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
    • harrys dad
    • By harrys dad 8th Feb 18, 11:24 AM
    • 1,910Posts
    • 2,195Thanks
    harrys dad
    Parking Eye PR1 2UP
    • #1
    • 8th Feb 18, 11:24 AM
    Parking Eye PR1 2UP 8th Feb 18 at 11:24 AM
    Hi everyone, a search of the forum for the address above gives details of the main car park by Aldi etc, but this alleged offence took place in a smaller car park across the road, entered from a different place. Details of what exactly happened are contained in point 1 of the draft appeal.

    The timeline is as follows:

    Alleged offence : 21/11/17
    Initial PCN issued to keeper 28/11/17
    Online appeal filed on PE website using MSE template appeal text 06/12/17
    PCN Reminder (does this count as NTK?) received 11/12/17
    Appeal rejection letter and POPLA ref issued 22/01/18 (The keeper was on holiday and did not receive this for a few days so exact date of receipt is not known)
    Deadline for POPLA appeal 19/02/18? (28 days from 22/01/18?)

    Reading the stickies, and particularly one which had a recent successful POPLA appeal against PEye, here is a suggested template for appeal.

    Many thanks for your help and support here, and apologies if there are things here that could have been found in the stickies, as I know that really irritates people. This is the best effort! Any suggested amendments gratefully received.

    POPLA Ref No.xxxxxxxx
    I am the registered keeper of vehicle...... and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Parking Eye Ltd,. The charge is levied despite the driver not being identified.

    1. The alleged infringement of the regulations is that "insufficient time was purchased. The information from ParkingEye shows that the car entered the car park at 18.44.01 and left at 22.39.24. The part of the large sign at the far end of the car park referred to on section 2 shows that the charge for up to one hours parking is 1. It also shows that the evening session runs from 1900 to 0700 for which there is a charge of 2. From the information that it was possible to read on the sign it is legitimate to believe that paying a total of 3 would be sufficient to cover 1 for the period 1841 to 1900 and 2 for the evening tariff , which certainly covers the time until the car left the car park at 2239. Unlike almost every other car park in the country the ticket issued by the machine shows the time of arrival only, and gives no indication of the finish time for the amount paid for. Consequently it is perfectly reasonable on the basis of the information visible at the time of parking to believe that parking had been purchased to cover a period up to 0700 the next morning.

    2. Insufficient signage.
    There are no readable terms and conditions of parking displayed at the entrance to the car park, and it was completely dark at the time of the entry to the car park. Parking Eye's own images of the vehicle included on the PCN have no signage visible in said images. Indeed everything in their images is completely black except the car registration plate and the headlights. The keeper made a special visit to the car park to ascertain the positioning and quality of the signs. The sign with details of charges is positioned at the far side of the car park and would only be visible to the driver once they left the car. The one sign with some details on it is illuminated at the very top, but the sign is very high up and much of it is barely legible at night. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Also because of this visit it is noted that the sign is a forbidding one, so no contract can be made with the driver.

    3.Delayed Response to Appeal.
    Failure of Parking Eye to follow the BPA code of practice, particularly in contravention of clause 22.8 of the British Parking Associations code of practice which Parking Eye must abide by. This states that members of the BPA must acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving it. The initial appeal was lodged online on Parking Eye's site on the 06/12/17, yet Parking Eye did not respond until 22/01/18, when they rejected the initial appeal

    4. No evidence of Landowner Authority

    The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot
    be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
    Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
    Also Parking Eye have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed
    when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
Page 2
    • harrys dad
    • By harrys dad 29th Mar 18, 11:35 AM
    • 1,910 Posts
    • 2,195 Thanks
    harrys dad
    Draft email to steve.c@britishparking.co.uk shown here. Any suggestions/improvements?

