Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • markudman
    • By markudman 8th Jan 18, 9:44 PM
    • 304Posts
    • 182Thanks
    markudman
    Resident Parking
    • #1
    • 8th Jan 18, 9:44 PM
    Resident Parking 8th Jan 18 at 9:44 PM
    Hi I have found the bottle to start a thread, I have read the Newbie’s Thread and followed some of the advice,
    Here is my story, I moved into a new flat with my wife and kids, in Sept 2017, the parking cowboys, PCM mismanage the parking, I am off work sick due to an autoimmune disease which means I have problems with pain all over my body so cannot always help my wife with, Kids Shopping, etc.

    I had 3 cars, (sold one now) but got about 8 tickets, for different reasons, but all the usual reasons, PCM would not issue permits until they got the V5 in my address, this took a few weeks, we asked for temp permit which after a fight with the managing agent got them, also we got scratch cards and displayed them in the cars, but still got tickets,
    there are 3 entrances to the estate, only one (the back one) has signs on them .
    I have talked to the landlord and are not interested in helping, but have not spoke to them yet about quite enjoyment.

    So after reading lots of forums, decided to play a game with them, I appealed knowing that they would get rejected, I then used different letters and appeals to IPS, I am waiting for their rejections.

    The main reason for appeal was signage or lack of it, they say they have 63 signs throughout the estate, (it’s a big estate) which may or maybe not be true, but there are no signs on 2 of the entrances and have photos to prove, a total of about 20 photos showing the entrance and a walk through to the parking etc,
    a few signs can be seen, one which is about 20 foot away from the parking area, over a grassed area which cannot be read from the parking area, and one which is next to one saying resident parking only, so confusing.

    I have checked the size of the signs and they are not bigger that 0.3 sqm so no advertising consent needed, I am checking planning soon.

    I have 2 NTK from them, for the same car, one to the hirer, and one to the keeper? Both say they got the details from DVLA, and my wife is a Mr, but the V5 is Mrs,

    I have asked them for proof that they have a contact with the land owner.

    On their Prima Facie Case they say that they have a contact with Merton Council since 2009, the land was sold to a housing association in 2010? I have checked this with land registry and downloaded the plan.

    The other point which I am hoping will be a winner if all else fails, (I have not gone along this line yet with the appeals) is my tenant’s agreement, it has no referents to parking in it, but says:
    Common Parts,
    Means any part of the building containing the property and any land or premises which the tenant is entitled under the terms of this tenancy to use in common with the landlord and other owners or occupiers of other flats in the building.
    As in:
    In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

    In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
    Last edited by markudman; 08-01-2018 at 9:50 PM.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Jan 18, 1:44 AM
    • 63,875 Posts
    • 76,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 9th Jan 18, 1:44 AM
    • #2
    • 9th Jan 18, 1:44 AM
    You might find PCM back down in some IAS appeals, as another poster said they did, last week. If not, then the IAS will likely not find in your favour but you don't then pay.

    You'd almost certainly win in court if they try a small claim; that's the more winnable stage (with forum help here).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • markudman
    • By markudman 9th Jan 18, 8:47 AM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    • #3
    • 9th Jan 18, 8:47 AM
    • #3
    • 9th Jan 18, 8:47 AM
    Many thanks Coupon-Mad, I have a bigger goal too, after talking to other tenants, and the fact over Christmas a lot of the signs where defaced, there is a massive unease with PCM, I may get a group thing going, lets see what happens to my stuff first
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Jan 18, 9:30 AM
    • 10,583 Posts
    • 10,419 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 9th Jan 18, 9:30 AM
    • #4
    • 9th Jan 18, 9:30 AM
    Have you read Davies v UKPC, Jopson v Homeguard and the many posts about residential harassment on Parking Prankster's blog. in so many cases, PPC get their noses bloodied in court when they try to interfere in residents' rights to peaceful enjoyment.
    Last edited by The Deep; 09-01-2018 at 2:40 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • markudman
    • By markudman 9th Jan 18, 2:45 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    • #5
    • 9th Jan 18, 2:45 PM
    • #5
    • 9th Jan 18, 2:45 PM
    Thank you The Deep I'll go research now
    • markudman
    • By markudman 9th Jan 18, 7:44 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    • #6
    • 9th Jan 18, 7:44 PM
    • #6
    • 9th Jan 18, 7:44 PM
    Tips UKPC v Masterson
    1. Issuing claims with limited information or no information is a common trick by parking companies as it puts a defendant to a significant disadvantage. So you have to find a way round it by chasing the parking company or whoever hired them
    2. Signs are always open to interpretation so it is best to get your own copies as soon after as possible. Another trick that is played, is that different signs from the ones that were at site are produced with the parking company claiming an "error" or "rogue operatives". This latter excuse was used when UKPC "rogue operatives" - a lot of them - were found to be changing the timestamps on photographic evidence.

