Excel kicked out of Keighley

Ben_Richards

It seems the fair residents of Keighley have had enough! -

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/15434669.Motorists_glad_to_see_the_back_of_controversial_parking_enforcement_company/?ref=mrb&lp=2

The_Deep

Out of the frying pan I suspect.

beamerguy

Made my day ........ Rogue Traders are not wanted
and in Particular EXCEL :rotfl::T

molerat

The_Deep wrote: »

Out of the frying pan I suspect.

Mr Grogan added that he was intending to set-up a meeting with the company now responsible for supervising the site, Hertfordshire-based firm G24 Ltd.

G24 Ltd declined to comment when approached this week, referring the inquiry instead to what it said was the car park's owner, B&M Stores.
However, B&M Stores denied it owned the site.

Interesting times ahead then.

Umkomaas

Reported here 3 weeks ago.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72794135#Comment_72794135

fil_cad

Some other scammer will take their place, and nothing will change.

Coupon-mad

So they turn to poxy G24, another IPC member who operate in EXACTLY the same way, with ANPR cameras and no appeal worth trying. What IS the matter with these stupid retail parks?

bargepole

"I'd hope things can only get better under its stewardship," he said.

Paul Howard, manager of Keighley Business Improvement District (BID), shares the hope that the change will bring about improvements.

"We hope the fact there's a new management company in place reduces the number of complaints this car park generates – and that the company handles things in a more pragmatic way," he said.

So they got rid of one bunch of lowlife parasites, who took every possible opportunity to fleece users of the car park, and have replaced them with a different bunch of lowlife parasites, who will look for every opportunity to fleece car park users.

Why do these landowners and business leaders never get it? Inviting PPCs on to your land is just asking for trouble.

waamo

Didn't somebody once say the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over in the vain hope of a different result?

RobinofLoxley

Intrigued to see this in the Telegraph and Argus article.

'Bradford Council said the use of the land as a regulated car park was lawful and both the signage and cameras are immune from planning enforcement action.
An Excel Parking spokesman said: "Signage and cameras installed at the retail park had the benefit of permitted development rights. We've previously provided evidence to Bradford Council that the cameras had been in-situ for more than four years'.

Really!

AFAIAA a development such as a retail park would need planning permission. Even if it did fall under 'permitted development' and didn't require planning permission, below is a quote from the Governments own website 'Department for Communities and Local Government Planning practice guidance and Planning system', re planning permission for building development.

Even if a planning application is not needed, other consents may be required under other regimes. The following list is not exhaustive but illustrates some of the other permissions or consents that may need to be obtained before carrying out development:

works to protected trees
advertisement consent
listed building consent
hazardous substances consent
environmental permits/licences
building regulations
It is the developer’s responsibility to ensure that any necessary permissions, consents and permits (including permits and licences outside of planning such as those granted under the Licensing Act 2003 and Gambling Act 2005) are in place when required.

Umkomaas

Almost every council approached in relation to PPC signage advertising consent have either turned a blind eye, or have granted 'retrospective consent' (even though that option is not open to them).

They clearly don't want to take on the PPCs. And PPCs know that!