Signs of the times, any issues with these ppc signs?

Half_way

Today i hacve been in the Nottingham and long Eaton area, and on my travels i spotted a few PPC signs fouling up the place, here are a few examples

Bottom: Riverside Retail park Nottingham, home to a large B&Q and a few other retail sheds ( Yellow sign red text, from BPM)

Middle: Taken in Long Eaton, a particularly unpleasent car park virtualy deserted White sign warning of claming, the only thing in it was the odd car and a dodgy looking van parked at the back - complete with two large blokes asleep on chairs in sitting the sun ( thought it was best not to distur them )

Top 2: CP Plus at donnington park service, the Registered keeper will be sent a PCN

hillcats

Half_way wrote: »

Tut Tut - I see the word penalty quite clearly !

RENEGADE_2

Should say "fine"!!!!!

or "two years imprisonment for the registered keeper"!

BASFORDLAD

Penalty charge naughty naughty

Half_way

The odd thing about the BPM yellow with red text signs is that they are completly clear of any BPA logos, im guessing that they are nothing more than a threatenting yellow envelope on the car and hope someones scared enough to pay up type operation.

The clamping sign hasnt got long to live, but whats stopping them keeping it up to make the threat?

As for the service station sign from Cp plus, this states that a parking charge notice will be sent to the registered keeper for non payment of parking, would this be enough to get the attenetion of the DVLA? their signs have all got the BPA logo on, however the smaller half way up a lampost signs also feature a symbol for a clamp, is this alowed?

Kite2010

At least it's a 0330 number which shouldn't cost the earth phoning from a mobile, unlike a 0844/0845/0870 number those "pay-by-useless-phone" places use.

taffy056

I would like to know if signs from those suspended from dvla access are still up, and if they do change the signs for keeper liability next month how can they be a part of it when they cannot get RK details ?

The_Slithy_Tove

Half_way wrote: »

As for the service station sign from Cp plus, this states that a parking charge notice will be sent to the registered keeper for non payment of parking, would this be enough to get the attenetion of the DVLA?

I doubt it. It doesn't say the RK is liable, just that the RK will get the notice which, for all we know, may actually say the driver is liable, and please pass it on.

bazster

The offending wording is still there on CPS' website. If you zoom in whilst watching the stupid cartoon you can see it several times, easy to screen-grab it too.

http://www.combinedparkingsolutions.com/#prettyPhoto[flash]/0/

"By parking on this land you are also agreeing that if you are not the registered keeper, the registered keeper has authorised all acts that you perform as the driver of the vehicle and that the registered keeper has agreed to accept liability and responsibility."

bazster

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

I doubt it. It doesn't say the RK is liable, just that the RK will get the notice which, for all we know, may actually say the driver is liable, and please pass it on.

Anyway, the DVLA already knows that the RK will get a notice. Otherwise, what else do they think that CP Plus is going to do with the information that they (the DVLA) have sold to them without reasonable cause?

Note for the DVLA: if you want to sue me for defamation please go ahead, but first consider these points:

- Where there is no contract (because the claimant has insufficient interest in the land, or because of absent, inadequate, inaccurate or misleading signage) there can be no "reasonable cause".
- Where the intention is to claim an unlawful penalty rather than a genuine loss there can be no "reasonable cause".
- Where the charge to be claimed arises as a result of unfair contract terms there can be no "reasonable cause".

bazster

Perky's gotta new sign! 'Tis on his Opal Fruits website!

http://www.combinedparkingsolutions.com/the-process/#prettyPhoto[pp_gal]/0/

It's still an open goal though! At no point in that verbiage does CPS make an offer of parking in its own right. Insofar as it does make an offer of parking, it does so as the landowner's agent (although in actual fact, although the "landowner's agents" are mentioned in general terms, nowhere does it actually state that CPS is the landowner's agent!)

Howsoever, if Perky is the landowner's agent then he can't take people to court in his own name. I can just see this one in front of a judge:

Honest and upright motorist (for it is he): "M'lud, I draw your attention to exhibit 'A', a photograph of CPS' sign at the car park in question. The sign makes it clear that, insofar as I entered into any contract, it was with the landowner. I have no contract with CPS, and as far as I can see the landowner is not party to this claim and is not represented here in the court today".

M'lud: "Hmmm. Who is the landowner?"

Honest and upright motorist: "I've no idea m'lud, it doesn't say on the sign".

M'lud: "So how could you enter into a contract with another party when you don't know who the other party is?"

H.A.U.M.: "I've no idea m'lud. You are an expert in the law, I am merely an oppressed plebian. Perhaps you could explain it?"

M'lud: "No, I can't either, it's bloody ridiculous. Case dismissed. Oh, and Mr. Perkins, please bring a toothbrush the next time you appear before me".

Oh, and if Perky thinks his dressing-up of the penalty as a parking fee will fool anyone, he's even more stupid than we thought.