Tell your tales of problems with private parking providers

The_Grocer

Its very worthwhile even if your initial appeal from a local authority parking ticket / clamping is refused to take it to the parking ombudsman. I did against Chelsea Borough Council and won......
I was issued a ticket and clamped in Holland Park, the reason...one of my wheels was outside the box! Careless you might say, but the fact was cars in the adjacent parking positions were also parked at angles due to road works taking part of a parking box section.....unfortunately for me when the warden came around the other cars had gone......
I appealed on two grounds, one totally against the clamp, I had no record and I therefore was a first offender and not a high risk of non payment. The second (slightly weaker) was the fact the road markings were worn and covered in mud from the contractors as well as the fact other cars were slightly out of line.
The local authority appeals refused my appeal....the ombudsman upheld my appeal and I had my money back

trisontana

The_Grocer wrote: »

Its very worthwhile even if your initial appeal from a local authority parking ticket / clamping is refused to take it to the parking ombudsman. I did against Chelsea Borough Council and won......
I was issued a ticket and clamped in Holland Park, the reason...one of my wheels was outside the box! Careless you might say, but the fact was cars in the adjacent parking positions were also parked at angles due to road works taking part of a parking box section.....unfortunately for me when the warden came around the other cars had gone......
I appealed on two grounds, one totally against the clamp, I had no record and I therefore was a first offender and not a high risk of non payment. The second (slightly weaker) was the fact the road markings were worn and covered in mud from the contractors as well as the fact other cars were slightly out of line.
The local authority appeals refused my appeal....the ombudsman upheld my appeal and I had my money back

We are talking here about privet parking tickets, not ones issued by councils.

theboyfromxtown

London Parking Control Ltd patrol Peabody housing estates. I am on the tenant association and know of many incidents. Here's a few

1. One tenant was assaulted by a female operative and had their van backed in to him. (that's me!)
2. One tenant wrote the date of parking on the ticket and his pen ran out. He re-wrote over the existing date to make it clear and the notice was declared faulty for being tampered with.
3. The new annual permits didn't arrive in time and tenants were getting clamped.
4. A tenant had his licence disc stolen and was clamped for non-display of his licence. This tenant got real shirty and started write to the Peabody hierarchy with copies to his solicitors. He was a driving instructer and knew how to deal with his situation and eventually the clamp was removed
5. One tenant wrote the time as 9.00 when she meant to put 21.00 hrs. This was a heart-breaking case. Besides being in floods of tears, she was telling me how it would take her two and a half days to make up the £150 she had just had to pay.

In these cases, housing landlord Peabody was unsympathetic and have been accused of being uncaring to vulnerable tenants and assisting LPC in the collection of monies from those least able to afford it.

The area is EC1Y

One tenant took LPC to court. It was settled out of court and LPC paid an extra £100 and sent a snotty letter.

peter_the_piper

There's only one word here Bar Stewards the lot of them.

dunncha

Overstayed in a car park by 20 mins in Warwickshire and returned to find a 'ticket' on my car for £50.

Reading the advice on this and other websites I just ignored all correspondence from them (LPS) and their solicitors (Brethertons). The letters get worse as they go on.

'We will take you to court... blah blah blah in 7 days... in 3 days'

Eventually they just went away (7 letters in total 4 from LPS and 3 from Brethertons

The only thing to do with these clowns is ignore them until they go away. Getting into any sort of dialogue with them just reinforces their case and prolongs the agony.

The same scam is being rule on internet downloader’s by ACS:Law. Pay us or else. It's just spam, if they send out enough letters some one will pay. Even if 1% pay up its worth while.

It's a crime that they are allowed to do this but they aren't breaking any law. They write to you with a made up offence and ask you to pay money. If you send them money they haven't broken any law as you gave the money freely.

Don't even speak to them, its easier, cheaper and quicker.

I don't think it’s a good idea to send them any details via Consumer Direct either. Its just give legitimacy to their operation. Doing a search on this site and others using Google will throw up loads of excellent advice from highly experienced and knowable people.

