We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
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).
📨 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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
New cobblers from Perky
bazster
Posts: 7,436 Forumite
http://www.combinedparkingsolutions.com/update-october-2012/
Apparently he is 100% compliant and ready. Oddly enough he fails to mention that he is still barred from obtaining RK details.
Apparently he is 100% compliant and ready. Oddly enough he fails to mention that he is still barred from obtaining RK details.
Je suis Charlie.
0
Comments
-
Regarding that "criminal offence". It's much better to refuse to name the driver. I received this from Norman Baker:-
The alternative option was to make it a criminal offence for the keeper to refuse to name the driver in charge of the vehicle. This was discarded because criminal sanctions were deemed a disproportionate sanction to a parking charge on private property.
What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?0 -
I love this bit:
"much to the annoyance of various online anti-parking consumer forums who continue to supply worthless defences to assist people in avoiding payment – Combined Parking Solutions are pleased to have a 100% success rate in court actions where these defences have been submitted." , thats a bit of a porky as it was proved they lost a couple of cases and they didnt reply when asked about them. Perky telling a porky, well i never!!
He was obviously reading pepipoo as he says "It is also a criminal offence under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (Fraud by misrepresentation) if a keeper dishonestly gives an incorrect name or address of a driver which is publishable by a term on upto 10yrs and a fine upon conviction upon indictment"- Again Perky has been spending to much time at Solihull law schoolFor everthing else there's mastercard.
For clampers there's Barclaycard.0 -
He should really be saying
These consumer websies have really annoyed me!, i tried to come on MSE and pretended to be a real motorist with court papers from CPS, and showed a clear picture of my spanking new sign"
I was found out and reported to the DVLA and then banned for three months
Shows what an idiot i am
Yours sincerely
PerkyFor everthing else there's mastercard.
For clampers there's Barclaycard.0 -
I see we're an 'anti-parking website'.
No, we're an 'anti-unenforceable fine website' Get it right, pork pie boy!
No one on here has any gripe against 'parking'.Je Suis Cecil.0 -
What really amuses me is that under the POFA - and within the t&cs of POPLA and the BPA code of practice - charges have to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Perky's charges are the opposite of that, he has bragged on here before that his charges are not for breach of contract, not for loss at all. We could quote him on that several times over!
Also his firm are still offering a kickback to the landowner as a revenue-booster incentive, and like most PPCs, the tickets are their sole income, their only source of revenue at all.
Loss? :rotfl: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 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »What really amuses me is that under the POFA - and within the t&cs of POPLA and the BPA code of practice - charges have to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Perky's charges are the opposite of that, he has bragged on here before that his charges are not for breach of contract, not for loss at all. We could quote him on that several times over!
Also his firm are still offering a kickback to the landowner as a revenue-booster incentive, and like most PPCs, the tickets are their sole income, their only source of revenue at all.
Loss? :rotfl:
He says his charges are for a period agreed in advance for parkingFor everthing else there's mastercard.
For clampers there's Barclaycard.0 -
BASFORDLAD wrote: »He says his charges are for a period agreed in advance for parking
Well that rules out the (absent) RK then. How can they agree to something they haven't had sight of?What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?0 -
BASFORDLAD wrote: »He says his charges are for a period agreed in advance for parking
Yeah you send him an email or text asking for permission lol , he's not going to get away with garbage like that, as for his 100% success rate in court one big LOLExcel 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
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards