    Help With POPLA Appeal - Ethical Parking 13th Jul 17 at 9:16 PM
    Hi Guys/Gals

    I live in block of flats in the Portslade area that has a car park managed by ethical parking.

    A friend of mine that I work with met me there to go to work the other day and I was unaware of the parking situation (I have a Bay and a Permit) so have never read the signs.. He parked his motor bike just on the pavement next to our CarPark (Inside car park walls) where there is a post so that he could lock it up, We done this due to the fact that I can not secure my visitors permit on his bike.

    Several days later he recieved a PCN through the door. Which I have appeal using the

    Dear Sirs

    Re: PCN No. ....................

    I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

    I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in
    ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
    Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

    Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

    I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    Yours faithfully,

    We have now rececived an email back from them declining the appeal, and therefore am going to put an appeal in with POPLA, would the following that I have found a draft for on here be suitable?
    Dear POPLA,

    I was issued with a Notice to Keeper on 29/06/2017 but I believe it was unfairly. I declined the company’s invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. As the registered keeper, I appeal the demand for payment for the following reasons:

    1) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - No Keeper Liability
    2) Lack of grace period
    3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with driver or keeper
    4) No genuine pre-estimate of loss – case can be differentiated from Parking Eye-v-Beavis
    5) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
    6) Unclear, inadequate and non-compliant signage

    1) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - No Keeper Liability

    The requirements of Schedule 4 PoFA are quite clear in that there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged debt. The BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice (version 5, October 2015) supports the need for strict compliance (para 21.5 refers). Ethical Parking Management has however failed to comply with the statutory requirements as followed.

    a) In regards to paragraph 8(2)(a) of Schedule 4, PoFA 2012. The 'period of parking' is not 'specified', only the time and date the CBC was issued, with a statement of ‘period of parking that immediately preceded the issue of that notice’. It does not specify the period of parking as demanded under POFA 2012 paragraph 8(2)(a) and paragraph 7(2)(a). In fact the observation time is not specified. The Notice does not state the period of parking, merely the time of the alleged contravention and charge issue.
    b) Paragraph 8 (2)(g) requires the operator to inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment. The ‘Notice to Keeper’ fails to offer any discount and is therefore neither in compliance with the strict requirements of PoFA nor with the BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice (version 5, October 2015) paragraph 21.10. The Operator’s Notice merely informs the owner that a previously extant discount period has expired.

    Ethical Parking Management have failed to do comply and thus have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.”

    2) Lack of grace period

    The BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Version 6, Oct 2015, states that if drivers are “…parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.” (18.5)

    Paragraph 13.3 of the same version of the Code of Practice requires the operator to “specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is”.

    I require Ethical Parking Management to provide proof of any grace period allowed and photographic evidence that this period was exceeded.

    3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with driver or keeper

    The leasehold owner of the flat has an exclusive right to use the flat's allocated parking space (cf. Appendix A for the site plan), and any tenant has his permission to use the space under the terms of the rental agreement. Accordingly the tenant does not require anyone else's permission to use that space, and Ethical Parking Management cannot offer permission to park there as consideration for a contract: that the tenant already has cannot be good consideration. Accordingly neither the tenant nor anyone else permitted to use the space has ever entered into any contract with Ethical Parking Management.

    As per the Tenancy Agreement signed and agreed to in July 2013, there is no mention of Ethical Parking Management, nor any other parking company or third party to manage the car park in question. There is no mention of requiring displaying a permit to park in the space provided with the property (cf. Appendix B for the relevant extract). The vehicle was parked while observing the requirements of the property tenancy Agreement; therefore, there is no contract between the keeper and Ethical Parking Management.

    4) No genuine pre-estimate of loss – case can be differentiated from Parking Eye-v-Beavis

    In a previous POPLA appeal (xxx vs. Ethical Group; Ref.Nr: xxx) at the very same location Nadesh Karunairetnam (Assessor) allowed the appeal on the reason that the operator did not ‘justify the charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss’ and the therefore ‘unenforceable’. For the full decision, please see Appendix C of this appeal.

    The Operator may seek to rely on the case of Parking Eye v Beavis as legitimising the charge in this case.

    However, the appellant will make the following observations.

    The Supreme Court adjudged that the charge in Parking Eye v Beavis could not be considered a penalty, despite the fact Parking Eye made no loss, because they had a legitimate interest in enforcing that charge and that the charge was not disproportionate to that interest. As a third party contractor, Ethical Parking Management, has no legitimate interest other than penalising residents for allowing vehicles to be parked in their specifically allocated bay.

