Wright Hassall and Gladstones -- VERY DODGY PRACTICE -- BPA/POPLA and IPC /IAS -

beamerguy

Wright Hassall prove their incompetence to deal with parking issues

THE PRANKSTER
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2016-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2017-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=41

The BPA also prove their incompetence, Wright Hassall are clueless and motorists are likely to get shafted during the upcoming appeals process.

AND ....
Gladstone Solicitors score triple whammy
The infamous Red Cow Yard mobsters (IPC/IAS)

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/gladstone-solicitors-score-triple-whammy.html

MESSAGE TO PPC's WHO USE GLADSTONES OR ARE IPC MEMBERS

We know you read this forum .....

At some point no doubt parking companies will wake up and smell the coffee and realise that Gladstones are taking them for a ride.

Redx

that blog about Excel seems slightly incorrect to me

on the PCN he posted it states ASHTON RETAIL PARK, which I believe is Gala Bingo in Ashton under Lyne, but later states the Peel Centre which is some 5 miles away in Stockport, which is the one linked over on pepipoo

I dont disagree with the ideas pranky has put forward as regards the WH debacle but the Peel Centre is not Ashton Retail Park , but Excel do "manage" both car parks so its easy to get confused so dont mix up what he is saying with his location example

edit, here was the part in small print I missed due to looking at the pcn

Here is a typical Notice to Keeper from Excel

edit, so I now think that maybe he is using the pcn from one car park to illustrate the details on a pcn for another car park, not the actual pcn sent to the OP over on pepipoo

so it seems its actually about the INFAMOUS Peel Centre, so I agree with prankster`s footnotes and I always advise everyone to avoid the peel centre like they would avoid ebola

As the car park in question is the Peel Centre, one of the worst signed car parks in the country and one which forms a sizable part of The Prankster's mailbag, nothing could be further from the truth.

Here is a map showing just how bad signage coverage is in part of the Peel Centre. Only the bays in green have a reasonable chance of noticing signage. Bays in red have almost no chance. Of particular concern is the dearth of signage by disabled bays. The Prankster considers Excels disrespect for disabled drivers in this car park as wicked.

he is especially correct about how they treat disabled drivers there too, including the very poor signage

Parking-Prankster

I didn't have the actual PCN to hand so I used the one from the British Motorists Protection Association as a reference, and checked with one I had on file for the peel centr4e from 2014 to make sure they were the same.

Sorry for any confusion

Redx

no problem , just that it wasnt made obvious enough so fooled me

maybe move the sentence to the end and BOLD it for clarity, making sure that the blog is about the peel centre again , lol

cheers

edit, I see its been altered now and reads better and is more clear where the photo came from and the location named on that photo should be ignored for the purposes of the blog

peter_the_piper

According to excel £25 to use the IAS ADR scheme, £15 for them to put it to ADR and and you have to pay the disputed amount up front, to be returned if you win. What a con (if I've read it correctly)

trisontana

"However, if your appeal is rejected you will be required (my underline) to pay the full amount, plus any debt related costs"

Anyone reading that would would assume that it's a done deal and they must pay up. Nonsenses of course. You are not "required" to pay anything, unless a court orders you to. So yet another misleading statement by this bunch of clowns

pappa_golf

umm , they make you put the "fine" money in a escrow account , and help themselves to it afterwards




sorry I said "fine"

hoohoo

trisontana wrote: »

"However, if your appeal is rejected you will be required (my underline) to pay the full amount, plus any debt related costs"

Anyone reading that would would assume that it's a done deal and they must pay up. Nonsenses of course. You are not "required" to pay anything, unless a court orders you to. So yet another misleading statement by this bunch of clowns

If you use the non-standard IAS you have to agree it is binding, and that you have no right of appeal

https://www.theias.org/the-ias-private-parking-charge-appeals-rules-and-procedure

2.5 Pursuant to section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, by entering arbitral proceedings, both the Trader and the Consumer agree;

2.5.1 to have no ability to appeal an award made in proceedings under these Rules;

2.5.2 to dispense with any need for reasons for the tribunal’s award; and,

2.5.3 to exclude the court’s jurisdiction under sections 42, 44 and 45 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

2.6 Pursuant to section 73 of the Arbitration Act 1996, by entering arbitral proceedings, both the Trader and the Consumer agree that neither party shall be able to raise any objection- (a) that the tribunal lacks substantive jurisdiction, (b) that the proceedings have been improperly conducted, (c) that there has been a failure to comply with the arbitration agreement or with any provision of this Part, or (d) that there has been any other irregularity affecting the tribunal or the proceedings, at any point after the Arbitration is concluded.

beamerguy

As shown on Prankster today

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2016-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2017-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=43

It's all about Gladstones again.

Another cash cow for John Davies Gladstones Solicitors

Seems like Gladstones / IPC /IAS are going into
competition with their own members.

How do IPC members, the crazy PPC's who wrongly joined the IPC now rate their decision ? The sad fact is that IPC members have joined a bucket of highly charged Manure and as the saying goes
"you fight manure with manure"

Seems like IPC members are being scammed in the same way they try to scam the motorists

beamerguy

beamerguy wrote: »

As shown on Prankster today

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2016-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2017-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=43

It's all about Gladstones again.

Another cash cow for John Davies Gladstones Solicitors

Seems like Gladstones / IPC /IAS are going into
competition with their own members.

How do IPC members, the crazy PPC's who wrongly joined the IPC now rate their decision ? The sad fact is that IPC members have joined a bucket of highly charged Manure and as the saying goes
"you fight manure with manure"

Seems like IPC members are being scammed in the same way they try to scam the motorists

Further to the above
This is People's Parking as shown on Prankster.
http://www.peoplesparking.org/home

They offer "accreditation" for car park operators for £100-£150 ?
BUT WAIT ..... the domain is owned by John Davies Gladstones Solicitors / IPC / IAS ??

I guess most parking operators would like us, wonder where the credibility actually comes from ?

beamerguy

beamerguy wrote: »

Further to the above
This is People's Parking as shown on Prankster.
http://www.peoplesparking.org/home

They offer "accreditation" for car park operators for £100-£150 ?
BUT WAIT ..... the domain is owned by John Davies Gladstones Solicitors / IPC / IAS ??

I guess most parking operators would like us, wonder where the credibility actually comes from ?

MORE ON PEOPLE'S PARKING

UPDATE FROM THE PRANKSTER
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2016-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2017-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=44

Seems to me that the kangaroos are hopping around like headless chickens in the Red Cow Yard