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
    • 279Posts
    • 161Thanks
    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!!!8217;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!!!8217;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!!!8217;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 6
    • markudman
    • By markudman 1st Feb 18, 4:55 PM
    • 279 Posts
    • 161 Thanks
    markudman
    CM, The game is being played to the full

    Dear Ms Hammond

    Thank you for your enquiry.

    We are investigating the concerns raised and we will provide Stephen Hammond MP with a response by 16 February 2018.

    Yours sincerely

    Clarion Housing Group
    We may not win by protesting, but if we donít protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
    • markudman
    • By markudman 1st Feb 18, 5:48 PM
    • 279 Posts
    • 161 Thanks
    markudman
    As Pablo said, Silver or lead
    We may not win by protesting, but if we donít protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
    • markudman
    • By markudman 6th Feb 18, 5:29 PM
    • 279 Posts
    • 161 Thanks
    markudman
    got a reply from TS

    Thank you for your email of 31st January.



    Parking Control Management (PCM) automated payment line is 0845 867 9445. This number is not a premium rate number regulated by the Phone-paid Services Authority. This is a non-geographic number charged at up to 10p per minute plus your phone company's access charge. Ofcom are responsible for the regulation of 084 numbers. You can contact them via:



    Ofcom

    Riverside House

    2a Southwark Bridge Road

    London

    SE1 9HA

    Tel: 0300 123 3333



    I am advised by Slough Trading Standards in whose area PCM are based that since 1st January 2018, the business no longer makes a charge for the use of credit and other card payments.



    From 13th January 2018 charging a fee in addition to the advertised cost on the basis of a consumer!!!8217;s choice of payment was banned. However traders can charge costs absorbed from the use of the payment method in question. For example the Merchant Service Charge, which traders pay to their payment service provider can be passed on to consumers. The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012 (The Regulations) prohibit charges that are more than the cost of processing a payment method. PCM charge a total cost of £1 and consumers have the option to pay online or by post.



    PCM are in the process of amending their signage/boards to remove the banned credit card charge. This process will take some considerable time in light of nearly 1 million boards to work on. . All call costs are currently indicated on the signs including the £5 that is no longer being charged and banned.



    Clarion Housing confirm that they have an agreement with PCM to regulate parking at this location.



    PCM is an International Parking Community (IPC) approved contractor - https://theipc.info/aos-members/p. IPC operate an independent appeals process via The Independent Appeals Service.



    The Regulations give consumer enforcement authorities (including local authority trading standards and the Northern Ireland Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment) the power to take civil enforcement action against traders who breach the Regulations. The Regulations were amended by Paragraph 12 of Schedule 8 to The Payment Services Regulations 2017 with effect from 13th January 2018. This brought into force the ban of additional charges on the basis of a consumer!!!8217;s choice of payment instrument (for example, credit card, debit card or e-money).



    I would refer you to the wording in my original letter of 26th January 2018 that !!!8220;due to the large number of enquiries that we receive every year, we are unable to investigate each one. However, we do value the information given to us and use it as part of our intelligence. This enables us to build a profile on trading in the borough and the trading practices that are affecting our community. We then use this information to plan and target our work, thus using our limited resources more efficiently.!!!8221;



    Regulation 41 of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 requires that where a trader operates a telephone line for the purpose of consumers contacting the trader by telephone in relation to contracts entered into with the trader, a consumer contacting the trader must not be bound to pay more than the basic rate. Slough Trading Standards clarified that the basic rate in this case is your phone company's access charge.



    I am sorry if we have been unable to meet your expectations of our service on this occasion. Should you wish to register a complaint, please find a link to the relevant council webpage - https://www.merton.gov.uk/council-and-local-democracy/complaints-compliments-and-comments
    We may not win by protesting, but if we donít protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th Feb 18, 5:43 PM
    • 9,455 Posts
    • 9,192 Thanks
    The Deep
    If they are a registered charity, consider making a complaint to The Charity Commissioners
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Feb 18, 7:20 PM
    • 17,980 Posts
    • 28,449 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Credit card charges have only just been banned, itís unrealistic that the millions of signs across the country are going to be updated/edited (usually with black tape!), the instant the law is changed!