But the best advice is IGNORE

wildlilly

last week i had parked on a pub car park.... i hadnt seen the pay & display manchine.... i was only gone for ten mins.... when i got back there was a fine on me car.... saying i had to pay £ 90.00 but if paid within 7 days it wud only cost me £ 60.00.... but the guy had marked the box between the 90/ 60 box....
anyway i phoned them up to pay. the amount within the 7 days etc... on me card and i had to pay £ 4.95 handling fee on top of the £ 60.00.... the company were based in bridgnorth.... i was at kingswinford... ... cant recall the company name off hand... :mad: to me the pay & display wasnt very clear. it was hidden in my eyes... no where to be seen where i had parked.... i was so peed off .... think they are day light robbers.

ashleypride

Sadly, PPCs are rotten to the core. The only thing we can do is inform as many people as we can to ignore them, in the hope they all collapse. Then we can try and work out a fair system that takes into account both drivers and the land owners right.

taffy056

I don't mean to be nasty Wendy, but you've got a section with over 2000 threads in it, most of them are about the PPCs, why not pick say a hundred of them and forward the many horror stories on, you don't really need another thread to say it again.

Former_MSE_Wendy

Hi Taffy

You're right, but Consumer Focus were looking for answers to particular questions and as we were promoting the thread in our weekly email it's best to start a nice new thread

And if anyone doesn't want to put too many details about their tickets in the forum please do email the Consumer Focus [EMAIL="investigations@consumerfocus.org.uk"]investigations team[/EMAIL] directly.

Thanks all

Wendy

HO87

@MSEWendy - Pardon my cynicism but whilst Consumer Focus may have statutory responsibilities their involvement, along with all of the other so-called consumer protection agencies Trading Standards, OFT et al, to date has been stunningly obvious by their complete and utter absence. The PPC scam is by no means a new problem and one has to ask why are they involving themselves now? Are they deaf and blind? Do they not visit consumer forums? Have they never come across the problem before? For example, I had my first encounter with a PPC ticket nearly 8 years ago and its still going in the same format now and has very substantially enriched some individuals. Frankly, if CF are unable to invest the time and effort to read through the myriad threads on this forum, those on PePiPoo, CAG, Honestjohn, Bitterwallet etc etc (one could go on and on) - many of which contain full documentation if they want to "see" evidence - as opposed to being spoon-fed then they should be ashamed to call themselves public servants.

Although it is pleasing to see some official body has eventually responded to concerns this appeal seems ill thought through. Any responses CF will receive as a result of this appeal are likely to be limited by three factors. Firstly, the natural reluctance to disclose personal experiences including personal details to some faceless entity. Secondly, only current issues will be scooped up rather than those that occurred 6 months, a year or 2 or 3 years ago because the majority of posters once advised and reassured move on never to revisit the forum again but these "historic" cases are as valid as those of today. And why should those "consumers" be denied a voice as a consequence of CF's late and, in my opinion, half-baked arrival at the table? Lastly, there is a risk that only the more strident posters will reply when they don't necessarily represent the scope of the problem.

It is more than mildly suspicious, to me at least, that, given the timing of their approach, that CF has only been prompted into action now. Perhaps, the Department of Business, Innovation & Skills has issued a directive to them to bring a measure of balance to the consultative process in response to parliamentary lobbying the BPA are involved in? Who knows? Either way I believe before we go any further that CF should address these concerns here.

There are two things we should not forget. The BPA is working hard to secure legislation that will take this shabby trade and from it produce what they intend will be a thoroughly respectable business. This so-called industry has absolutely nothing to do with "car park management" and everything to do with ripping off the hard-pressed public but raises so much cash it must now be given a serious makeover.

It is not difficult to see the BPA's reasoning and to understand the urgency underlying their campaign. They know - exactly as those of us who have been involved for any length of time in fighting this scourge - that should just one notable case find its way to a higher court and produce a judgement binding on the lower courts that the entire private parking "industry" will crumble before our eyes. This is why they want an "independent adjudicator" not the courts. For this putative adjudication process to work a number of "givens" will have to be established for it to work. The law of contract - something the BPA happily relied on until a relatively short time ago - will have to be abandoned together with the obligation of a claimant to prove his case. In an adjudicator-led future an appellant would instead have to prove his case. This will be a travesty.

Please do not misunderstand the thrust of my argument. I am pleased that CF have now "chosen" to involve themselves and would do nothing to hinder them and, were I to be approached, would happily tell them what I know. However, I am very suspicious of the motives for wanting to investigate the situation now and, were the motives to be openly revealed (as I believe they should be without delay), feel that they should expect - and accept - some degree of criticism for the stunning level of alacrity they have demonstrated in responding to what is now a very mature consumer concern.

As its taken such a loooong time for any official body to become involved it would be really good to see some public servants actually serve the public, wear out some shoe leather and actually get a move on for once rather than creating just an other gravy train.[/cynical mode]