Objective assessment of Herald Article

dazster

Useful that the BBC has reported it. I've submitted a formal complaint stating that I don't believe they have an objective, independent source for this. It'll be interesting to see what they come back with.

beamerguy

Missing from the BCC report but as stated in the heraldscotland

"Combined Parking Solutions (CPS), who own the car park"

I am certain that many regulars here will be investigating and hopefully Parking Prankster will get involved

Herzlos

One of the sources mentioned it was a car park next to McDonalds, so it's entirely possible they do own it. But then it seems to be a free car park (for 2 hours at least), so I don't understand what the deal is.

Castle

beamerguy wrote: »

Missing from the BCC report but as stated in the heraldscotland

"Combined Parking Solutions (CPS), who own the car park"

I am certain that many regulars here will be investigating and hopefully Parking Prankster will get involved

According to the 30th June 2014 Accounts, CPS didn't own any land or property.

salmosalaris

Deleted_User wrote: »

Could it be that Edward Wales is a stooge for Combined Parking Solutions, and this is a put up job for publicity? The offender's comments, post case, don't ring true.

He shot JFK too you know

salmosalaris

beamerguy wrote: »

Missing from the BCC report but as stated in the heraldscotland

"Combined Parking Solutions (CPS), who own the car park"

I am certain that many regulars here will be investigating and hopefully Parking Prankster will get involved

And why is this important ?

Coupon-mad

I don't believe the person starting this thread is any different from the poisonous troll yesterday. The username makes you think of pies.

GEORGIEPORGIE

haha guarentee Im not the troll! my other post was RE parking in dundee.. I have apparently £3,000 of fines due to VCS. Generally interested in why the guy settled - last case i hear about in scotland was dismissed outright last June in Dundee

Herzlos

salmosalaris wrote: »

And why is this important ?

Because the landowner is the only one that can attempt to sue for damages, or someone with appropriate rights. If they aren't the landowner, and don't have said rights, there's no basis for them being in court.

nicechap

Deleted_User wrote: »

Could it be that Edward Wales is a stooge for Combined Parking Solutions, and this is a put up job for publicity? The offender's comments, post case, don't ring true.

That's what I've thought about previous perky puff pieces, he gets a mate/ friend/ employee to be the defendent and then uses the court to win the case and then any money awarded by the judge is just passed back to perky by his mate/ friend/ employee. So lots of lovely publicity for the cost of a submission fee.