Some great blogs over on The Prankster tonight

Umkomaas

The great private car park planning approval scam

Long read, but worth the effort. More to come on that by the look of things. Go to the link showing the research done which highlights the jaw-dropping abuse.

You’ll easily find a number of sites near to you without advertising consent. I think where you find them you should consider bombarding your LPA to take criminal action against the PPC(s) involved, reminding them that retrospective consent is not an option.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/the-great-private-car-park-planning.html

A further blog:

Courts buckling under number of claims.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/courts-buckling-under-number-of-claims.html

beamerguy

Well well, I seem to recall that the SRA could find
no connection with Gladstones and the IPC ?
Think it was a letter received from the SRA by The Deep

Now we see what looks like an advert headed ...
IPC and the Gladstones logo ??

Was this advert on Gumtree, a well known site for scammers

FROM THE ADVERT/LEAFLET/FLYER

Just give us your unpaid tickets and we'll do the rest ??
Entering judgements in default ??
No upfront fees ??
This is a limited offer ??

If this is SRA approved then the "OLD BOYS CLUB"
have lowered themselves to scammer activity

Guys, this really needs extra special attention by the
government to expose and close this scam down

The Gladstones scam is far bigger than the "pay day"
scams.

And the crazy thing is that Gladstones are utter rubbish
in court ......

GLADSTONES --- IPC -- SCAM

Johno100

Umkomaas wrote: »

The great private car park planning approval scam

Long read, but worth the effort. More to come on that by the look of things. Go to the link showing the research done which highlights the jaw-dropping abuse.

You’ll easily find a number of sites near to you without advertising consent. I think where you find them you should consider bombarding your LPA to take criminal action against the PPC(s) involved, reminding them that retrospective consent is not an option.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/the-great-private-car-park-planning.html

That guest blog is painfully repetitive, doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know/suspect and as Bargpole states in the comments.

But the fact remains, that there hasn't been a single example of a PPC losing a court case because their signage didn't have planning or advertising consent.

The argument has been tested on numerous occasions, and not one single Judge has considered it significant.

So what is the point?

Parking-Prankster

beamerguy wrote: »

Was this advert on Gumtree, a well known site for scammers

This advert was in the IPC newsletter sent out to parking company members

Umkomaas

It’s never been put forward for ‘testing’ in its own right in the setting of a civil parking case. That role falls to a Local Authority to issue criminal proceedings. Hopefully enough pressure will cause a LA to buckle and push forward.

Let’s wait and see, clearly shuteyepark has the bit between his teeth - and surely his efforts should be applauded?

beamerguy

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

This advert was in the IPC newsletter sent out to parking company members

Tongue in cheek comment where scammers get together

IPC Newsletter then ?

Maybe pointed at Excel/VCS to change from BWLegal ?

As you rightfully say Alex ....

"It is interesting that a pair of scoundrels can make themselves rich through a business model which disregards the fact that they are hopeless in court, (as often reported), but instead relies on bullying and intimidation to make motorists pay charges which based on Gladstones record, they would not be liable for if the case went to a hearing."

Although ..... Scoundrels is a bit tame for these low life

whiskeytoothpaste

Bargepole- would this be a chance for defendants to play judge bingo? The more it is integrated into well prepared defences? Or, at the very least a viable point of counter claim/appeal?
Bit new to this so I just wondered

Johno100

Umkomaas wrote: »

It’s never been put forward for ‘testing’ in its own right in the setting of a civil parking case. That role falls to a Local Authority to issue criminal proceedings. Hopefully enough pressure will cause a LA to buckle and push forward.

As with everything with PPCs it's a numbers game. In the unlikely event that one LA prosecutes a PPC they are still quids in when it comes to the savings they've made up and down the country by not applying for Planning Permission and Advertising Consent.

Now if there was a centralised planning authority who could prosecute for mass breaches around the country and obtain an order that a PPC had to regularise planning issues at all sites they operate at then it might make a small dent in their profits. But as there isn't such a body and everything is left to cash strapped LA's it isn't likely to happen.

beamerguy

The companies who contract with the PPC's should be made
liable to ensure they have planning permission.
Failure to do this could mean a fine by the local council
against the principal

Johno100

beamerguy wrote: »

The companies who contract with the PPC's should be made liable to ensure they have planning permission.

Failure to do this could mean a fine by the local council against the principal

Well you better get onto your MP to get all the various law changes needed to implement such a proposal.

beamerguy

Johno100 wrote: »

Well you better get onto your MP to get all the various law changes needed to implement such a proposal.

Nice thought but as we know most MP's are useless.

But it could be included in the forthcoming members bill

Plus on all signs, the name and address of the principal
who contracted the PPC