Parking board feedback

Former_MSE_Forum_Manager

Hi Folks,

I know there has been a lot of consternation over this board of late, specifically in terms of threads and posts being removed and clarity for what is going on. I have a few points to cover, so please stick with me.

So to start off with, an apology from me. We wanted to communicate earlier but there has been a lot going on behind the scenes that has made it very difficult. That isn't an excuse, it's a reason but either way I can understand the frustration. This board was set up for users to find factual information about parking tickets fines, whether they are enforcable or not and the appeals and actions process.

What it was not set up to do was to persue any one individual or company to the extent that some users on here have. You might think it's your "right" and that MSE should back you to the hilt, but we are governed by the law of the land and our Rules and T&Cs are pretty clear that posting names, personal details and similar are not allowed.

It's important for you all to know a few things. Number one is that over the last few months, we have dealt with a HUGE amount of complaints about this board, and we've spent a huge resource in terms of time and money fighting where we can. Our legal costs are vast. We are a consumer champion and accept that this side comes with the territory (broadly speaking). However, you also need to realise that you are anonymous usernames posting content on a public forum.

To you, there is no cost and this is your board. We have a small team managing over 100 boards, all requiring resource. In a perfect world we'd have more resource, but this is currently what I have and how we operate. Thus, when people constantly post names, facebook links, emails, google maps and use words like "scam", "cowboys" and other such terms, it quickly becomes a legal problem and we may have to remove threads and posts to protect the site.

There has been several accusations that we have been "bullied". We have not.

The fact this board has not been shut, there are a lot of active threads and the content we have removed has strayed from this board's brief should indicate that we fight what we can, where we can. If we didn't care or I believed we could not operate as a consumer champion on this topic, the logical course of action for us would be to close it. We haven't.

There has been an accusation that the fact we are now part of the Moneysupermarket group has forced a change in our stance or policy. It has not.

Firstly, the accusation is factually incorrect. As I type the sale hasn't completed and we are not yet. That aside though, this process will not affect how this forum operates. To accuse us of it is frankly a cheap shot and insulting to everying we've done for the best part of a decade that this forum has been active for.

We have an editorial code which is in place to stop exactly this which can be read > HERE <

There has been an accusation that one of our team is a family member of one of the parking companies people. They are not.

Even if there were, which they are not, if I ever thought a staff member was breaking our own policies and using their position to abuse the forum we would have a huge problem with that and deal with it accordingly.

Some users have had their posting privileges removed. Yes, they have.

For any user that this has happened to, they have been spoken to by the team a number of times and asked to tone it down. I know for a fact some people still active on this board right now have been spoken to and still continue. We don't ban for no reason; what would the point be of having a forum if we did that? It's completely counter productive to what we do. That said, I have a duty of care to protect us from legal challenges, have to ensure people are conducting themselves approriately and are adhering to the overarching rules of our forum. If they cannot do that, when we ask, we cannot allow them to keep posting.


The crux to all this is that we can only support factual comment that operates within our Rules and T&Cs. Personal, antagonistic arguments against individuals break these and we cannot defend it. If you keep things on topic, factual, can prove everything you say and work within these rules and T&Cs, we will always do our best to defend your comment, as we do everywhere.


Lastly, the issue of us removing links or posts of a certain document. For my own peace of mind I asked our legal team to draft the following for you:

"Dear MSEers,

Just a short message on why we have decided to remove threads on the subject of and links to a PCC contract with a landowner, posted on our forum. As you know, we are a small forum team, here to help the forum run smoothly. Our focus is on helping MSEers save money. It is difficult for us to adjudicate on disputes between users where facts are in dispute.

It is also very time consuming. In this instance, the dispute is whether or not a contract between a PCC and a landowner should be published to the public, using our forum. The PCC in question contends that the contract is a commercially sensitive document which was disclosed to a party in court proceedings under the protection of privilege.

MSE users reply that the contract is a public document which was referred to in open court. In the meantime, we understand that proceedings have been commenced in Northampton County Court against one of our users for wrongful disclosure of the document. To protect our users and of course the site, we have decided that we will delete links to the PCC contract in question until we have notice that the courts have adjudicated and ruled that it is a public document and that it was not wrongfully disclosed.

We hope you can understand our position and will assist us in our efforts."

