Less than 3 minutes 30 seconds

LoneStarState

Well hello again

Backstory:
NTK received from OPS at the dreaded location of Broadwater Street West.
CCTV images show car pulling in, passenger getting out, car momentarily stopping in a bay, car picking up passenger and then leaving.
"Parking period" just under 3min 30seconds.  Full timeline of all images from entrance to exit just under 5min 30 seconds.
NTK within time but not scrutinised fully for POFA compliance but will check later.

Given the times, CoP clauses on minimum consideration periods, persuasive appeal case Jopson v Homeguard, relevant clauses in the consumer rights act and their own signage terms that I believe give up to 10 minutes to pay for a ticket (will get photos of the signs at some point to be sure), I fail to see where OPS can demonstrate reasonable cause to make a KADOE request.

Obviously there will be a DVLA complaint relating to this having read the thread about the woeful lack of complaints. 

I'll look into the landowner angle also.

I'm curious on opinions based on the info above from regulars of pre-emptively pursuing civil claims against OPS and potentially the DVLA (I know DVLA would be difficult) once correspondence/evidence trails have been sufficiently built up and it can be worked out fully where things stand.  I appreciate POPLA will (I'd hope) more than likely get this killed but I feel that simply isn't enough.  This would be for a breach of the DPA based on obtaining/releasing data when no reasonable cause has been demonstrated.  I guess I'm a little fed up of these parasites.

Coupon-mad

LoneStarState said:

Well hello again

Backstory:
NTK received from OPS at the dreaded location of Broadwater Street West.
CCTV images show car pulling in, passenger getting out, car momentarily stopping in a bay, car picking up passenger and then leaving.
"Parking period" just under 3min 30seconds.  Full timeline of all images from entrance to exit just under 5min 30 seconds.
NTK within time but not scrutinised fully for POFA compliance but will check later.

Given the times, CoP clauses on minimum consideration periods, persuasive appeal case Jopson v Homeguard, relevant clauses in the consumer rights act and their own signage terms that I believe give up to 10 minutes to pay for a ticket (will get photos of the signs at some point to be sure), I fail to see where OPS can demonstrate reasonable cause to make a KADOE request.

Obviously there will be a DVLA complaint relating to this having read the thread about the woeful lack of complaints.  

I'll look into the landowner angle also.

I'm curious on opinions based on the info above from regulars of pre-emptively pursuing civil claims against OPS and potentially the DVLA (I know DVLA would be difficult) once correspondence / evidence trails have been sufficiently built up and it can be worked out fully where things stand. 

 I appreciate POPLA will (I'd hope) more than likely get this killed but I feel that simply isn't enough.  This would be for a breach of the DPA based on obtaining/releasing data when no reasonable cause has been demonstrated.  I guess I'm a little fed up of these parasites.

You can't use POPLA because OPS have 'forum-shopped' for an easier PPC-partial farce of an appeals service and jumped to the IPC last year.

There's no appeal worth trying. This is exactly like your GXS case and this one will go the same way: Moorside Legal.

Look how the IPC entices new members with a promise of a a 95% win rate at IAS. Both IPC & IAS are owned by Will Hurley Ltd...draw your own conclusions...in fact I think you already know this, being a seasoned POC fighter, LSS!



OPS' little trap of a sneaky 'private road' section off Broadwater Street West in Worthing is a well known scam site. As a local lady myself, I've no idea why people turn off the street ... which is free and with loads of bays and kerbs to pull in! Never turn off the public highway to drop off passengers.

I never understand why drivers do that when this is exactly what bays (even restricted bays) and all single & double yellows are on street for: to allow drop offs and pick-ups. Stay on street every time.

Anyway, Worthing Judges know this scam site and OPS would have absolutely no hope at a hearing. Nor would GXS in your other case. My first parking case win was at Worthing court. The Judges aren't stupid.

Complain to your MP and await the court claim. There is nothing else to do because I think the landowner of this site is useless and won't stop OPS.

@ParkingMad might recall who that is and she might have the OPS contract. Just for info. There's no point appealing and no point suing them.

Complain to MP.

Complain to the DVLA but they'll fob you off.

Await the claim.

Tell them if you move house within 6 years.