    In the Beavis case this was stated at 32:

    The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the {parking operator} in the enforcement of the primary obligation. The innocent party can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance. In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin's four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.

    My case is a straightforward ‘damages clause’ where interest cannot extent beyond compensation for the breach. To use the Beavis judgement to justify the amount charged, I put Ethical Parking Management to strict proof that this charge at this car park in these circumstances does not fall foul of Lord Dunedin’s four tests as specifically mentioned in the judgement.

    This is neither a complex contract nor was there a free licence offered to park for 2 hours and £85 were payable thereafter. In contrast and as mentioned under point 3 of this appeal, the vehicle was parked while observing the requirements of the property tenancy Agreement; therefore, there is no contract between the keeper and Ethical Parking Management.

    There is no comparable ‘commercial’ reasoning behind in this charge in this car park, no requirement for high turnover of spaces or any loss suffered by the landowner. The operator must strictly justify the right to charge a sum higher than the £85 deemed not penal.
    In the Beavis case, Parking Eye argued that their charge was not a matter of damages for breach. In my case, the operators charge is ‘contractual breach charge’ and provided photos of signage refer to ‘contractual agreement’.

    The Supreme Court made it clear in a Twitter tweet less than 24hours after the judgement was handed down that the parking charge is “neither extravagant nor unconscionable taking into account use of this particular car park & clear wording of the notices”.
    In the absence of any similarities with the car park in the Supreme Court judgement, a charge of £100 must be considered against the penalty rule. In my case, the rule indisputably applies and there is only a 'standard' right to recover damages/loss, unless the construction of the contract and other interests (landowner/commercial aspects) save the charge from being penal.

    There is no commercially or socially justifiable deterrent value in the charge as the vehicle would have been fully entitled to park and the contractual term is clearly the attempt to impose payment of a large sum in consequence of the loss of a very small sum.

    In fact, there is no loss as vehicle would have been fully entitled to park within the exclusive right to use the flat's allocated parking space. The demanded charge is a clearly unenforceable penalty.

    I require Ethical Parking Management to provide strict proof that their charge does not fall foul of Lord Dunedin’s four tests and that the Supreme Court Judgement applies to this specific car park to recover damages in access of any loss suffered.

    Otherwise, I require POPLA to cancel the charge as it was already established in an earlier POPLA appeal that Ethical Parking Management has suffered no loss and the charge was cancelled subsequently.

    5) Lack of standing/authority from landowner

    Ethical Parking Management has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

    BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Ethical Parking Management to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). Ethical Parking Management have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves.

    They do not own this land and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Ethical Parking Management are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

    I require Ethical Parking Management to provide a full unredacted copy of the signed & dated contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent.

    In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.

    6) Unclear, inadequate and non-compliant signage

    Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand.

    Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied. Unlike in the Beavis case, the signs here cannot be considered 'very prominent' and nor is the parking charge itself in large lettering.

    I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

    Yours faithfully


    Any help or advise you can give me would be greatly appreciated.

    Thank you in advance
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jul 17, 9:53 PM
    • 51,501 Posts
    • 65,096 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 13th Jul 17, 9:53 PM
    • #2
    • 13th Jul 17, 9:53 PM
    I live in block of flats in the Portslade area that has a car park managed by ethical parking.
    I might know someone living not far from there. I know the area and all about Ethical!

    Ethical are easy to beat at POPLA but don't rush it, the point is to get to day 56 so I hope you didn't rush that first appeal? Or, was there no PCN on the vehicle and just a PCN in the post?

    If it was only a postal PCN, then this is the wrong part of the POFA:
    paragraph 8(2)(a) of Schedule 4, PoFA 2012.
    You need to cite para 9, not para 8, for a postal PCN.

    Remove #4 completely, you need to read more up to date POPLA examples:
    4) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
    that is Ancient and will lose it for you if you are not careful. Nonono, nothing about loss!


    Did their rejection letter have the POPLA code buried on page 2 without explanation as to what the number was for? That's a breach of the BPA Code of Practice in itself.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 13-07-2017 at 9:56 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.

    • Mattmason999
    • By Mattmason999 13th Jul 17, 10:04 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Mattmason999
    • #3
    • 13th Jul 17, 10:04 PM
    • #3
    • 13th Jul 17, 10:04 PM
    Hi Coupon-Mad, Thanks for the quick reply.

    It was Only a postal PCN, and the POPLA Code was on the first page at the top but doesn't mention what it is for until the second page.

    So should I add all the Para 9???

