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
-
Coupon-mad said:Do you REALLY think it is acceptable that a PPC can draw up an aerial view of 'the site' that is bigger than the six bays leased, and create and sign a 'management agreement' for that larger area that doesn't feature the freeholder of the site as a party or signatory?{Signature removed by Forum Team - if you are not sure why we have removed your signature, it's probably Gladstones}3
-
My point is that I can't see the Scrutiny Panel and new framework and CoP, deeming it acceptable.
And as for the ‘admin costs’ add-on...HHJ Hegarty got it right in the High Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield paras 419 - 428 and that was why ParkingEye dropped the added false costs and proceeded to the Supreme court in Beavis with a parking charge of £85 with no false added costs enhancing the parking charge, and the Supreme court said at 98, 100, 193 and 198 that the £85 included ALL the costs of a case (i.e. the letters) before the case was taken to court.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD4 -
Is it unreasonable to take the landowner point when several judges have found against PPCs on the point ?
Of course i'm not party to what submissions were or weren't made, but whether the decision against is correct or not, i can't understand how raising a point, successfully argued in other courts as well as the lower court in this case, is unreasonable.6 -
Once upon a time there was a world before PPCs infested car parks and oddly back then there was no car park chaos as touted by the likes of the BPA ltd and co.It just seems perverse that with the rise of PPCs infesting ca parks instead of clearing up any perceived car park chaos exactly the opposite has occurred.Same again with the Protection of freedoms act supposedly cutting down on court cases - again exactly the opposite has occurred.The whole industry as in the bit that relies on parking charge notices for income is rotten.I am in a position where i can have access to peoples personal data in order to get to that point i have had to do a (mostly tedious) training session on GDPR and data protection as well as having regular background checks such as enhanced CRB and DBS.and yet any Tom !!!!!! or Harry can rock up, set themselves up as a PPC and get full access to the DVLA database - no Enhanced DBS/CRB required not even a regular "lite " DBS/CRB check. It wouldn't take much for a PPC employee to use this data for dishonest means.But then again maybe all those who work in PPC land have clear records, with no past convictions for anything like dishonesty/violence/threats/abuse/fraud or anything else that would bar them from a job working with vulnerable adults ( and/ or under 18's) and maybe the DVLA keeps a close check on thisBecause lets face it, there are a fair few people who need help and post to places such as this who could easily fall into the vulnerable adult categoryFrom the Plain Language Commission:
"The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"10 -
I think that the Sussex county court area controlled by this bad HHJ should be boycotted with the reason of "unfair justice" ........ Those who would normally select a court within this region can easily move into the Hampshire region or Kent, anywhere where this HHJ does not have a say
4 -
perhaps I should have said 'once more unto the breach'......
1 -
I’ve just taken a fresh look at the page- it reminds me how kind and generous we are and how we try to help one of our own in crisis. The very best against the very worst of society.4
-
zhonguonuren said:I’ve just taken a fresh look at the page- it reminds me how kind and generous we are and how we try to help one of our own in crisis. The very best against the very worst of society.
1 -
It is very sad that our judicial system has not moved on much for 100 years and has failed to get into the current century. There are twists that could go back to Henry Vlll and this terrible decision by this HHJ is one of them ?
This is after all a small claims court ?
Robert Buckland MP should get involved, the government know about the parking scam so clamp down on the rogue traders3 -
northcountry said:Whoever is doing the reporting is actually shooting their cohorts in the foot.3
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