We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Sunday Times Article - One Parking Solution
Comments
-
Thats really nice to hear. A shame the ppc didn't share the sentiment. No one forced them to claim costs if it was indeed the judge that overstepped.
The ppc could have asked for a third party costs order, but I imagine they didn't run that point and if not, you don't really get to complain about those assisting unnecessarily incurring costs.3 -
AnotherForumite said:Just out of interest, given the devastation for parking companies due to covid .... are you guys going to food banks ?
Enjoy this moment in time
.... it's now time limited and I suspect you will be one of those who have gone crying to government to keep your farm in place. I guess it is going be a case of Jenrick v the motorist. .
2 -
Ah the "entitled brigade". Exactly who are they again?...{Signature removed by Forum Team - if you are not sure why we have removed your signature, it's probably Gladstones}2
-
nicestrawb said:Ah the "entitled brigade". Exactly who are they again?...0
-
Those that have no respect for the wishes of landowners; and think that they car park as they see fit.
Fair enough. So explain why a significant number of cases here concern parking companies pursue residents who have an absolute legal entitlement to park in a space unencumbered and:
1. The ppc ticket for minor permit infractions
2. The ppc litigate even where entitlement to park is demonstrated
3. The ppc signs on their own case claim to "sell" parking licenses for £100 to those not displaying permits, notwithstanding that it is the residents who in fact have title and who almost certainly have never agreed to that.
All of that is inconsistent with what you say, @AnotherForumite.
The fact is that there are inconsiderate drivers who park badly, for sure, but the conduct of a number of cases by ppcs is such that they only have themselves to blame that defences are followed up robustly.9 -
Every case I have assisted on for family and friends locally has been a victory for the appellant or victim , against Parking Eye , Excel , JAS parking , ECP etc
Some were landowner or retailer cancellations ( British land , Morrisons , Asda etc ) , some were Popla appeal wins where the landowners wishes were not complied with by the Parking company after the contracts were produced or unredacted which showed cover ups by the Parking company that were tantamount to fraud )
I have lost count of the number of Pals complaints I have assisted with over the years where the hospital trusts have cancelled , plus there are plenty of recent Roadchef , Moto and Iceland cancellations even when court claims have been started by non POFA compliant parking companies !!
Don't even get me started on Care parking and Metrolink here in Manchester , or Apcoa at Victoria station where the actual landowner is Network rail who know nothing about what their TOC sub contractors are doing with their sub sub contractors !!
Most landowners have no idea what goes on until their customers bring it to their attention , some companies have issued tickets outside the boundaries of their remit , like at airports , or issued no stopping charges at stop signs of zebra crossings on airports , or PCN,s on network rail land where bylaws apply
The list goes on , not one MP objected in parliament , because they are sick of the complaints mailbags they get weekly
But yes , the bilkers and fly parkers exist and will continue to exist , even after next summer in 20225 -
Johnersh said:Those that have no respect for the wishes of landowners; and think that they car park as they see fit.
Fair enough. So explain why a significant number of cases here concern parking companies pursue residents who have an absolute legal entitlement to park in a space unencumbered and:
1. The ppc ticket for minor permit infractions
2. The ppc litigate even where entitlement to park is demonstrated
3. The ppc signs on their own case claim to "sell" parking licenses for £100 to those not displaying permits, notwithstanding that it is the residents who in fact have title and who almost certainly have never agreed to that.
All of that is inconsistent with what you say, @AnotherForumite.
The fact is that there are inconsiderate drivers who park badly, for sure, but the conduct of a number of cases by ppcs is such that they only have themselves to blame that defences are followed up robustly.
Personally, I like to steer clear of residential parking as it a massive pain in the proverbial; (P&D is much more straightforward) but for those that we get ASKED to manage:
1. Not sure what you mean by 'minor infractions, but we tend to cancel on the first occasion on the proviso that a) the driver is a bonafide resident and b) that they engage with the appeals process correctly.
2. I can't speak for other operators, but the only time we end up litigating in this setting is where the motorist has failed to engage with us at an early stage and wait until LBC stage (usually due to advice from forums such as this); at which point it's too late to just cancel as we have incurred costs that need to be accounted for. We would still offer a generous discount at this stage (providing that they are a bonafide resident, not just someone who has managed to get hold of a permit and present is as their own). In summary, we only litigate in this setting if the driver/keeper is particularly stubborn and they leave us no option.
3. You have lost me on this one.0 -
AnotherForumite said:nicestrawb said:Ah the "entitled brigade". Exactly who are they again?...
"the wishes of the landlord" ...... doubtful the landowner knows about your tricks you get up to ?
Chasing people with fake add-ons, using circus clown debt collectors and so called legals who still think 2 + 2 = 6 ?
That's why a landowner cancellation is now the order of the day.
3 -
AnotherForumite said:Johnersh said:Those that have no respect for the wishes of landowners; and think that they car park as they see fit.
Fair enough. So explain why a significant number of cases here concern parking companies pursue residents who have an absolute legal entitlement to park in a space unencumbered and:
1. The ppc ticket for minor permit infractions
2. The ppc litigate even where entitlement to park is demonstrated
3. The ppc signs on their own case claim to "sell" parking licenses for £100 to those not displaying permits, notwithstanding that it is the residents who in fact have title and who almost certainly have never agreed to that.
All of that is inconsistent with what you say, @AnotherForumite.
The fact is that there are inconsiderate drivers who park badly, for sure, but the conduct of a number of cases by ppcs is such that they only have themselves to blame that defences are followed up robustly.
2. I can't speak for other operators, but the only time we end up litigating in this setting is where the motorist has failed to engage with us at an early stage and wait until LBC stage (usually due to advice from forums such as this); at which point it's too late to just cancel as we have incurred costs that need to be accounted for. We would still offer a generous discount at this stage (providing that they are a bonafide resident, not just someone who has managed to get hold of a permit and present is as their own). In summary, we only litigate in this setting if the driver/keeper is particularly stubborn and they leave us no option.
Does the landowner know of this feeble attempt to earn a living ?2 -
@AnotherForumite I'm obliged for the response on my latter points, if not the earlier ones.
I am sure that a number of tickets are sensibly rescinded, although I have seen some silly ones on here which were not, but which ought to have been. The resident who's permit had slipped so the hologram was partially obscured was a particular favourite. A tad over-zealous by the parking attendant.
I still struggle to see that there are any significant costs pre-issue, where template correspondence is sent. That's more like general business overhead. What amounts to an admin fee should be modest rather than a discount to the PCN in my view.
The third point was just an observation - it's ironic, really. Technically most residents signs offer up contractual parking for £100 as an alternative to displaying a permit. The fee being sufficient to discourage non residents. Logically that is precisely the opposite of what the landowners seek, which is not to invite all and sundry to park.4
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards