REVIVING THE PRIVATE PARKING BILL

RogerW_3

Even more so if Burgess was not named as a witness in the filed N180, which was completed and signed by DCB Legal, and effectively stated that it would be the only witness.

Coupon-mad

RogerW_3 said:

Even more so if Burgess was not named as a witness in the filed N180, which was completed and signed by DCB Legal, and effectively stated that it would be the only witness.

I don't think that bit matters as he is employed. But breach of the DMCC Act is a civil offence which can be reported to the CMA (regulator).

RogerW_3

It matters when Burgess also lies in a witness statement and attempts to deceive the court in a naive belated attempt to disguise lies made in the DCBL Legal PoC. Even more so when he deliberately fails to attach a copy of an issued PCN to his witness statement as an exhibit in a deliberate attempt to hide the fact that no PCN was issued on the alleged date untruthfully stated in the PoC. Burgess is well aware that amended particulars needed to be filed provided that the court gives consent. Subsequently lying in a witness statement is not a wise option. He is only digging a bigger hole for himself. Failing to submit evidence that a PCN was issued should result in strike out for no valid claim/cause of action.

RogerW_3

Car1980 said:

Good news. Will Hurley has responded to the criticism of him in the debate:

Private parking companies "don't want to issue parking charges", an industry leader has insisted, despite around 41,000 tickets being handed out each day.

Will Hurley, chief executive of the International Parking Community, a trade body, also told drivers "if you're thinking about it, just don't park in a way that gets a parking charge". 

He added: "If you're really that upset by it, just follow the signs. If the signs are unclear, go and park somewhere else."

He also insisted the "vast majority" of the industry's income came from people paying for parking, adding "any business is there to make money".

              

Mr. Hurley is disingenuous. Given how few people actually use Conisbrough Castle Hill Car Park, his mate Simon Renshaw-Smith would earn very little income without relying upon inadequate signage and the Connect Cashless Parking app that doesn't work to con motorists into paying improperly issued parking charges. It is this kind of unscrupulous Excel behaviour that demands Government replacement of conflict of interest self-regulation by the IPC (including committee members Renshaw-Smith, Jake Burgess and Antonia Mitchell). Perhaps Hurley can clarify why the IPC (including committee members Renshaw-Smith, Burgess and Mitchell) has failed to properly audit that car park since the joint code was issued and taken necessary action to end Excel abuse of motorists? The answer is obvious - conflict of interest. A proper audit must be carried out by an independent body and not one controlled by Hurley or the IPC. In July 2025 Excel were still requiring payment by its unusable Connect Cashless app and still had unclear, ambiguous and misleading entrance signage with terms and conditions that no motorist can comply with because Excel removed it's advertised parking meters 6 years ago! Perhaps Hurley can explain why, due to the lack of a proper independent or IPC audit, Excel is still unfairly and unreasonably issuing parking charges to motorists as a consequence of its own contributory negligence? No motorist should ever be issued a parking charge due to a car park operator's contributory negligence. When am operator is negligent the IPC Version 9 made provision for that operator to request payment of the advertised tariff and nothing more. That is fair and reasonable. Both the IPC and the IAS are vehicles for Hurley to earn money.

Ralph-y

please break up the above txt with line breaks 

Ralph-y

OK could not wait ....

Mr. Hurley is disingenuous. Given how few people actually use Conisbrough Castle Hill Car Park, his mate Simon Renshaw-Smith would earn very little income without relying upon inadequate signage and the Connect Cashless Parking app that doesn't work to con motorists into paying improperly issued parking charges. 

It is this kind of unscrupulous Excel behaviour that demands Government replacement of conflict of interest self-regulation by the IPC (including committee members Renshaw-Smith, Jake Burgess and Antonia Mitchell). Perhaps Hurley can clarify why the IPC (including committee members Renshaw-Smith, Burgess and Mitchell) has failed to properly audit that car park since the joint code was issued and taken necessary action to end Excel abuse of motorists?

 The answer is obvious - conflict of interest. A proper audit must be carried out by an independent body and not one controlled by Hurley or the IPC. In July 2025 Excel were still requiring payment by its unusable Connect Cashless app and still had unclear, ambiguous and misleading entrance signage with terms and conditions that no motorist can comply with because Excel removed it's advertised parking meters 6 years ago!

 Perhaps Hurley can explain why, due to the lack of a proper independent or IPC audit, Excel is still unfairly and unreasonably issuing parking charges to motorists as a consequence of its own contributory negligence? No motorist should ever be issued a parking charge due to a car park operator's contributory negligence. When am operator is negligent the IPC Version 9 made provision for that operator to request payment of the advertised tariff and nothing more.

 That is fair and reasonable. Both the IPC and the IAS are vehicles for Hurley to earn money.

RogerW_3

Ralph-y said:

please break up the above txt with line breaks 

I am presently overseas on holiday and at the same time having to deal with a pile of untruthful Excel wombats doo. Line breaks are the least of my concerns. Be grateful that I even found the time to write what I wrote. 

kryten3000

RogerW_3 said:

It matters when Burgess also lies in a witness statement and attempts to deceive the court in a naive belated attempt to disguise lies made in the DCBL Legal PoC. 

The latest wheeze from Excel/VCS is to provide a redacted list of ticket transactions for a case sorted in alphabetical order instead of chronological in an attempt to hide any "gaps" in the machine being operational.

RogerW_3

kryten3000 said:

RogerW_3 said:

It matters when Burgess also lies in a witness statement and attempts to deceive the court in a naive belated attempt to disguise lies made in the DCBL Legal PoC. 

The latest wheeze from Excel/VCS is to provide a redacted list of ticket transactions for a case sorted in alphabetical order instead of chronological in an attempt to hide any "gaps" in the machine being operational.

Jake Burgess needs to stop trying to be clever. He ain't. Evidently he hasn't considered that he can always be ordered to unredact and then it will become obvious that he is merely attempting to deceive the Court. Desperate man flailing around to try and hide his legal inadequacies. According to his LinkedIn he merely has a Diploma in Law and Legal Practice.

Plus he evidently hasn't realised that being a member of an IPC Group stated in the IPC we site makes is ammunition to make it very obvious to a Court that he has absolutely no excuse for failing to comply with any IPC Code obligation. Even more so when he deliberately fails to state which version of the Code he is relying upon.

That IPC Group conflict of interest also potentially allows for his witness statements to be struck out every time.

He needs to learn that the correct witness to present is the direct knowledge person who actually does the job at Excel. I very much doubt that Burgess does the ANPR checks himself that are referred to in the IPC Code and are mandatory before any parking charge can be validly issued.

RogerW_3

Interestingly in his LinkedIn posts Burgess announced that he left Excel Parking Services around two years ago.