    I am writing to complain about the actions of one of your members, namely Parking Eye. They are harassing me by threatening court proceedings whilst my current POPLA appeal is still unresolved, contrary to your code of practice.
    As the registered keeper of a vehicle I received a Parking Charge Notice for payment from Parking Eye dated **th November 2017, relating to an alleged parking offence on **st November 2017. (Parking Eye ref ***********). Despite the manifest unfairness of this PCN I followed the recommended procedure as follows:
    Appeal online **th December 2017
    Appeal rejected and POPLA code issued **nd January 2018 (note how long this took)
    POPLA appeal (ref *********) submitted online **th February
    Letter before County Court Claim from ParkingEye alleging I had not appealed within the 28 day deadline dated *th March 2018, received by me on **st March 2018 on return from holiday.
    Current status of POPLA appeal as at 29th March 2018 "awaiting evidence from Parking Eye, but also confirms my appeal has been submitted. (screen grab from POPLA site cut and pasted here)

    It is now 6 weeks since I submitted my POPLA appeal, Parking Eye have yet to submit any evidence, and yet they are threatening me with court action. This is totally against your code of practice and I trust you will hold them accountable for this.
    I am copying this email to my local MP, (name here) in the hope that he will act to strengthen regulation of your "industry".
    Last edited by harrys dad; 29-03-2018 at 11:41 AM.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 29th Mar 18, 11:38 AM
    • 37,402 Posts
    • 84,284 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Redact your personal information including PCN and PoPLA numbers. Some malicious rogue could do a lot of damage to you with that.

    You should also complain to the DVLA that the scammers are harassing you in breach of the Gobi-Desert Code of Practice.
    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
    • harrys dad
    • By harrys dad 29th Mar 18, 11:40 AM
    • 1,910 Posts
    • 2,195 Thanks
    harrys dad
    Redact your personal information including PCN and PoPLA numbers. Some malicious rogue could do a lot of damage to you with that.

    You should also complain to the DVLA that the scammers are harassing you in breach of the Gobi-Desert Code of Practice.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    Thanks, I have removed all dates and reference numbers now.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 29th Mar 18, 11:43 AM
    • 37,402 Posts
    • 84,284 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    I am now of the opinion that we should be advising every poster to complain to Sir Greg Knight MP, as well as their own.
    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
    • harrys dad
    • By harrys dad 29th Mar 18, 11:45 AM
    • 1,910 Posts
    • 2,195 Thanks
    harrys dad
    I am now of the opinion that we should be advising every poster to complain to Sir Greg Knight MP, as well as their own.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    Is he the one who is leading the "campaign" within Parliament?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Mar 18, 12:11 PM
    • 19,475 Posts
    • 30,780 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Is he the one who is leading the "campaign" within Parliament?
    Originally posted by harrys dad
    That's your man.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    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.
    • harrys dad
    • By harrys dad 3rd Apr 18, 10:22 PM
    • 1,910 Posts
    • 2,195 Thanks
    harrys dad
    Email sent to Steve Clarke at BPA and a reply received (not automated) very quickly saying he will contact Parking Eye to investigate. Emails also sent to my MP and Sir Greg Kinight MP.
    • harrys dad
    • By harrys dad 4th Apr 18, 3:32 PM
    • 1,910 Posts
    • 2,195 Thanks
    harrys dad
    I received a reply very quickly from my MP. I will not post it all here, as I suspect it is a standard response written by Central Office. I do feel however that the last paragraph is very important and should encourage everyone to contact their MP and Sir Greg Knight MP as advised above by Umkomaas. I have also included his comment about lack of response from Parking Eye previously.

    Extract from reply from my MP as follows:

    "From my previous dealings with Parking Eye on behalf of Constituents, I can confirm that on each occasion I have corresponded with them they have failed to respond. Regrettably, there is nothing I can do about this, as they are under no legal obligation to do so, and are neither answerable to nor responsible to me as the Member of Parliament. Whilst this might be at best unprofessional, and at worst very disrespectful on their part, it nonetheless is the case and I have no legislative or persuasive powers to compel them to correspond with me or cease action against an individual. Any remaining disputes over unpaid parking charges would be pursued as civil matters through the relevant courts.

    The Government has for some time acknowledged that there is a need for greater legislation and regulation in these matters. With parking firms issuing almost 13 times more tickets than they were a decade ago, I believe it is time for a real overhaul of the private parking industry. A Government discussion paper last year brought to light thousands of cases where motorists had been unfairly treated, issued with incorrect penalties, denied rights of appeal etc. Sir Greg Knight MP (East Yorkshire) brought a Private Members Bill in response, and the Government is supporting this entirely. The Parking (Code of Practice) Bill received its second reading only a few weeks ago and was backed by Parliament. If passed it will legislate for the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice for the management of private car parks. This code must contain guidance which promotes good practice in the operation and management of private car parks, as well as on appeals against parking charges imposed on users. The Bill will also provide for a levy on the parking industry to cover the costs of issuing, administering and investigating whether private parking firms have failed to act in accordance with the code. The bill is now recommended to progress through the necessary remaining stages to become law, which admittedly will take some time.