    Donít expose yourself as lacking any realism.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    got a reply from TS


    PCM are in the process of amending their signage/boards to remove the banned credit card charge. This process will take some considerable time in light of nearly 1 million boards to work on.
    Originally posted by markudman
    I did say!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • markudman
    • By markudman 6th Feb 18, 10:09 PM
    • 279 Posts
    • 161 Thanks
    markudman
    If they are a registered charity, consider making a complaint to The Charity Commissioners
    Originally posted by The Deep
    did I miss something?
    We may not win by protesting, but if we donít protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th Feb 18, 10:18 PM
    • 7,656 Posts
    • 7,350 Thanks
    KeithP
    did I miss something?
    Originally posted by markudman
    Quite possibly.

    From their website:
    Clarion Futures is our charitable foundation which will provide support, skills and opportunities to our residents across the UK. We have created Clarion Futures because we want to play a prominent role in helping our residents to develop their futures and maximise the opportunities available to them. Our mission is to provide people with the tools and support they need to overcome their challenges and help to transform lives and communities for the better.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Feb 18, 10:22 PM
    • 58,322 Posts
    • 71,856 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Dear Trading Standards,

    I suggest you watch the Parliamentary debate about these cowboys from last Friday, up your game regarding your 'scam radar' and stop looking for reasons to defend private parking 'operators' as if they are a legitimate business:

    Watch the Parlimentary debate from last Friday about such scams, and read this Blog first:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/

    Watch the debate here:

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    This rogue industry is skating on thin ice in 2018. These are some of the comments made by the MPs in Parliament concerning the unregulated parking industry (Feb 2018):

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

    ''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

    These are the exact words used, so Trading Standards might wish to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if you feel you need further information about this scam. PCM are among the most notorious ex-clampers for predatory ticketing and the entire industry is a disgrace to this Country.

    Being in the IPC is not a good thing to spout to consumers (with respect, you sound as if you are quoting directly from some excuses PCM themselves have fed you, which is a hopeless approach to protect consumers). TS need to listen to the MP exposing the conflict of interests between the IPC and Gladstones Solicitors. It is high time TS woke up to the truth about the issues and understood why all MPs at the debate unanimously not only supported it, but actively jostled to be heard and join the protests about the outrageous practices and deliberately dodgy signs they had seen from constituents.

    Residential parking scams in particular were singled out for unanimous calls for action against the industry. Please watch the debate with other TS colleagues, as you appear not to be up to speed.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 06-02-2018 at 10:33 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 7th Feb 18, 12:40 AM
    • 36,798 Posts
    • 83,259 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    The 0845 number breaches Regulation 41 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013. These regulations came from BIS, not Ofcom, and took effect on 13 June 2014.
    The omission of call costs from signage breaches Ofcom regulations that took effect 1 July 2015

    0845 numbers are premium rate 'phone numbers.

    I do not believe that any UK PPC has a million signs. I would suggest many of the signs used by CPM do not have advertising consent and are therefore illegal.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Ian011
    • By Ian011 15th Feb 18, 12:32 AM
    • 2,014 Posts
    • 1,177 Thanks
    Ian011
    got a reply from TS

    Parking Control Management (PCM) automated payment line is 0845 867 9445. This number is not a premium rate number regulated by the Phone-paid Services Authority. This is a non-geographic number charged at up to 10p per minute plus your phone company's access charge. Ofcom are responsible for the regulation of 084 numbers.
    Originally posted by markudman
    All 084, 087, 09 and 118 numbers are premium rate. The premium is the additional Service Charge paid to the benefit of the called party and their telecoms provider. Callers also pay an Access Charge to the benefit of the caller's landline or mobile provider.

    The Phone-paid Services Authority regulates Controlled Premium Rate Services (CPRS). CPRS covers 087, 09 and 118 numbers with a Service Charge of more than 7p per call or more than 7p per minute. The Service Charge for 084 numbers is never more than 7p per call or per minute. Where did that "10p" figure come from? It is incorrect. Service Charge information for any 084, 087, 09 or 118 number can be looked up at http://checkit.uboss.com/.

    In general, services using 084 numbers are not regulated by PSA - not unless the service is a chatline, "adult" entertainment service or is internet dialler-operated. Those three types of service are always designated as CPRS - irrespective of prefix used or price charged and hence are always regulated by PSA. This is detailed in Ofcom's PRS Condition.

    Usage of 084, 087 and 09 numbers is banned for after-sales enquiries and issues as mentioned below. Those regulations came from BIS. Complaints should be addressed to the Citizen's Advice national Consumer Helpline for escalation to the relevant Trading Standards department.

