£70 Parking Fine in non P&D Car Park

Elmer_Dudd

Yes, but here's the big problem as I see it.:eek:

Because the SIA is such a shambles these Parking/Clamping Companies cannot 100% prevent criminals/undesirables infiltrating/controlling their operations (as per Panorama/Ealing Times article) so all of our keeper details could be at risk if released in the haphazard way they are now. This must be stopped. It is putting data and individuals at risk in my opinion.:mad:

This is what i have explained to the Information Commissioners dept and the DVLA and wait to see what they say.

Elmer:cool:
..being very careful!

superscaper

Elmer_Dudd wrote: »

Yes, but here's the big problem as I see it.:eek:

Because the SIA is such a shambles these Parking/Clamping Companies cannot 100% prevent criminals/undesirables infiltrating/controlling their operations (as per Panorama/Ealing Times article) so all of our keeper details could be at risk if released in the haphazard way they are now. This must be stopped. It is putting data and individuals at risk in my opinion.:mad:

This is what i have explained to the Information Commissioners dept and the DVLA and wait to see what they say.

Elmer:cool:
..being very careful!

I agree, which is why I suggested the proxy idea. If there's a genuine charge then I have no problem in them attempting to claim for it but I have the same view as you that they personally shouldn't have direct access to our personal contact details.

matimage

So, can I ask a question that I am surprised noone else has...
Assuming Taxiphil et al are correct, do I never have to pay for a pay and display ticket again safe in the comfort that I just ignore all demands?

Not having a go at anyone, truly curious...

superscaper

matimage wrote: »

So, can I ask a question that I am surprised noone else has...
Assuming Taxiphil et al are correct, do I never have to pay for a pay and display ticket again safe in the comfort that I just ignore all demands?

Not having a go at anyone, truly curious...

This is where I disagree with the sentiment of some of the others I think. i'm not completely clear on whether it's simply "unfair" charges or charges altogether the other posters are arguing against. Personally I think there should be a lot of leeway to allow people to make whatever rules and charges they want for their own private land. There should certainly be the facility to charge something for parking on private land without permission.

joe1965

bluelagoon wrote: »

Talked? Opinion? Something not right?
Watch out Columbo.

Exactly the kind of snide remark that is expected of you when someone challenges something you have posted.

bluelagoon wrote: »

Days of research?

Some of us do an honest days work and can’t just sit around all day preying on motorists.

bluelagoon wrote: »

and if you had just made a phone call to CPS (which I have just done) you would have found out that they own the building and work from the offices above the cafe.

Oh I’ve phoned them but when you ask for detailed information about how and where you can see their business in action they clam up.

bluelagoon wrote: »

This is a perfect example of your misleading, absurd and nonsensical exaggerations in this forum.

The only one putting misleading information on here is you. Absurd? No, you just don’t like anyone posting anything which can show that you are wrong,Nonsensical exaggerations? if you can’t understand that they are not following the rules and guidelines (and sometimes the law) laid down for them to follow just for the profit they make for themselves and their customers, then it’s obvious you are just in it for the money.

bluelagoon wrote: »

CPS tell me they are a partnership. I've just called the County Court helpline and they say that a partnership (and even a sole trader) is classed as an 'organisation' for the purposes of making a claim via the County Court bulk processing centre.

You make it sound as if there is a central County Court helpline in your post – one doesn’t exist. But I don’t expect you to be fully truthful.
They are listed as unincorporated not as a partnership and the individual who gave me this information and the information about their legal rights to bring court case’s has read your reply and suggests that maybe you should stop posting nonsense. He would love to get a ticket from CPS. When they saw who they were taking to court Perky would keep sure he was doing something else that day.

bluelagoon wrote: »

CPS say this is a private estate in

bluelagoon wrote: »

London with reserved disabled spaces nothing to do with the RTA at all.

Ok, CPS says it is so it must be true.

bluelagoon wrote: »

Again, why don't you just check out the facts for yourself before making unfounded and silly claims.

All your facts have come from CPS so of course they must be right, they would never tell porkies to one of their respected customers.
All you have proved in all your postings is that you treat people who do not agree with your view with contempt and sarcasm. You never reply with a reasoned argument, just with scorn and distain in your attempts to belittle people. You must be a model customer for CPS.

bluelagoon_3

joe1965 wrote: »

The only one putting misleading information on here is you. Absurd? No, you just don’t like anyone posting anything which can show that you are wrong,Nonsensical exaggerations? if you can’t understand that they are not following the rules and guidelines (and sometimes the law) laid down for them to follow just for the profit they make for themselves and their customers, then it’s obvious you are just in it for the money.