    Tips UKPC v Peenith
    1. UKPC will try to hide their contract and may not even produce it unless challenged. You must always continue to press UKPC for a copy of the contract at every stage. You can even chase your Managing Agents for a copy under s20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
    2. In a later case, Pace Recovery v Mr N, the tenant had a copy of their own lease/rental agreement and was able to show that that agreement had primacy over the later introduction of parking enforcement. So it can't be stressed enough to get your own lease/rental agreement and check it.
    3. Multiple tickets will always get the parking company excited and will usually lead to a claim. As soon as you get one or two tickets, get involved in clarifying your lease and what it gives you. There are plenty of sources of free housing advice. It will save you money in the long run.
    Often with a Leasehold situation, you can get a claim from a parking company hired by a Managing Agent about which you have no details. The parking companies will claim to be there to keep trespassers out but more often than not end up charging residents for small errors when parking on their own land. In fact some parking companies only exist to penalise residents.

    If you want to see what arrangements your Managing Agent has made with the parking company and for what purpose send a "S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985" notice to the Agent asking for details of the "Long Term Service Contract" they have made with the parking company. They have 21 days to reply.
    A "Long Term Service Contract" is defined in law as contracts for services that last for more than one year and cost any one leaseholder in a block more than 100 per year. At the same time, ask for the Managing Agents own contract as that falls within the definition too.
    If the site is considering using a parking company, you have a right to be consulted under S.20 of the Landlord
    and Tenant Act 1985 which means you should receive information before the contract is signed.
    The first notice of intention must describe what the agreement is about, and the second notice of proposals should list the cost estimates and tell you where you can inspect them. So ask for the cost estimates too.
    County Court case on the primacy of a lease over a parking contract.

    Link Parking v Parkinson
    There is no evidence before me to suggest that they have in any way undertaken steps to vary the lease, and I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that section 21 applies such that by engaging the company they have applied new and binding regulations on the leaseholders. A mere letter regarding permits would not, in my judgment, suffice in this regard.

    Jopson v Homeguard
    In June 2015, Laura Jopson was unloading furniture and parked directly in front of the communal entrance to the flats on Wolverton Park Road, rather than use her designated parking space because it was too far away
    The case rested both on the fact that under the terms of the lease, Laura Jopson (a resident) had a right of way to the block’s entrance which new parking regulations disregarded; and that the new parking regulations imposed by the parking company did not come to Laura’s attention.
    The Judge found that under the terms of the lease, the resident and her fellow tenants (as well as people making deliveries or those dropping off children or disabled passengers) have a right of way to the block’s entrance and that the parking company’s "regulations" disregarded these rights.

    Pace Recovery v Noor
    This case is for Residential claims where the lease does not have a requirement to show a permit.
    Last edited by markudman; 09-01-2018 at 7:47 PM.
    • markudman
    • By markudman 10th Jan 18, 8:22 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    • #7
    • 10th Jan 18, 8:22 PM
    • #7
    • 10th Jan 18, 8:22 PM
    Got this email today
    What do I need to do?

    You now have until 16/01/18 23:59 to complete the next stage in the Arbitration process. If you fail to action it within this time; the matter will be sent directly to an Adjudicator who will determine liability based only on the information already supplied by you and the operator and you will lose the ability to make any more representations or upload any more evidence.

    Your TWO OPTIONS are:

    1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the operators comments and evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge by uploading any extra photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more information you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission. If the operator provides more information or evidence you will then have another chance to respond.

    - OR -

    2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you do not need to add any more information or evidence, for example if you consider that the information provided already is capable of showing that you, on the face of it, are not responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. Neither party will have the opportunity of making more representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.

    Yours Sincerely,
    The Independent Appeals Service
    • markudman
    • By markudman 10th Jan 18, 8:26 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    • #8
    • 10th Jan 18, 8:26 PM
    • #8
    • 10th Jan 18, 8:26 PM
    The operator made their response on 10/01/2018 09:15:42.