    Regulation 41 of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 requires that where a trader operates a telephone line for the purpose of consumers contacting the trader by telephone in relation to contracts entered into with the trader, a consumer contacting the trader must not be bound to pay more than the basic rate. Slough Trading Standards clarified that the basic rate in this case is your phone company's access charge.
    Originally posted by markudman
    Regulation 41(2) gives directions for how much must be refunded to the caller when the caller has had to call a number that does not comply with regulation 41, such as when calling a number starting 084, 087 or 09. However, Slough Trading Standards are mistaken as to what constitutes 'basic rate'. Basic rate is whatever the caller pays for an equivalent call to a geographic number starting 01 or 02 or to a non-geographic number starting 03.

    For inclusive calls to 01/02/03 numbers the rate paid by the caller is zero pence per minute. This means where the caller has inclusive calls to 01/02/03 numbers but had to call an 084/087/09 number, the refund is the entire call charge incurred - all of it, both the Access Charge and the Service Charge.
    Last edited by Ian011; 15-02-2018 at 12:44 PM.
    • markudman
    • By markudman 31st Mar 18, 9:30 AM
    • 279 Posts
    • 161 Thanks
    markudman
    Hi its been a while since I posted,
    I have been away fighting this I had no luck with the management company, I had no luck with the local MP, no luck with trading standards, I have now Printed a 1000 leaflets, set up a email address, a phone no, and have spoken to lots of residents and am going to fight from a different angle, we also have a election of councillors in May and am going to use this to get the MP to actually do something,

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
    We may not win by protesting, but if we donít protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 31st Mar 18, 11:16 AM
    • 7,507 Posts
    • 9,992 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Hi its been a while since I posted,
    I have been away fighting this I had no luck with the management company, I had no luck with the local MP, no luck with trading standards, I have now Printed a 1000 leaflets, set up a email address, a phone no, and have spoken to lots of residents and am going to fight from a different angle, we also have a election of councillors in May and am going to use this to get the MP to actually do something,

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
    Originally posted by markudman
    Tell your MP why you will not be voting for him in future
    and get the local press or TV involved to expose this
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 31st Mar 18, 12:06 PM
    • 4,152 Posts
    • 5,886 Thanks
    Half_way
    there's a thread on 0308099 they may be of interest http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=114450
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • markudman
    • By markudman 4th Apr 18, 4:27 PM
    • 279 Posts
    • 161 Thanks
    markudman
    Can someone comment on this statement from a law point of view, I got from the Landlord?
    Many thanks

    With regards the specific issue that you consider your Tenancy Agreement allows
    you ;unfettered rights to park within the common areas on the estate, it is ----------------view that the Tenancy Agreement is silent on the matter of parking and
    makes no reference to unfettered rights; to park. All residents have a right to use
    the common areas but this does not supersede the parking control arrangements
    which were reviewed in consultation with residents last year.
    Last edited by markudman; 04-04-2018 at 4:46 PM.
    We may not win by protesting, but if we donít protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
    • markudman
    • By markudman 4th Apr 18, 4:32 PM
    • 279 Posts
    • 161 Thanks
    markudman
    Tell your MP why you will not be voting for him in future
    and get the local press or TV involved to expose this
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    I had them round yesterday, they got a mouth full why I will not be voting for them, and why I am going to talk to all 600 residents on why they too should not vote for him
    We may not win by protesting, but if we donít protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
    • markudman
    • By markudman 4th Apr 18, 4:44 PM
    • 279 Posts
    • 161 Thanks
    markudman
    has anyone heard of the The Localism Act ??
    We may not win by protesting, but if we donít protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 4th Apr 18, 4:45 PM
    • 36,798 Posts
    • 83,259 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    I had them round yesterday, they got a mouth full why I will not be voting for them, and why I am going to talk to all 600 residents on why they too should not vote for him
    Originally posted by markudman
    Well played!
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Apr 18, 4:46 PM
    • 58,322 Posts
    • 71,856 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Dear MA,

    Thank you for confirming my right (otherwise known as a grant) to use the common areas, where you have stated:
    All residents have a right to use the common areas
    I see that you go on to give this opinion, with no source or legal backing:
    but this does not supersede the parking control arrangements which were reviewed in consultation with residents last year.
    On the contrary, it is my honest believe that my primacy of contract, my grant to use the common areas, does supersede any arrangement you have come to, without due diligence or even Googling the reputation of this ex-clamper firm, which has immediately created a nuisance by penalising residents.