That's what I have to work with and the position we are taking, as advised by our legal team.


Still reading? Phew!
I truly hope this comes across in the manner it is intended and that it clears up at least a lot of the things that go on behind the scenes here and what we are trying to do for you. By the same token, you have to work with us so we can defend your comment. I always want us to support this board, it's users and our consumer champion role. What we cannot do is support that when users don't operate within our Rules, T&C and the law.

I hope it helps and, again, I am genuinely sorry that we've gotten to this point. My aim is for us to all learn a little from the last few months and to draw and line and move onwards and upwards.

BASFORDLAD

The claimant in the court case hasn't got a cats chance of winning. We should hear the outcome of that in the near future

Plushchris

MSE_Forum_Manager wrote: »

In a perfect world we'd have more resource, but this is currently what I have and how we operate. Thus, when people constantly post names, facebook links, emails, google maps and use words like "scam", "cowboys" and other such terms, it quickly becomes a legal problem and we may have to remove threads and posts to protect the site.

Not meaning to pick holes but surely "cowboys" cant be that much of a problem... http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets

SodG24

Thanks for that full and frank post. I apologise as someone that was very critical of your team. I'll not continue to post such comments going forwards.

muckybutt

Many thanks for your informative reply, it is greatly appreciated :T I shall follow suit accordingly and also offer my sincearest apologies to the team should any of my recent posts or comments offended them

fivetide

Good response and not too late either. Good touch having the legal side in there as well.

Cheers,

5t.

BASFORDLAD

Forum manager:

Can you answer as to what you intend to do about the troll from one PPC(u know the one) that constantly comes on here despite being constantly deleted.

We all know who is he, yet it isn't dealt with?

Please explain.....

Former_MSE_Forum_Manager

Plushchris wrote: »

Not meaning to pick holes but surely "cowboys" cant be that much of a problem... http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets

This is a very good point. I think the main problem comes when we identify an individual or organisation specifically as such, but I will check and see if I can enlighten us from our legal team, as I'd like clarification here too.

I suspect there is also a difference between user content and editorial stance and risk calculation but I might be wrong.

Either way on the forum it causes me a legal headache

Trebor16

Thanks for the informative reply but some of the points you have raised do need correction.

1. There has been no witch hunt or concerted effort to pursue one individual or company. In fact the reverse is true with one individual persistently coming to MSE and posting using multiple identities to pursue an agenda designed to confuse members, especially those coming here for the first time having been on the receiving end of an unwarranted demand for payment by a PPC.

2. What evidence has the PPC in question provided to say that a contract given to a defendant in a country court case is a priviliged document? The document itself is covered bythe long standing principle of open justice, CPR 5.4C (and Practice Direction5A) and CPR 32.13, and I suspect the PPC in question is fully aware of this.

3. The recent ruling by the Upper Tier Tax Tribunal is very pertinent to the contract in question and it gave an example of how PPC's contracts are written and how they will be affected by the UTT tribunal ruling.

4. The board member being pursued by the PPC in question is not being pursued for publication of the contract but for other reasons. Your understanding that the disclosure of the document is at the heart of the court case is incorrect.

JagDriver

Thus, when people constantly post names, facebook links, emails, google maps ... we may have to remove threads and posts to protect the site.

If the information regarding any of the above is publicly available, and some times it should be present by law (I'm thinking here of registration number, registered address etc which should be present on 'business letters' -which includes signs in car parks), it should be OK to post it.

I also note that by implication if a post remains then it passes the 'legality' test.

Finally most peoples contact with these 'operators' is usually as the victim of 'bullying' so it's hardly surprising when they think that you yourselves are being bullied by the same. I have posted on this forum, before your post, that you as the owners have something to lose where as the members don't. I suspect that it's second nature for some of the 'operators' to 'go for the money' and as such they will 'goad' the members (usually anonymously also - despite being against the BPA rules) whilst at the same time applying their legal teams to apply 'gagging' orders on yourselves.

Plushchris

I get it, so we cant say "**cowboy parking company** are a bunch of cowboys" but we can say "most/all PPCs are cowboys" right?

And we cant say "John Wayne of Cowboy parking company is a cowboy" but we can say "most/all PPC employees are cowboys"

I'm with you pilgrim