    How long should I wait before I appeal to POPLA??
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jul 17, 10:16 PM
    • 51,501 Posts
    • 65,096 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 13th Jul 17, 10:16 PM
    • #4
    • 13th Jul 17, 10:16 PM
    the POPLA Code was on the first page at the top but doesn't mention what it is for until the second page.
    Where it talks about POPLA, does it say to 'click on the logo on our website' but not explain which logo?

    Does it give a POPLA form attached, or as an alternative, a link to the POPLA website? Or neither?

    I've got wining POPLA appeals that I wrote for local people, one who was caught at the Cricket Ground and one who was caught out by Ethical at Shoreham Port a few months ago, that I can dig out and adapt for you. We won, of course! The fun (fraudulent) thing with that second one was, Ethical tried to contest it and attached a copy of landowner authority from Shoreham Port signed by a Harbour Master who had moved jobs to Dubai 2 YEARS before his 'signature'!

    Ethical aren't good at POPLA!
    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.

    • Mattmason999
    • By Mattmason999 13th Jul 17, 10:29 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Mattmason999
    • #5
    • 13th Jul 17, 10:29 PM
    • #5
    • 13th Jul 17, 10:29 PM
    LOL that's quality hopefully will be same situation here then

    Copied and pasted from the letter
    Thank you for your appeal received on 10/07/2017 regarding the above detailed Contractual Breach
    Charge.The appeal has been reviewed by the appeals team.
    Ethical Group Ltd trading as Ethical Parking Management is a registered business in England & Wales
    and has been contracted by the private landowner of the above location to provide the parking
    management scheme, issuing a parking ticket to any vehicle in breach of the parking conditions.
    The signage is very clear at the location to inform patrons of the car park of the conditions of parking.
    We take photographic evidence of every vehicle that we issue a ticket for our records.
    Our time/date stamped photos show that at the time your vehicle was issued the parking ticket you were
    in breach of the restrictions for this area.
    They have reviewed the case and considered any relevant and factual comments that you have made.
    This appeal has been considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered by the enforcement officer
    and any substantiated claims made by the appellant. Our records show that the notice was correctly
    issued as your vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking.
    At the time your vehicle was parked it was not displaying a valid permit and it could not be seen by the
    patrol officer.
    We are therefore unable to cancel the Contractual Breach Charge as it was issued correctly. You must
    now make payment of £60 to reach us by 27/07/2017 or £100 to reach us by 10/08/2017. We must
    advise you that if payment is not made there will be extra debt recovery costs.
    Payments can be made by cheque or postal order made payable to Ethical Parking Management. Please
    ensure you write your Contractual Breach Charge reference and registration number clearly on the
    reverse. Please do not send cash through the post. Payment can be made using a debit or credit card by
    calling the payment line on 08443 190 291 or via the web at www ethicsgroupxxxxxx
    You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.
    If you still believe that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued incorrectly, then there is an
    independent appeals service called POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) and you can submit an
    appeal to them online using the following link httpspopla.couk and entering the ten digit verification
    code at the top of this page to authenticate your appeal. This code is valid for 28 days from the date your
    appeal is declined, please note if an appeal is declined by POPLA the reduced rate for the parking charge
    (PCN) will no longer apply.
    By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www ombudsman-services org/)
    provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal.
    However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should
    you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
    Please note that we are unable to enter into any telephone conversations regarding appeals as we are
    not based at Head Office.
    Our appeals process is full and final and we are unable to issue any further correspondence regarding
    this matter directly with you.
    Yours sincerely,
    Appeals Department
    Ethical parking Management

    I did phone up and speak to someone at Ethical at the time and explained the situation to him (Didn't say who the driver was) and said that I owned a visitors permit but didn't put it on his bike as would get nicked, to which his reply was 'that I needed to get his reg on the exemptions list, for this situation and if I had read the signs I would be aware of this' and he offered to reduce the ticket to an admin fee of £30. which i refused.
    I then looked and took a photo of the sign and it doesn't say anything on there so i phoned him back and told him this, his reply was then 'We don't put it on there as that would be advertising the fact'
    So not in so many words I told him where to go, politely of course
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jul 17, 11:03 PM
    • 51,501 Posts
    • 65,096 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 13th Jul 17, 11:03 PM
    • #6
    • 13th Jul 17, 11:03 PM
    his reply was 'that I needed to get his reg on the exemptions list, for this situation and if I had read the signs I would be aware of this' and he offered to reduce the ticket to an admin fee of £30. which i refused.