    This is a derogation from grant. Even if the landlord (or the Managing Agents but only if allowed under the terms of the lease) can make regulations for the 'comfort and convenience' of lessees, this does not cover entering into agreements with firms whose modus operandi and agenda aims to actually penalise those residents you might have been led to believe, are receiving a service. Imposing an aggressive third party on residents is unacceptable and not excused by any clauses in any agreement.

    The fact that my tenancy agreement is silent about extra 'charges' or 'permit' obligations works in my favour, not yours.

    Since there has been no variation of the residents' agreements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 you cannot impose this charging regime via a back door method of 'signs and permits'. I understand that for such a variation to have been agreed by the residents, 75% of the parties must have consented and not more than 10% must not have objected to any proposed material change (which this most certainly is).

    PCM present a significantly detrimental material change and provide no service that is for the comfort and convenience of the residents here. I do not recognise any authority from the parking company you have chosen to impose upon residents. For the avoidance of doubt, I have entered into no contract with PCM and no variation of my tenancy agreement has occurred. You cannot just allow a third party (notoriously litigious and aggressive) firm to put some signs up and pretend that overrides my rights.

    If it is your belief that I am wrong, please show me your evidence of:

    - the clause that allows you as Managing Agents to impose this nuisance upon residents, and

    - all letters sent to residents about this regime, specifically warning them about extra £100 charges, and

    - the consultation undertaken by the landlord and the percentages of responses in agreement, or otherwise.

    - how much of the proceeds of paid 'parking charges' is given back to the landlord/Managing Agent under the contract?

    - how this is to be used for the convenience of the residents or shared with them/deducted from the service charges? If not, how are you planning to use the bounty paid (if any) and did you mention that figure, in the communications with residents?

    As I understand it, the law requires that leaseholders (including tenants of private sector properties) paying variable service charges must be consulted before a landlord enters into a long-term agreement for the provision of services.

    I would draw your attention to case number D7GF307F - UKCPM v Mr D - before Deputy District Judge Skelly on 1st February 2018 at Clerkenwell, a similar thin excuse of an argument from a private parking firm inflicting a nuisance on residents & visitors was dismissed. When not sitting as a Judge, DDJ Skelly is a barrister specialising in property law. The managing agents were named as a party to the lease, and there was a clause which said that they could make regulations for the 'comfort and convenience' of lessees. However, this could not excuse a change as intrusive and onerous as to override the grant of free resident/visitor parking, effectively restricting and charging for a right previously enjoyed, without the required consensus and deed of variation. The Judge remarked that this would be like the agents suddenly stipulating that residents had to hang a Union Jack out of the window whenever they were at home. Even if a few residents went along with it, such imposition (and certainly a three figure charge for supposed breach of an obligation that is unsupported in lease agreements) is a nuisance, clearly unreasonable and not in the interests of the consumer.

    Kindly note my formal objection to the nuisance you have inflicted upon me as tenant, and show me the consultation you mention took place, including all letters explaining the regime/permits and all response percentages, including the numbers of ''no reply''. In the meantime, I am sending a copy of this letter to:

    A - PCM, so that they are fully aware that they are trespassing against my vehicle and that I have accepted no 'contract'.

    B - my MP, Mr/Mrs xxx xxxxxxx who has been appraised of the 2nd February 2018 Parliamentary debate about private parking firms and is now well aware of the issues, where the House concluded: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

    C - Trading Standards, to investigate why a firm like PCM, with their (easy to find) horrendous reputation, were imposed without proper consultation at this location, causing detriment and loss to residents who are all entitled to expect due diligence from their Managing Agents and peaceful enjoyment of their property.


    Yours faithfully,
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 04-04-2018 at 5:15 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Apr 18, 4:50 PM
    • 58,322 Posts
    • 71,856 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    has anyone heard of the The Localism Act ??
    Originally posted by markudman
    No, that's a new one on me, can you add it to the sort of robust letter I am suggesting?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 4th Apr 18, 5:16 PM
    • 2,404 Posts
    • 4,276 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    The Localism Act 2011 has nothing to do with private parking. It's all to do with how Parishes and other councils divy up the work / costs/ income.

    Why do you think it might be relevant?
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
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

3,936Posts Today

8,400Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • We all knew we'd win in the end. Never in doubt! ....walks away whistling

  • Yeeesss. Phew. Wow. Uh. Oy yoy yoy

  • It's interesting that 80% of the crowd are young women... According to the close ups we keep seeing anyway.

  • Follow Martin