Parking stories in the News/media

Nellymoser

Whatever2023 said:

They benefitted from use of the land and didn’t pay for the privilege; therefore, bang to rights.

Nellymoser said:

But you fail to mention they didn't benefit from the PPC's CoP 5min consideration period nor their 10min grace period.

Castle said:

Sounds like Loading, (of pre-ordered goods), rather than Parking.

So do you agree @Whatever2023 that Britannia's PCN was incorrectly issued and they breached their CoP. And would you agree that Britannia should have refunded the fearful couple's £60 payment since the error was after all Britannia's.

You know your industry really does make the collection of poor practice evidence so so easy.

Whatever2023

The driver a) exceeded the consideration period and b) wasn’t reviewing/considering the terms of the contract (the purpose of the CP) in any event.

A grace period is added to a paid for / free parking period; therefore, does not apply to this matter.

I fail to see any error on the operators part.

Nellymoser

Failed to consider "loading not parking" as castle states.

NCC1701-A

Typical myopic consideration as stated in so many IPC rejections that are never brave enough to test their views in front of a judge.

Umkomaas

Another 'landmark' victory via Contestor. Napier and BWL issued inadequate POC, after a strike-out application, Napier instructed to file more detailed particulars, on receipt, the Defendant issued a counterclaim. Napier didn't defend. Over £1,500 spank! Ouch.

https://www.contestorlegal.co.uk/blog-3/victory-against-napier-parking-limited-over-1500-awarded-for-breach-of-im-and-misuse-of-personal-data

patient_dream

Nellymoser said:

Failed to consider "loading not parking" as castle states.

How to handle a problem like Britannia Parking ?  YOU CAN'T

I have attended court to help members on here being attacked by Britannia three times.  THEY LOST EVERY CASE

The first case was dismissed because Britannia did not understand what an entity
was ..... On the same day in the Oxford Court, the same happened

Last December in Reading court, BWLegal had two claims for Britannia 
Whilst it was the same person, same placr, same Britannia, BWLegal refused to join the cases together so, two cases a week apart which wasted the courts time

The first week ..... claim approx £700 . The Judge dismissed the case due to poor signage ... The second week was different (approx £500)  A different Judge started by telling the legal if he won, the maximum he would award was £100
This Judge dismissed the case also on signs but on the basis of a frustrated contract.
WHY, because this was during covid where places were closed and the sign stated the car owner must register the VRN inside the pub. Of course the pub was closed ? so it was impossible to enter the pub

Britannia knew this and BWLegal should have known but still continued to take two timewasting cases to court.

When I see that Britannia cannot "spot the difference" betwen LOADING AND PARKING .... it comes as no surprise given what I have seen

Apart from the new code of practice, a school of learning how to be professionals should be set up by the BPA. This applies to both the legals and parking companies
HOWEVER, it is clear that the parking companies and legals run the BPA

All in all, this is a very low class industry who will continue dragging themselves in the sewers

Half_way

Whatever2023 said:

The driver a) exceeded the consideration period and b) wasn’t reviewing/considering the terms of the contract (the purpose of the CP) in any event.

A grace period is added to a paid for / free parking period; therefore, does not apply to this matter.

I fail to see any error on the operators part.

Loading is not parking , i fail; to see any reason why anyone is backing a scumbag out of control parking industry that doesn't care about car park management, only its own abiity to make as much money as possible.

 With that said and done, and without taking that any further down the same route thats been trod before - where  a PPC employee, or even owner tries to derail a thread on  here by spouting rubbish - key give away word is when the parasitic parking company is referred to as an "operator" - but anyway enough of that and onto what this thread is about ...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cineworld-customer-furious-after-being-32435001

"

Cineworld customer furious after being hit with £60 parking fine while watching three-hour film"

If the "parking company" was all about car park management the parking charge would have been immediately cancelled, but then again the industry doesn't care about car park management just making as much money as possible.

 And The BPA limited will be very happy with this as calling it a "fine" all helps to confuse people and adds to the smoke and mirrors.

 If one day everyone refused to pay PPCs then the whole thing would collapse.

Maybe one day we will see a PPI type refund scandal, where landowners will be forced to pay out for the actions of their agents if the PPCs and their employees are unable to cough up

NCC1701-A

Whatever2023 said:

The driver a) exceeded the consideration period and b) wasn’t reviewing/considering the terms of the contract (the purpose of the CP) in any event.

A grace period is added to a paid for / free parking period; therefore, does not apply to this matter.

I fail to see any error on the operators part.

Judges and barristers appear to disagree with your analysis, 

https://youtu.be/L2FXsxpm04E?si=m39_TuRw5Tk4yjLY

Half_way

What is an "operator"

Jenni_D

NCC1701-A said:

Whatever2023 said:

The driver a) exceeded the consideration period and b) wasn’t reviewing/considering the terms of the contract (the purpose of the CP) in any event.

A grace period is added to a paid for / free parking period; therefore, does not apply to this matter.

I fail to see any error on the operators part.

Judges and barristers appear to disagree with your analysis, 

https://youtu.be/L2FXsxpm04E?si=m39_TuRw5Tk4yjLY

Following that link I only see:

Video unavailable

This video is private

🤷‍♀️