Oh, I see we're back to the making money issue again. That's really what it all comes down to with people like you - jealously.

joe1965 wrote: »

You make it sound as if there is a central County Court helpline in your post – one doesn’t exist. But I don’t expect you to be fully truthful.

Centralised County Court Bulk Processing Centre: Tel 0845 408 5302
or you could just call your local County Court.

joe1965 wrote: »

They are listed as unincorporated not as a partnership and the individual who gave me this information and the information about their legal rights to bring court case’s has read your reply and suggests that maybe you should stop posting nonsense. He would love to get a ticket from CPS. When they saw who they were taking to court Perky would keep sure he was doing something else that day.

Unfortunately you have simply lifted some false information from another forum. There is no list of "unincorporated" organisations or partnerships.

joe1965 wrote: »

You never reply with a reasoned argument, just with scorn and distain in your attempts to belittle people.

That's truly laughable. Everything I've said has been backed up with proof.

You have failed to provide proof of anything you have claimed.

marleyboy

After reading through this whole thread, it was asked if it was "enforceable". wether we like bluelagoons ethics, or opinions. He/She has proved themselves to be correct, including posting Court Documents, Nobody has so far produced anything that can contradict what bluelagoon has said. However most have preferred to preach "VAT", or "Get a life". Which in effect is only making bluelagoons stance look more prominent, effectively reducing those lesser argumentatives, to chasing their own tails.

joe1965

bluelagoon wrote: »

Oh, I see we're back to the making money issue again. That's really what it all comes down to with people like you - jealously.

Jealous of you? What a joke. I probably earn more than you do with your preying on motorists.

bluelagoon wrote: »

Unfortunately you have simply lifted some false information from another forum. There is no list of "unincorporated" organisations or partnerships

Unfortunately, once again you are wrong! Although there are lists, which can be found on the internet, the person who provided me with the information is in a position to find out by a simple phone call.
But once again you make a statement so it must be right. Nobody can know something that you don’t.

bluelagoon wrote: »

That's truly laughable. Everything I've said has been backed up with proof.

And you have provided solid evidence for everything you have said haven’t you? Judgements which when shown to a staff member of a county court they have reason to believe there is something wrong with them. But of course you will know better than the likes of them won’t you? All you have done is sprout off the company policy.

JonathanA

I almost hesitate to post here, and apologies as it is slightly off thread. I'm anxious to know how I can get a list of unincorporated companies (which I assume means sole traders and partnerships), it could save me a lot of time trying to find a particular business.

I can see both sides in this parking debate. If there are warning signs about parking somewhere and people ignore them, they face the consequences, they have after all been warned. This from someone whose only parking ticket was issued 3 minutes after the time period became enforceable. I know it is different since I was on a yellow line on a public highway, but it was my fault I was there. If I owned a piece of land that people were parking on that impeded my business, I think I would want to take steps to resolve the problem.

Hey ho, that's life I suppose. Seriously though, where to find the list of unic. companies would be a real help. Thanks in advance

sarahg1969

marleyboy wrote: »

After reading through this whole thread, it was asked if it was "enforceable". wether we like bluelagoons ethics, or opinions. He/She has proved themselves to be correct, including posting Court Documents, Nobody has so far produced anything that can contradict what bluelagoon has said. However most have preferred to preach "VAT", or "Get a life". Which in effect is only making bluelagoons stance look more prominent, effectively reducing those lesser argumentatives, to chasing their own tails.

The problem is, how do we find evidence of claims that PPCs have lost? Bluelagoon has access to the info - he should be able to provide details of lost cases. It's pretty hard for anyone else, other than a successful defendant or someone linked to a PPC, to produce this evidence.

If you look on pepipoo.com, there are plenty people on there who have been threatened with court proceedings by PPCs, but when they have stood their ground, the threat has not been followed up.

There are also members who have turned up to defend themselves at hearings where the Claimant PPC has failed to attend to pursue the claim.

There are members who are subject of Court proceedings where PPCs have failed to file Allocation Questionnaires and the claims have been struck out.

Other than asking Defendants to provide us with details of successes (and, usually, to be fair, PPCs seem less likely to pursue the claims if they know they are up against a strong defence), or asking someone such as Bluelagoon to provide us with details of cases where the Defendant has been successful or claims have not been pursued or have been dropped or struck out (I'm sure CPS can provide him with such information - for example, what percentage of unpaid invoices do they issue on?), I don't know how we can expect anyone to come up with the "proof".