Combined Parking Solutions are spot on.....

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

Why do normally sensible and sane posters shy away from engaging with those with whom they disagree. Take this person on, beat them with logic and reason, not insults..

They are a kind to ISIS in that logic and reason is not part of the grey matter and, today's little exercise proves there is no logic or reason

Half_way

The problem now is that if the PPCs go on a self righteous feeding frenzy then they may/probably will find themselves in the same position the clampers were in.
And the only outcome from that would be Legislation and regualtion, along similar lines to local authority/statutory control.
A ban on ANPR equipment could cause a few headaches for the likes of parking eye, a ban on free car park management.
A ban on the 'free' car park management could cause headaches for almost all PPCs

If you are a private Landowner and want your vast car parks managed, then you should pay for a registered and licensed operator ( possibly the local authority/council) With a truly fair and independent and regulated appeals process that is accountable only to the local authorities and the general public.
Any profits made should only be from the landowners ( the service charge for providing car park management ) , any moneys gathered from motorists ( ie parking charge notices) should be ring fenced and spent on things such as improving local public transport/ accessible transport schemes such as community transport schemes and so on, and again the amounts that can be charged for 'transgretions' should be heavily regulated.
At the moment im out of the Kent area and in the Midlands, and ive used a rather good council Park and ride service in Nottingham at a place called Queens Drive, park as long as you like (within opening hours) pay £3.00 ( yes three pounds) bus fare for a car load ( 1-7 persons) with a penalty of £25 for those not paying/fare dodging/staying after hours

Redx

beamerguy wrote: »

PS REDX .... PIGS ARE NICE COMPARED TO THIS WILD BUNCH

depends on which ones

my reply was a subtle reference to the identity of mr fish

ie:- its one of these https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsr_k1wKSWI

esmerobbo

CPS have always claimed they were 100% enforceable, yet they are still a tinpot outfit!

bod1467

stenthning ??

Nice to see their grasp of English is still commendable.

Herzlos

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

A bit rich from someone who is clearly working for a PPC, and who is hiding behind an alias. Only in your case, that's a clear breach of the forum rules. Tut, tut.

How long before MSE starts invoicing, say, £100, for breaching the rules?

ManxRed

Mike, why do you refer to CPS as 'they'?