    I will add your experience to those of other Constituents who have contacted me about Parking Eye, and will ensure that I raise these examples in any debate, discussion or vote on the topic in which I participate but regrettably, this is the extent of any direct action I am able to take at present
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 4th Apr 18, 3:39 PM
    • 37,402 Posts
    • 84,284 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Fair enough. Not a fob off, someone who actually seems to know what's going on, and appears to support the Sir Greg Knight bill.
    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
    • harrys dad
    • By harrys dad 9th Apr 18, 9:38 PM
    • 1,910 Posts
    • 2,195 Thanks
    harrys dad
    So, I receive a response from Steve Clark at the BPA saying that Parking Eye have no record of my appeal being lodged with POPLA and neither do POPLA! This is despite me sending a screenshot of the "appeal successfully submitted" page of my POPLA appeal. Parking Eye are going to graciously send me another POPLA code so I can resubmit my evidence and appeal!

    Any suggestions as to how to respond now?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Apr 18, 9:42 PM
    • 19,475 Posts
    • 30,780 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Any suggestions as to how to respond now?
    With a new POPLA appeal, using the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3 as your guide, especially with its ready-written templates for use (as appropriate).
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    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.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 9th Apr 18, 9:46 PM
    • 37,402 Posts
    • 84,284 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Complain again to the BPA, and also the DVLA, that since PoPLA have lost your appeal, proof of submission screenshot attached, you consider this matter closed unless they want to explain yet again why MPs have stated in open parliament that the BPA are as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert.

    Have you contacted Sir Greg Knight MP. How about contacting local and national news media?
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 20-04-2018 at 3:57 PM.
    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
    • Redx
    • By Redx 9th Apr 18, 9:52 PM
    • 19,267 Posts
    • 24,486 Thanks
    Redx
    post your new full draft popla appeal on here first, just for checking prior to submission as a pdf on their website
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • harrys dad
    • By harrys dad 9th Apr 18, 9:59 PM
    • 1,910 Posts
    • 2,195 Thanks
    harrys dad
    Thanks for the responses. original POPLA appeal is as at post 5, so I was just going to add an initial paragraph about already appealing (nearly 2 months ago) and POPLA and Parking Eye both telling the BPA they have no record of my appeal, despite me having a screenshot saying it was successfully submitted. I also thought I should write back to Steve Clark saying how can there be no record when I have the screenshot and suggesting a better course would be for P Eye to drop their claim.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Apr 18, 10:41 PM
    • 19,475 Posts
    • 30,780 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Go for it, no harm to you. FightBack is the name of the game here.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Apr 18, 12:29 AM
    • 61,644 Posts
    • 74,559 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Thanks to Coupon Mad too. A bit has added a bit to the first paragraph, and a little about the time delay. Is this ok now as it needs to be submitted Friday? Can it submitted online? I assume the details should be in the appeal notification form P Eye.

    Final Draft:

    POPLA Ref No.xxxxxxxx
    I am the registered keeper of vehicle...... and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Parking Eye Ltd,. The charge is levied despite the driver not being identified.

