Posting on the Parking Board – your help please

Former_MSE_Andrea · 1 May 2014 at 3:25PM

MSE Update November 2017

Hi everyone

Please could all forumites using this board re-read our original post below.

Thank you!

----

Please read our Don't Pay Unfair Parking Tickets News story for MSE's stance.

Hi everyone,

As you’ll be aware this board was set up for users to find factual information about parking tickets fines, whether they are enforceable or not, and the appeals and actions process.

What it was not set up to do was to pursue any one individual or company to the extent that some users on here have, again, despite our previous requests not to.

You might think it's your "right" and that we should back you fully, but we are governed by the law of the land and our Rules and T&Cs make it pretty clear that posting names and personal details, and making personal comments about others is simply not allowed.

In recent months, we have again had to deal with complaints about this board. Here at MSE we fight your corner as a consumer and we believe much of the private parking industry is a Wild West full of many cowboys ripping off honest motorists, as we’ve seen and heard too many stories to suggest otherwise (and some staff here have been on the end of unscrupulous tactics). However, some firms do also act fairly.

The problem we face is when people make allegations without evidence against a specific company, calling them “scammers” or “criminals”. Without evidence, this becomes a legal problem and we may have to remove threads and posts to protect the site. We prefer to keep our resources focused on fighting hard for you to fight unfair tickets and keeping that debate unabashed than having to deal with a legal sideshow about ‘is the name-calling fair?’ – so please help us help you by moderating the language not to accuse of illegality.

We are a small team managing over 150 Forum boards, all requiring resource. So we cannot investigate every complaint to gather the required evidence, sadly. We’d love to do just that to fight your corner even further but it is not always possible.

We can support your factual comments, we can’t support personal remarks about others

We can only support factual comment that operates within our Rules and T&Cs. Personal, antagonistic arguments against individuals break these and we cannot defend it. If you keep things non-personal, on topic, factual, can prove everything you say and work within these rules and T&Cs, we will always do our best to defend your comment, as we do everywhere. If not we shall have to speak with you and if it continues, may have to remove a poster’s posting privileges.

We hope this comes across in the manner it is intended. Please help us to help you, by working with us to defend your comments.

Thank you

MSE Forum Team

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2 · 1 May 2014 at 3:37PM

Andrea answer this question then please:

What pressure has Parking Eye put on you?, have their solicitors sent a letter to you.....

I would be interested to know why MSE bows down so easily to the likes of Parking Eye and others

ok certain words should not be used, however the is nothing wrong with using the word rip of when referring to parking companies, because this is quite simply true.

Why are parking companies not brave enough to register on here and post under their own companies names?

Perhaps Andrea you could actually give us a full break down of the issues that the parking companies have given you.

Obviously Parking eye spend the whole trawling this and other forums. Anyone wonder if it is part of their GPEOL calculation?

Stroma · 1 May 2014 at 3:42PM

Another thread where the folks at MSE are accusing people of doing stuff enmasse, if someone breaks the rules then surely you should be taking it up with the individual poster, not accusing everyone of doing it!

And if this complaint comes from an individual company then post which company this is, if its coming from many sources then name them. I for one will not be altering the way I post. I give information out that is factual and to the point.

hoohoo · 1 May 2014 at 3:47PM

As Andrea posted to here and two parkingeye threads, I guess it wa parkingeye. One thread was a year old, which is a bit weird.

Can't really tell what the actual naughty posts were though

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2 · 1 May 2014 at 3:48PM

Why would someone be scared of a Hill Dickinson letter?

BenefitMaster · 1 May 2014 at 3:49PM

As a legally trained person dealing with threats against a famous blogger from a large Parking company, I would respectfully point out that their threats are based on lies, bluff and bluster.

They have been threatening to sue for 6 months...

bargepole · 1 May 2014 at 3:55PM

Suggested response from MSE to Hill Dickinson:

Dear Sirs,

We are in receipt of your letter dated xx/xx/xx.

We are also aware of your predeliction for making utterly baseless threats on behalf of clients who operate on the fringes of legality.

Kindly inform your client that, on this occasion, our answer is the same as that given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).

Yours faithfully,

MSE.

SevenTowers · 1 May 2014 at 4:08PM

If any individual, or limited company continues to send out speculative invoices to unwary members of the public, in the full knowledge that its own industry appeals body has, time and time again, ruled that such invoices are invalid, and the individual or company relies on the ignorance and fear of the large number of people who are not aware of such rulings, to pay these invalid invoices, such an action can only be described as a scam.

zzzLazyDaisy · 1 May 2014 at 4:15PM

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

What it was not set up to do was to pursue any one individual or company to the extent that some users on here have, again, despite our previous requests not to.

Given that PE are the most prolific litigators, issuing more small claims than all the other PPCs put together, it is hardly surprising that there is a greater focus on assisting posters who are on the wrong end of LBC's and County Court Claims. It is a simple issue of statistics.

I suspect that their ire is more to do with the fact that defendants are having increasing success in resisting court claims with the assistance of the regulars on here (on and off forum). Including having the claims referred back to POPLA (for which PE no longer even produce evidence, as they are fully aware that POPLA will rule against them), and also successfully obtaining awards of costs in favour of the winning defendants.

Coupon-mad · 1 May 2014 at 4:47PM

Not sure why MSE are bothered about a threatogram from PE & their hired helps - didn't the Defamation laws recently change to make bloggers and forum guru's {PPC World's own unnecessary apostrophe included} responsible for their own posts online?

Also I have hardly ever seen PE described recently as a 'scam' 'rip-off' or 'cowboys' on here, we don't bother because they are soooo easy to beat at POPLA and perfectly possible to beat in small claims as well. They aren't really worthy of bothering to slag them off, they do a good enough job themselves by issuing charges that are not a genuine pre-estimate of any loss and then throwing the toys out the pram when POPLA make them lose every time.

Finally a reminder that the word 'cowboys' about this 'industry' was coined by Martin Lewis in 2009 and it's in an article here and in the National Press.

What would be great is if all courts referred PE claims back to POPLA, as a first step every time!

waamo · 1 May 2014 at 4:50PM

I will bet they try and get prolific posters banned next.

Posting on the Parking Board – your help please

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free