ParkingMad

The landowner of the Broadwater Street West car park is Selits Limited and the managing agent is Stiles Harold Williams. Both companies are owned by the same person (Selits = Stiles backwards). This car park was in the Channel 5 documentary Parking: The Big Con? also featuring our very own @Coupon-mad

https://www.channel5.com/show/parking-the-big-con


This car park has also been in the Sunday Times- 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/one-parking-solutions-sucker-punch-didnt-knock-me-out-vcttbnjzt

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6221022/one-parking-solution-fine-parking-charge-notice/p1


Did the car drive past where Pay and Display is painted on the road (into the car park), or stop at the entrance by Starbucks? In the past OPS have issued PCNs to cars which have stopped or turned round in the entrance, which is part of the public highway, without actually going into the car park, which is on private land.

LoneStarState

Thank you for the rapid responses both.

Rest assured I have tirelessly tried to educate everyone close to me regarding not driving vehicles onto patches of private land and to use double yellows/out of hour residential bays/municipal car parks where even if you get tickets, they have to follow a statutory process, are cheaper and discounted rate can be maintained for longer.  But we are where we are.

Coupon-mad said:

Look how the IPC entices new members with a promise of a a 95% win rate at IAS. Both IPC & IAS are owned by Will Hurley Ltd...draw your own conclusions...in fact I think you already know this, being a seasoned POC fighter, LSS!

Do you have a copy of where this comparison slide came from?  Always knew the IAS was a joke but infuriating to see it so openly touted in this way.

ParkingMad said:

The landowner of the Broadwater Street West car park is Selits Limited and the managing agent is Stiles Harold Williams. Both companies are owned by the same person (Selits = Stiles backwards). This car park was in the Channel 5 documentary Parking: The Big Con? also featuring our very own @Coupon-mad

https://www.channel5.com/show/parking-the-big-con


This car park has also been in the Sunday Times- 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/one-parking-solutions-sucker-punch-didnt-knock-me-out-vcttbnjzt

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6221022/one-parking-solution-fine-parking-charge-notice/p1


Did the car drive past where Pay and Display is painted on the road (into the car park), or stop at the entrance by Starbucks? In the past OPS have issued PCNs to cars which have stopped or turned round in the entrance, which is part of the public highway, without actually going into the car park, which is on private land.

Thanks for this.  Yes unfortunately the car entered the pay and display area.

OK so in this case I think it best to complain ad nasueum, vigorously defend and depending on evidence/conduct throughout the process consider a counterclaim.  Is the IAS worth it this time, to generate evidence of their absurd decision making with a robust appeal?

ParkingMad

Have a read of this thread by @nicestrawb who managed to get their PCN cancelled by the same landowner.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6254243/stoke-abbot-road-ops-gladstones/p1

Also check your messages @LoneStarState

Coupon-mad

The IPC advert trying to entice PPCs over to them is a few years old but was found when I Googled:

ipc will hurley john davies gladstones

And it's the result on Imperial.co.uk

I'm on a device where I can't download & save it. Please do that now, and show it in full here, I'd like everyone and the MHCLG to see it.

LoneStarState

Thank you again

I've downloaded the presentation and will look to share after work.  Standby

LoneStarState

Full slideshow as agreed.  Interesting that Imperial is a provider of parking, traffic and environment management systems.  They provide the 3sixty and ChallengeSmarti software increasingly used by councils in PCN enforcement/challenges by motorists.

Coupon-mad

LoneStarState said:

Full slideshow as agreed.  Interesting that Imperial is a provider of parking, traffic and environment management systems.  They provide the 3sixty and ChallengeSmarti software increasingly used by councils in PCN enforcement/challenges by motorists.

Thanks!

You can see from the bottom that this slideshow was from ten years ago and they were promising an average '95% win rate' (95% lose rate for consumers...) at the IAS.

This evidences rogue practice, forum shopping by PPCs who were enticed by an appeals service that's never been fit for purpose and MUST be stopped.

fisherjim

Notice how their "Ethos" has no reference to any support for the needs of the public.

How on earth can a truly independent appeals service publish a pre-determined rejection rate?

How can an ATA blatantly own up to the fact that its "independent" appeals service is obviously in house?

Why has this obvious scam been allowed to continue?