    The appellant has raised as an issue that we do not have the required authority to operate on this site. We would refer the Adjudicator to the signs which form the basis of this charge. It will be noted that the charge arises out of a relationship in contract and that we are the principal (not an agent) in the contract. This site has been audited by the IPC and a copy of the landowner’s authority has been provided to them as part of the audit process. However, whilst we maintain that we do, in fact, have the authority of the landowner to operate upon this site (being the principal in the contract); the existence of this document has no legal bearing on the contract with the motorist. See Vehicle Control Services v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186, para 22 per Lewison LJ.As this is a commercially sensitive document, and is irrelevant to the issues at hand, this is not provided as evidence in this appeal. A copy of the agreement has been provided to the assessor.

    Under the KADOE system, the operator may seek keeper details with a “reasonable cause”. The operator maintains that this ‘reasonable cause’ was satisfied under Reason Code 00CH – the vehicle breaches the terms and conditions of the signage of a private car park.


    All other relevant points have been answered in previous submissions.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 10th Jan 18, 8:49 PM
    • 9,302 Posts
    • 12,231 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #9
    • 10th Jan 18, 8:49 PM
    • #9
    • 10th Jan 18, 8:49 PM
    This really stinks of SCAM

    How can the PPC be the principal unless they are
    the landowner as well

    If there was really an audit, then the IAS must prove this

    This all sounds like collusion between the IAS and the
    parking operator
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • markudman
    • By markudman 10th Jan 18, 8:56 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    Beamerguy Can I send that reply LOL
    • markudman
    • By markudman 10th Jan 18, 8:57 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    Hay I got my 10 post Badge today, most exciting thing to happen today, but the night is young LOL
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 10th Jan 18, 9:00 PM
    • 9,302 Posts
    • 12,231 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Beamerguy Can I send that reply LOL
    Originally posted by markudman
    Just wait a while, let others comment first please
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jan 18, 10:12 PM
    • 63,875 Posts
    • 76,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    How can the PPC be the principal unless they are the landowner as well
    The answer is that ParkingEye were, in Beavis. Principal, not landowner. It's OK.

    Trying IAS is fairly pointless but do reply and object to the fact that 'A copy of the agreement has been provided to the assessor' yet not provided to you, the consumer. State that you believe the agreement (if one has been provided to the Assessor) should be shared with you as well, and in any case you aver that it fails section 44 of the Companies Act 2006, and therefore any such 'contract' is a false instrument and void document:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73694373#post73694373

    Show a copy of your lease where it gives you a right to that parking space, or an exclusive right to park a vehicle (nothing about permits or any parking charges).

    And prove this with ALL photos, if you haven't already:

    there are 3 entrances to the estate, only one (the back one) has signs on them... there are no signs on 2 of the entrances and have photos to prove, a total of about 20 photos showing the entrance and a walk through to the parking etc.
    You are still likely to lose this game, but play it well. And keep playing, to the whistle!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 10-01-2018 at 10:17 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • markudman
    • By markudman 11th Jan 18, 1:36 AM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    Struck need help Please,
    I have put this together but am not sure how to format it. Some of it from templates on this great forum.

    I asked Parking Control Management 5 Questions, to which to answers were unsatisfactory.

    1.Who is the party that contracted with your company and are they the landowner?
    2. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
    3. Please provide photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract with the driver. especially the ones on the entrance to the site on Hayward Close
    4. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.
    5. Please provide proof that the timing of any camera or timer used was synchronised with all other cameras and/or systems & machines.

    Question 1
    'A copy of the agreement has been provided to the assessor' yet not provided to me, the consumer. I believe the agreement (if one has been provided to the Assessor) should be shared with me as well, and in any case it fails section 44 of the Companies Act 2006, and therefore any such 'contract' is a false instrument and void document:
    Additional case history
    Forbidding Signs: UKPC v Peenith
    Forbidding Signs: UKPC v Masterson
    Question 2
    Not answered, it’s a simple yes or no
    Question 3
    Not provided, no signs on Entrance Please see my Photos that clearly show no signage on Hayward Close, this is also shown on your evidents. And the rest of your photo’s are on a another part of the estate. You have not supplied any photos of Hayward close entrance. Please see additional Photo (Entrance sign)

    Also confusing signage, your sign next to one that states Resident Parking Only,
    Me being a resident. Please see additional photo (Parking signs)

    Entrance Signs should:
    a) Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land
    b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions.
    c) Identify yourself (where you are a limited company. This should be by reference to your full company name, your company number and the jurisdiction within which your company is registered).