    1. The alleged infringement of the regulations is that "insufficient time was purchased. The information from ParkingEye shows that the car entered the car park at 18.44.01 and left at 22.39.24. The part of the large sign at the far end of the car park referred to on section 2 shows that the charge for up to one hours parking is 1. It also shows that the evening session runs from 1900 to 0700 for which there is a charge of 2. From the information that it was possible to read on the sign it is legitimate to believe that paying a total of 3 would be sufficient to cover 1 for the period 1841 to 1900 and 2 for the evening tariff , which certainly covers the time until the car left the car park at 2239. Unlike almost every other car park in the country the ticket issued by the machine shows the time of arrival only, and gives no indication of the finish time for the amount paid for. Consequently it is perfectly reasonable on the bais of the information visible at the time of parking to believe that parking had been purchased to cover a period up to 0700 the next morning.
    There was a debate in Parliament on this matter very recently, and the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill was passed by MPs. The confusion around daytime/night-time charges was cited within the debate as an example of a "system set up to fail". This was exacerbated by the ticket showing the time of purchase and giving no indication of the time purchased or the time that the ticket was valid for.
    2. Insufficient signage.
    There are no readable terms and conditions of parking displayed at the entrance to the car park, and it was completely dark at the time of the entry to the car park. Parking Eye's own images of the vehicle included on the PCN have no signage visible in said images. Indeed everything in their images is completely black except the car registration plate and the headlights. The keeper made a special visit to the car park to ascertain the positioning and quality of the signs. They are positioned at the far side of the car park and would only be visible to the driver once they left the car. The one sign with some details on it is illuminated at the very top, but the sign is very high up and much of it is barely legible at night. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Also because of this visit it is noted that the sign is a forbidding one, so no contract can be made with the driver.
    3.Delayed Response to Appeal.
    Failure of Parking Eye to follow the BPA code of practice, particularly in contravention of clause 22.8 of the British Parking Associations code of practice too which Parking Eye must abide states that members of the BPA must acknowledge or reply to the challenge
    within 14 days of receiving it. The initial appeal was lodged online on Parking Eye's site on the 06/12/17, yet Parking Eye did not respond until 22/01/18, when they rejected the initial appeal. It is also within the code of practice that a decision on the appeal should be reached within 35 days. In fact it took 48 days.

    4. No evidence of Landowner Authority
    The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot
    be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
    Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
    Also Parking Eye have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed
    when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

    5. The location of the car park indicated on the original parking charge notice is Corporation Street Preston PR1 2UP. This is not the correct location for where the vehicle was parked. The vehicle was in fact parked in a small car park off Seed St, close to the location given but completely separate. There is no evidence as to who was driving, so a flawed NTK with a wrong location, cannot be considered to pass the test of compliance under the POFA and cannot hold a keeper appellant liable.
    Originally posted by harrys dad
    To add even more, you could add the new argument about the DPA and the ICO CoP, that I am trying as a new tactic with ANPR car parks, and adapt it to suit:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74138175#post74138175

    Show us your new draft, for comments. It is meant to be long, deliberately!
    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
    • harrys dad
    • By harrys dad 20th Apr 18, 3:20 PM
    • 1,910 Posts
    • 2,195 Thanks
    harrys dad
    Lots has happened in the last few days, with emails back and forth. Latest news is that the PCN has been cancelled "as a gesture of goodwill. When I have the full story I will post again. I do have to say however that Steve Clark at the BPA has been very helpful, responding quickly to my emails, contacting both Parking Eye and POPLA, and keeping me informed. He is reading this thread too.
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 20th Apr 18, 4:11 PM
    • 1,779 Posts
    • 2,249 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    Lots has happened in the last few days, with emails back and forth. Latest news is that the PCN has been cancelled "as a gesture of goodwill. When I have the full story I will post again. I do have to say however that Steve Clark at the BPA has been very helpful, responding quickly to my emails, contacting both Parking Eye and POPLA, and keeping me informed. He is reading this thread too.
    Originally posted by harrys dad
    ever the diplomat , very good at covering up cockups by BPA members and POPLa
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • harrys dad
    • By harrys dad 20th Apr 18, 4:14 PM
    • 1,910 Posts
    • 2,195 Thanks
    harrys dad
    [QUOTE=twhitehousescat;74187210]ever the diplomat , very good at covering up cockups by BPA members and POPLa[/QUOTE

    He hasn't covered it up, he has investigated and sorted it out. I know that doesn't resolve the underlying issues with these companies but at least it was helpful.
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 20th Apr 18, 4:45 PM
    • 1,779 Posts
    • 2,249 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    [QUOTE=harrys dad;74187238]
    ever the diplomat , very good at covering up cockups by BPA members and POPLa[/QUOTE

    He hasn't covered it up, he has investigated and sorted it out. I know that doesn't resolve the underlying issues with these companies but at least it was helpful.
    Originally posted by twhitehousescat
    correct , far simpler , when MPs and press get involved to just say " "as a gesture of goodwill"

    move along now ,,,,,,,,,,,nothing to see
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
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

42Posts Today

2,442Users online

Martin's Twitter