We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Parking board feedback
Options
Comments
-
MSE Forum Manager ,
I don't know if you are aware, but keeper liabilty is about to be introduced on the 01/10/12 , so things are about to change and the advice for this is changing. The threads that are going to be posted up until that date are now going to be out of date.
Is there any way that these threads can be closed ? With maybe a link to this subforum on the last post asking new posters to post a new thread .
Many thanksExcel Parking, MET Parking, Combined Parking Solutions, VP Parking Solutions, ANPR PC Ltd, & Roxburghe Debt Collectors. What do they all have in common?
They are all or have been suspended from accessing the DVLA database for gross misconduct!
Do you really need to ask what kind of people run parking companies?0 -
CPS has requested that we post the following update on their behalf:
On 30th November 2012 in Manchester County Court before District Judge Matharu the defendant made an application to strike out the claim and for summary judgement on the basis that under Part 24 of the CPR that the claim raised no cause of action (referring specifically to CPR 24.5(1)) and that the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) states no reasonable grounds.
The claim was listed as Combined Solutions UK LTD T/As Combined Parking Solutions -v- Mr Alexis Vallance under reference 2QT66034
The district judge during the course of the 3hr hearing heard all legal arguments and the application to strike out the claim and summary judgement made by the defendant was struck out and the case permitted to be listed for a full hearing.
The Judge on hearing all the evidence felt there was a reasonable prospect of the case succeeding.
Full costs of £403.80 were awarded against the defendant.0 -
So the claim (whatever it is) will be heard, it is only one hurdle. It's a shame they didn't ask you too post this before the cryptic postings last week?0
-
Not sure at all why MSE feels it has to allow a random parking company a 'Right of Reply' when someone apparently broke MSE rules just a couple of days ago by (yet again) posting about this 'posing as a newbie'. If MSE staff would just like to look at those deleted/reported posts about this matter it would be clear that they were not posts by a random person who happened to be passing the Court.
Remember that this is also one of the infamous PPCs who were recently banned for 3 months by the DVLA from obtaining anyone's data.
I fail to see why on earth the defendant should be named in this post, MSE Investigator? The judgment in the actual case appears not have even been made as yet - this was purely an early attempt to get a future case struck out. I would be extremely miffed if ever you posted my name just because a firm from an industry of cowboys (Martin Lewis' word) wanted a Right of Reply to gloat that they got some costs paid.
Remember that this is also one of the infamous PPCs who were recently banned for 3 months by the DVLA from obtaining anyone's data.
Smoke and fire.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
:think:
Not sure to what CPS want a 'right of reply' to anyway.
Can only speculate but this does not read like a straightforward PPC invoice dispute to me.Ethical moneysaver0 -
MSE_Investigator wrote: »CPS has requested that we post the following update on their behalf:
Update to what?One important thing to remember is that when you get to the end of this sentence, you'll realise it's just my sig.0 -
This is a misleading load of half-truths from Perky via "Forum Investigator". The post has been reported.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
Why is MSE acting as an organ of propaganda for a parking company whose associates have continually abused forum rules by posting without attribution? "Right of reply" to what? What happened is that an associate of Combined Parking solutions, who were banned by the DVLA from receiving motorists details via the DVLA, popped up last week crowing, and once again pretending to be someone else, about a court case but apparently unable to reveal the details. Now for some inexplicable reason MSE has taken it upon themselves to post a no doubt very biased statement on Combined Parking Solutions' behalf. Weirder than weird and not a very sensible way to run a forum.0
-
ripped_off_driver wrote: »Why is MSE acting as an organ of propaganda for a parking company whose associates have continually abused forum rules by posting without attribution? "Right of reply" to what? What happened is that an associate of Combined Parking solutions, who were banned by the DVLA from receiving motorists details via the DVLA, popped up last week crowing, and once again pretending to be someone else, about a court case but apparently unable to reveal the details. Now for some inexplicable reason MSE has taken it upon themselves to post a no doubt very biased statement on Combined Parking Solutions' behalf. Weirder than weird and not a very sensible way to run a forum.
Yes particularly as the case itself has not actually been heard.0 -
Indeed, a dismissal of the defendant's application for summary judgement is as I understand it a routine preliminary matter and not a substantive judgement on the merits of the claim at all. There would have to be a full hearing to decide on this at a later stage. MSE seem to have taken leave of their senses by posting this statement as a virtual mouthpiece for Combined Parking Solutions - did they even do any checks on the information? And why are they posting the defendant's name? Have they even checked with Alexis as to whether any of this is true or did they think it appropriate to post a totally self serving statement on behalf of Combined Parking Solutions without making any basic checks? Let's hope "MSE Investigator" has lived up to their name and made thorough checks before posting this material.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards