OPS refusing payment plan

Coupon-mad

She has the 10 mins and 15 mins the wrong way round, haha, and the signs and the email from the landowner prove it.

95Rollers

patient_dream said:

This jobs worth admin bod must find it Embarrassing to keep begging for £100 for a mere 4 mins overstay, that's if it's true.

The CEO of the BPA clearly stated that ANPR was not 100% reliable ..... we know that, government knows that and councils cannot use the system because it's not 100%

OPS need to prove their system actually works correctly which I suspect they cannot so it raises doubt.

The jobs worth does not understand logic and the final answer will be a judge spanking OPS AND HOPEFULLY award your costs

It's unbelievable!  They appear to be making it up as they go along!  

She obviously wants her employers to get a large chunk of a vulnerable adults money who only didn't leave sooner because they were having a personal crisis relating to their condition which is covered under the Equality Axt which these ex-clampers have only had 12 years to be aware of!  Shameful! 

It's also very convenient that once her contradictions were pointed out she suddenly had all the answers!!!  There is nothing regarding these new unwritten ever-changing fluid rules on their signs or in the carpark itself so where is she getting this info from!?! I'm guessing it's been yanked of the air by her supervisor that converted garage side office.  

From memory the Contract doesn't specify when this 15 minutes is? Whether before or after. What's to say that the OP wasn't looking to stay longer - but then changed their mind when their needs changed!?!  There is NOTHING on the signs or contract about periods of return or forbidding returns! 

What's not to say that people get back to their cars then decide to stay longer if their plans changed so do they not get a period to figure out whether they want to go or pay to park longer (if the machine actually takes their coins or they can get a bloody signal!!). 

Their ANPR at this site is questionable at best- i drove in and out a few times, but they will only acknowledge my first and final entry/ exit times.  It will be interesting hearing why they point blank refused my SAR for my ANPR data!  I am guessing the truth derails their own greedy, demanding and hypocrital narrative!

Let's see what a court makes of this!  These contradictions are all good evidence for a Witness Statement. 

95Rollers

SavvySaverSam said:

I have received yet another update from the administrator. 

I wonder if she realises her emails completely contradict their own on site parking signs?! 

Anyhow, I’ll be sending them
my last email & wait to see they decide to take me to court. 

I would put in your final email to her/ OPS that the info you've been given so far is all over the place and contradictory - what is their reason for this?  Its a valid question that needs answering. 

Also ask her WHERE any of this info is displayed in said carpark as there is NO trace of it on their entry or T&C signs, nor on their website nor has it been mentioned on any of their Postal or Email correspondence...until NOW!  Why is this? Why are they NOT being transparent with THESE terms?!?  How do they EXPECT people to KNOW this when this info isn't publicly available? Telepathy!?!  I think we all know the answer to that- but put it to them! I'll be doing so in court! 😉

It's good fuel for your WS if it comes that far?!?  They think they are entitled to your money so its not unreasonable to scrutinise their practices!  

patient_dream

95Rollers said:

SavvySaverSam said:

I have received yet another update from the administrator. 

I wonder if she realises her emails completely contradict their own on site parking signs?! 

Anyhow, I’ll be sending them
my last email & wait to see they decide to take me to court. 

I would put in your final email to her/ OPS that the info you've been given so far is all over the place and contradictory - what is their reason for this?  Its a valid question that needs answering. 

Also ask her WHERE any of this info is displayed in said carpark as there is NO trace of it on their entry or T&C signs, nor on their website nor has it been mentioned on any of their Postal or Email correspondence...until NOW!  Why is this? Why are they NOT being transparent with THESE terms?!?  How do they EXPECT people to KNOW this when this info isn't publicly available? Telepathy!?!  I think we all know the answer to that- but put it to them! I'll be doing so in court! 😉

It's good fuel for your WS if it comes that far?!?  They think they are entitled to your money so its not unreasonable to scrutinise their practices!  

What you mean is that OPS and the admin bod prone to errors, both are incompetent, we would all agree

95Rollers

Yes I would agree that they are both incompetent.

BUT what i was actually getting at was they don't publish the "Rules" re: grace periods etc in this carpark on their signs or even on their website - therefore making these terms of the contract unknown and  inaccessible to the public. 
No doubt its deliberate so people can/ will fall afoul of these unknown hidden unwritten rules so they can use their ANPR to obtain their details then Tax these non-psychic motorists (because the only way you'll learn of these terms which are NOT printed in this dump of a carpark is by looking into a crystal ball or using your powers of Telepathy if you are gifted enough to possess these which most of us aren't  !). 

If the "rules" are clear people won't unknowingly "breach" them. Which in turn will smash down their victim pool and therefore dent their takings because this is where the bulk of their revenue comes from.  If it wasn't then they would be acting transparently. Because they know full well what's going on. But would rather behave in an evasive aand sketchy predatory manner because its a better business model for them.  There's no other reason!

patient_dream

And the infamous BPA know this as well. It's just another case to show that the BPA are not fit for purpose

95Rollers

Exactly.  There is no official body to regulate them, hold them to account or sanction them so is it really any wonder why these companies do what they like without impunity despite knowing that the courts disprove of their actions.  But due it being a loophole where they can operate outside the law nothing really comes of it. The police can't do much sadly as acting unethically and exploitative isn't evidence of fraud or is clearly covered in the Fraud Act.

patient_dream

95Rollers said:

Exactly.  There is no official body to regulate them, hold them to account or sanction them so is it really any wonder why these companies do what they like without impunity despite knowing that the courts disprove of their actions.  But due it being a loophole where they can operate outside the law nothing really comes of it. The police can't do much sadly as acting unethically and exploitative isn't evidence of fraud or is clearly covered in the Fraud Act.

But remember, when the code of practice was proposed in the House of Commons, it was said that it will not be just parking companies who will be terminated but ATA's could suffer the same action as well

Umkomaas

patient_dream said:

95Rollers said:

Exactly.  There is no official body to regulate them, hold them to account or sanction them so is it really any wonder why these companies do what they like without impunity despite knowing that the courts disprove of their actions.  But due it being a loophole where they can operate outside the law nothing really comes of it. The police can't do much sadly as acting unethically and exploitative isn't evidence of fraud or is clearly covered in the Fraud Act.

But remember, when the code of practice was proposed in the House of Commons, it was said that it will not be just parking companies who will be terminated but ATA's could suffer the same action as well

Which is why I said in the consultation that any sanction points imposed on an ATA member should equally be imposed on the ATA. When either breach an agreed threshold, disciplinary action would ensue, ultimately resulting in either party meeting their maker!  That way the ATA would be forced to much more closely police their membership. 

MothballsWallet

Unless my maths is wrong or misunderstanding, 10 + 15 = 25 minutes grace period.

Assuming the parking session is 2 hours, that leaves 21 minutes 43 seconds from the email the OP received.

25 minutes - 21 minutes 43 seconds = 3 minutes 17 seconds.

Has this administrator ever studied maths?