    I then looked and took a photo of the sign and it doesn't say anything on there so i phoned him back and told him this, his reply was then 'We don't put it on there as that would be advertising the fact'

    So not in so many words I told him where to go, politely of course
    Hilarious, these thick as pig-shhh ex-clampers!

    They have changed their rejection letter, it's better than it was, must have had a BPA slap.

    Can you show us the Notice to Keeper? You will need to put it on imgur, dropbox or photobucket and break the URL link (change http to hxxp) to show us a 'broken' link to it. Cover the name & address and VRN of the bike.

    You have a month to submit a POPLA appeal so in July is fine, plenty of time.
    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 13th Jul 17, 11:16 PM
    • 15,462 Posts
    • 24,177 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #7
    • 13th Jul 17, 11:16 PM
    • #7
    • 13th Jul 17, 11:16 PM
    Just a skim read of the entire thread (but really struggling to read all that turquoise text - doesn't help at all), but how does this work?

    2) Lack of grace period
    If the motorbike was parked there all day for work, the grace period is neither here nor there. In fact it has no relevance.
    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 13th Jul 17, 11:22 PM
    • 51,501 Posts
    • 65,096 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 13th Jul 17, 11:22 PM
    • #8
    • 13th Jul 17, 11:22 PM
    Yes, I think back to the drawing board re the POPLA appeal but show us the NTK, please.
    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.

    • Mattmason999
    • By Mattmason999 14th Jul 17, 6:16 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Mattmason999
    • #9
    • 14th Jul 17, 6:16 PM
    • #9
    • 14th Jul 17, 6:16 PM
    Here a copy of the PCN

    dropbox com /s /e8piitfw9q3uqzr /PCN .jpg?dl=0

    I am useless when it come to this type of thing and the person I am helping even more so
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 14th Jul 17, 6:30 PM
    • 33,228 Posts
    • 17,176 Thanks
    Quentin
    You need to remove that link - your photo gives away enough info for the recipient to be identified by the ppc, (and the page gives away your id)


    The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you


    Also as you may have inadvertently used your real name as your board name you need to get MSE to change it to something totally anonymous
    • Mattmason999
    • By Mattmason999 14th Jul 17, 6:39 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Mattmason999
    I have removed the link,

    I am not the register keeper neither am I the driver so my name hopefully wont be a problem.

    I will delete the photo and have another look over and repost

    Thank you
    • Mattmason999
    • By Mattmason999 14th Jul 17, 6:46 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Mattmason999
    dropbox com /s /ets4dlhxtl0qpg9 /PCN1 jpg?dl=0
    • Iguana En Fuego
    • By Iguana En Fuego 14th Jul 17, 8:27 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    Iguana En Fuego
    i recently had a scrummage with ethical parking on behalf of the RK at Ingram Crescent, the full story is on here, jif you do a search. Eould be interesting if the same location.
    • Iguana En Fuego
    • By Iguana En Fuego 14th Jul 17, 8:41 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    Iguana En Fuego
    i recently had a scrummage with ethical parking on behalf of the RK at Ingram Crescent, the full story is on here, if you do a search. Could be interesting if the same location.
    • Mattmason999
    • By Mattmason999 14th Jul 17, 9:22 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Mattmason999
    Close but not the same location
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jul 17, 10:24 PM
    • 51,501 Posts
    • 65,096 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I am struggling to convert that link to a working one - can anyone do it?

    BTW I did take time out to go to Brighton and stop off at the ToysRUs car park today in Hove, to check out the fact someone else had said the Civil Enforcement signs have all been taken down. He is right - they have all gone! I am worried that they will stupidly get a worse company in though (ParkingEye or an IPC firm who sue, like UKCPS or Excel at car parks along the road from the Goldstone Retail Park).
    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.

    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 14th Jul 17, 10:40 PM
    • 33,228 Posts
    • 17,176 Thanks
    Quentin
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ets4dlhxtl0qpg9/PCN1.jpg?dl=0
    • Mattmason999
    • By Mattmason999 20th Jul 17, 5:17 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Mattmason999
    Hi Coupon-Mad,

    Do you manage to look at the link?

    Did you see anything on the PCN that might be able to help me out?
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 20th Jul 17, 5:22 PM
    • 7,640 Posts
    • 7,893 Thanks
    pappa golf
    was the mororbike actually parked on land that they had authority for?
    • Mattmason999
    • By Mattmason999 20th Jul 17, 5:46 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Mattmason999
    It was parked off of the actual Car Park, but the guy at Ethical said that they control the grounds (I did wonder if they could give a ticket for that also)
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

751Posts Today

6,667Users online

Martin's Twitter