    Question 4
    Really not sure if you supplied them all, but this is not a issue,

    Question 5
    Not Supplied or mentioned


    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

    6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of _________________ whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, and the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

    7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

    7. Accordingly it is denied that:
    7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
    7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; or park in a marked bay.
    7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

    Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
    8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
    8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

    9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

    10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

    11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

    Additional case history
    In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

    In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
    Last edited by markudman; 11-01-2018 at 8:38 AM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jan 18, 9:22 PM
    • 63,875 Posts
    • 76,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

    10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

    11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.
    You need to change your wording, you are not at court 'claim' stage. Certainly no idea why you are admitting to interest at a stage where they can't add it!

    You are at the kangaroo court of IAS...(worthless appeal shenigans with an Assessor who will be biased to the PPC).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • markudman
    • By markudman 14th Jan 18, 7:10 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    IAS Appeal Operator's Response
    The operator does not have to justify the loss incurred. The amount being sought by the operator was clearly communicated to the appellant by way of the signage on the site. If the Appellant considered the charge to be excessive, the Appellant had the choice to reject it by either not parking or parking in accordance with the terms. Second, the amount being claimed is justified given the operator's running costs. It is also in line with industry standards. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402

    The charge arises out of a contractual relationship, the terms of which are stipulated by the signage. The point has been raised that the wording on the signage is forbidding. This is not accepted. The offer for the use of the land provides a contractual license to enter such land and parking is permitted for those parked wholly within the confines of the marked bays. The contract crystallises (i.e. the user accepts the terms of the licence) at the point they enter the land. The sign then confirms in clear terms when a charge for use of the land becomes due.

    Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require a driver to park within the marked bays.

    I would generally comment that most lease documents and tenancy agreements provide provisions whereby the resident authorises the management company to make decisions on behalf of and for the benefit of all residents. It is contended that the implementation of parking enforcement falls under this. Also, clauses permitting parking are often restricted or altered by later provisions.

    I would also like to note that individual residents do not have the authority to vary the contract between the motorist and the operator.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jan 18, 7:21 PM
    • 63,875 Posts
    • 76,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Have you supplied your lease agreement that shows you have a right to park, and that there is no clause allowing the managing agent to change that right?
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 14th Jan 18, 7:23 PM
    • 10,583 Posts
    • 10,419 Thanks
    The Deep
    I would generally comment that most lease documents and tenancy agreements provide provisions whereby the resident authorises the management company to make decisions on behalf of and for the benefit of all residents.

    The key words here are "for the benefit of". There are hundreds, nay thousands of examples on the internet that PPCs provide little to no benefit to the residents, quite the resverse in fact.

    I would also like to note that individual residents do not have the authority to vary the contract between the motorist and the operator.

    In nearly every case, there is no contract.
    Last edited by The Deep; 15-01-2018 at 7:29 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 14th Jan 18, 7:44 PM
    • 9,302 Posts
    • 12,231 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Proving once again that the IAS is simply a huge scam,
    set up by Gladstones Solicitors.

    They are no longer worth being called a kangaroo court,
    a pond life court is now more suitable.

    The Beavis case has ZERO to do with residential parking
    IDIOTS FOR EVEN SUGGESTING THAT
    (It's a Gladstones thing called incompetemce)

    And the next load of utter rubbish is
    "I would also like to note that individual residents do not have the authority to vary the contract between the motorist and the operator"

    More so .... what about the rights of the residents, the parking
    cowboys are just someone the MA/landowner takes on.
    Probably on a commission as well ?

    The IPC/IAS is not fit to be an Accredited Trade Association,

    There is shortly to be a new private members bill on
    private parking which is headed by Sir Greg Knight

    Parking (Code of Practice) Bill 2017-19
    https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parkingcodeofpractice.html

    Parliamentary House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
    Tel: 020 7219 4077
    Email: sothcottt@parliament.uk

    Twitter: @gregknightmp

    Everyone should contact him about the great
    GLADSTONES / IPC / IAS SCAM

    They are not fit for purpose and should be terminated
    from being an ATA
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • markudman
    • By markudman 14th Jan 18, 8:05 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    I got to know Chris Grayling quite well during Brexit,
    I have spoke to him about the great GLADSTONES / IPC / IAS SCAM, he is going to look in to it. I also told him about the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill 2017-19. lets see what happens
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

316Posts Today

3,364Users online

Martin's Twitter