Parking Code evidence - pictures of signs with no £ DRA fee quantified or prominently stated

Castle

A few comments on the Furzton Lakes signs:-
1) There's no " no return" charge, so after 2 hours you can drive out and drive back in for another 2       hours free parking.
2) Towards the bottom of the signs they refer to serving a PCN from ANPR evidence and then go onto say "(Please see full terms)"; where are these "full terms"?
3) VAT number is missing.
4) No privacy policies on any of the signs.

kryten3000

Castle said:

A few comments on the Furzton Lakes signs:-
1) There's no " no return" charge, so after 2 hours you can drive out and drive back in for another 2       hours free parking.
2) Towards the bottom of the signs they refer to serving a PCN from ANPR evidence and then go onto say "(Please see full terms)"; where are these "full terms"?
3) VAT number is missing.
4) No privacy policies on any of the signs.

Nice spot on the lack of a "no return" policy, another one for me to try

I think the full terms are on the sign on the right in the "general view" picture.  I missed getting a close-up of that one, but they will be the same as the Willen Lake signs I posted some time back. 

Nellymoser

Tesco express Callander FK17 Scotland
PPC & RESTRICTIONS. I've stupidly taken photo of sign without pcn cost. I'm sure it was £70. There's a sign by the entrance but i can't make the amount out on my phone. Might be seen clearer on a computer if anyone can confirm. 

Coupon-mad

Thanks @kryten3000 and @Nellymoser and all contributors so far.

I've been putting the feelers out with the Brighton fan community; especially locals who I have helped.  I now have dozens / hundreds of photos from my contacts in various parts of Sussex and will start adding them here.

Nellymoser

Safari Adventure Park Stirlingshire FK9 Scotland  NO PPC  

Nellymoser

And a thank you @Coupon-mad and other regular posters for all your doing. Sharing your knowledge and advising on how to respond to the consultation is really helpful and very much appreciated especially when you do this while continuing to empower motorists and support them through their pcn journey.

Fruitcake

Using information gained from Companies House and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, I'm trying to think of a way without libelling/slandering anyone of mention in my call for evidence the former ownership until 2020 of the IPC by the same two men who at the time also owned the IAS and also owned a solicitors company that took motorists to court if their IAS appeals failed.

This could possibly be included in the "change in behaviour" section.

I also intend to include mention of things like the former CEO of the BPA being a sex offender who carried out sex acts whilst in charge of said BPA, the actions of the owner of a BPA member PPC who threatened to rape a motorist's partner, the former police officer who was dismissed for making sexual advances to the victim of a sexual assault and subsequently got a job with the IPC, and the disgraced school teacher who was sacked for making inappropriate comments/advances to pupils at a school dance who also ended up working for the IPC.

pinkelephant12

I have been monitoring parking cases at my local county court (Chelmsford).  In August there were 8 set aside applications listed for parking cases.  This is far more than for any other industry.  Indeed, set asides seem to be extremely rare except in parking cases.  These will presumably all return to court for another substantive hearing (or be discontinued if its DCBL) in due course. 

How could this information best be used in the Call for Evidence? 

Any suggestions would be welcome as I'm preparing my response in draft and will submit it nearer the deadline.

Half_way

one of the things that used to surprise me with the parking industry is how easy it is for someone to get personal data, without undergoing any Enhanced CRB/DBS checks.

In my opinion all PPC employees and owners should have a reasonable up to date enhanced CRB/DBS  check in place.

Coupon-mad

pinkelephant12 said:

I have been monitoring parking cases at my local county court (Chelmsford).  In August there were 8 set aside applications listed for parking cases.  This is far more than for any other industry.  Indeed, set asides seem to be extremely rare except in parking cases.  These will presumably all return to court for another substantive hearing (or be discontinued if its DCBL) in due course. 

How could this information best be used in the Call for Evidence?  

Any suggestions would be welcome as I'm preparing my response in draft and will submit it nearer the deadline.

I think you can use your evidence to answer whichever question it most closely matches. I'd say there are no hard and fast rules for consumers who decide to respond, so there is 'no wrong door'.

Even though the Qs are mainly aimed at the parking industry, the DLUHC do want to hear from you all.  Evidence is key.

Your evidence shows that DRAs are not doing the job they say they are doing, pre-action.  The idea that they are supporting vulnerable motorists and acting as a buffer to prevent cases going to court is (in ALL our experience) a lie.  In fact the £70 is encouraging unchecked litigation, proved by the huge % of CCJs and CCJ set aside applications that horrified right-thinking people are being forced to make to get justice.