Coupon-mad

LoneStarState said:

Well hello again

Backstory:
NTK received from OPS at the dreaded location of Broadwater Street West.
CCTV images show car pulling in, passenger getting out, car momentarily stopping in a bay, car picking up passenger and then leaving.
"Parking period" just under 3min 30seconds.  Full timeline of all images from entrance to exit just under 5min 30 seconds.
NTK within time but not scrutinised fully for POFA compliance but will check later.

Given the times, CoP clauses on minimum consideration periods, persuasive appeal case Jopson v Homeguard, relevant clauses in the consumer rights act and their own signage terms that I believe give up to 10 minutes to pay for a ticket (will get photos of the signs at some point to be sure), I fail to see where OPS can demonstrate reasonable cause to make a KADOE request.

Obviously there will be a DVLA complaint relating to this having read the thread about the woeful lack of complaints.  

I'll look into the landowner angle also.

I'm curious on opinions based on the info above from regulars of pre-emptively pursuing civil claims against OPS and potentially the DVLA (I know DVLA would be difficult) once correspondence / evidence trails have been sufficiently built up and it can be worked out fully where things stand. 

 I appreciate POPLA will (I'd hope) more than likely get this killed but I feel that simply isn't enough.  This would be for a breach of the DPA based on obtaining/releasing data when no reasonable cause has been demonstrated.  I guess I'm a little fed up of these parasites.

Coupon-mad said

You can't use POPLA because OPS have 'forum-shopped' for an easier PPC-partial farce of an appeals service and jumped to the IPC last year.

There's no appeal worth trying. This is exactly like your GXS case and this one will go the same way: Moorside Legal.

Look how the IPC entices new members with a promise of a a 95% win rate at IAS. Both IPC & IAS are owned by Will Hurley Ltd...draw your own conclusions...in fact I think you already know this, being a seasoned POC fighter, LSS!



OPS' little trap of a sneaky 'private road' section off Broadwater Street West in Worthing is a well known scam site. As a local lady myself, I've no idea why people turn off the street ... which is free and with loads of bays and kerbs to pull in! Never turn off the public highway to drop off passengers.

I never understand why drivers do that when this is exactly what bays (even restricted bays) and all single & double yellows are on street for: to allow drop offs and pick-ups. Stay on street every time.

Anyway, Worthing Judges know this scam site and OPS would have absolutely no hope at a hearing. Nor would GXS in your other case. My first parking case win was at Worthing court. The Judges aren't stupid.

Complain to your MP and await the court claim. There is nothing else to do because I think the landowner of this site is useless and won't stop OPS.

@ParkingMad might recall who that is and she might have the OPS contract. Just for info. There's no point appealing and no point suing them.

Complain to MP.

Complain to the DVLA but they'll fob you off.

Await the claim.

LoneStarState said:

Full slideshow as agreed.  Interesting that Imperial is a provider of parking, traffic and environment management systems.  They provide the 3sixty and ChallengeSmarti software increasingly used by councils in PCN enforcement/challenges by motorists.

Thanks!

You can see from the bottom that this slideshow was from ten years ago and they were promising an average '95% win rate' (95% lose rate for consumers...) at the IAS.

This evidences rogue practice, forum shopping by PPCs who were enticed by an appeals service that's never been fit for purpose and MUST be stopped.

fisherjim said:

Notice how their "Ethos" has no reference to any support for the needs of the public.

How on earth can a truly independent appeals service publish a pre-determined rejection rate?

How can an ATA blatantly own up to the fact that its "independent" appeals service is obviously in house?

Why has this obvious scam been allowed to continue?

Lord knows.

It is so flipping obvious that the Assessors aren't impartial - IMHO they're likely to be the same rookie legals who represent the 'outrageous scammers' at hearings because they trot out the same old rubbish.

And as for the Lead Adjudicator's anti-consumer (and anti-DLUHC) rants in the Annual Reports and crowing about the '95% win rate' over recent years, and the fact that both the IPC and IAS are owned by Will Hurley Ltd, what more does the Government need to see?!

If the MHCLG can't see the issue here and don't - IMMEDIATELY WHEN THE CODE IS FINALLY BROUGHT IN - completely ban and replace 'the IAS', including the non-standard version (where people pay to lose) then I've personally failed.