Thanks for updating on that woody. It's always good to have a definitive conclusion to a case, but of course, what we normally have to rely on is the fact that people post; get the ignore advise and never come back which we have to take as good news.

If they subsequently got court papers, then I am sure they'd be back screaming or complaining about the advise!

I'm happy to join the CEL fan club.

My vehicle seems to have infringed the new parking regulations - by 16 mins 12 secs - at my local shop's car park (Co-op) in Whitby

and I feel awful to have infringed a contract I didn't know I had (always wanted one, but not this type!) and am sleepless with remorse.

Honest! Understandable, really as we only spend about £110 per week there out of my pensions despite my wife's arthritic spine and my diabetes, hypertension, arthritis, and COPD.

I guess I'll get over the distress, and to help I have emailed CEL asking for details so I can identify the driver for certain (me!!).

Also, being the helpful sort I have said I might actually admit liability if the photographic evidence shows that I am the offending driver,

in which case I feel morally obliged to pay the true value of their (substantial?) loss.

I might be generous and offer a fiver, then again .......

Need to be careful, as in December 2011 Parking Eye v Smith was settled in Manchester County Court,

it cost Smithy £25 settlement for two infringements (billed at £120 each) and £95 costs - as opposed to £4500 costs for FOUR senior solicitors from a top firm in Manchester.

THEY WON, but at what cost- it's called a Pyrrhic Victory.

Perhaps CEL will reply to my info requests, probably not.

If not they'll have one Hell of a job gaining favour in Court, in anticipation of which I have written to them asking for a breakdown of their costs

to help my calculation and also asked them for details of where the money goes

- and this is surely the nub of the issue.

See, if the money is paid to the car-park owner then they presumably pay a fixed fee or fixed proportion to CEL

but the money is paid to CEL (or to Newly, a wholly owned subsidiary).

If no part of it is paid to Co-op then the exercise is purely a cash-generation project for CEL

(I know the Branch of Co-op won't see any of the money, unlike their previous arrangement)

and therefore it's not a car-park management contract between CEL and Co-op.

Another point

I am asking within Co-op:

If it is illegal (fraudulent) to make a "speculative" claim on an insurance policy,

why is it legal for an agent of Co-op to make a "speculative" claim against me?

And why is it legal for an insurance company to blag a settlement on a written-off car at half the market value?

In my view - they are big business and I'm not!

I'll post my progress.

I eventually wrote to CEL pointing out the ailments which could have contributed to any delay I might have endured in returning to my car

- if indeed it was me driving on the day in question

- also pointing out that although I have good lateral movement in my neck and can see side to side fine to drive but cannot elevate enough to see their signs clearly enough to read them.

I pointed out that I would make them an offer to cover their reasonable loss which they clearly feel I am responsible for incurring

I they could help me to identify that the driver was in fact myself, by emailing me the "photographic proof",

plus give me an idea as to how they came to the figure of £90.

They replied that the amount due must be paid.

I discussion with Co-op's very officious Customer Services agent I was offered the cancellation of the charge, which I initially refused.

My wife and son (he has anxiety problems) were so intimidated by the charge notice that they pressed me to accept,

so I did but the situation will probably repeat itself in the near future.

It is well worth any penalised driver having a look at the BPA website and reading their Code of Practice

- the overall impression I got from it is that the charges are a cash-cow for the parking management company

- they are geared towards imposing then collecting as many charges as possible rather than eliminating abuse of the parking facility.

They recommend a minimum period of grace of five minutes, and suggest charges for overstaying of £100 - £150 each infringement;

nowhere does it refer to preventing abuse other than erecting visible signs of 18"x18" (no mention of "readable").

I remain puzzled how the loss incurred by a 10-15 minute infringement is the same as that caused by a 6 or 7 hour infringement.

The latest is I'm waiting for responses from BPA, DVLA and information commissioner.

I'd advise anyone to revisit the site of the "offence" if practicable:

pick as many holes in as much as possible

(warning signs - position, readability etc)

advance warning of cameras (you have a right to be advised your images are being recorded BEFORE THEY ARE RECORDED.

Check with the Local Council if they have planning permission for the cameras and signs,

who it was granted to (i.e. CEL)

the BPA Code of Practice, see if you can find any fault at all and complain in writing giving only your name, address, email but no phone number

- that way you get any replies in writing!

You should at least have been given an email to contact and instructions how to complain to Information Commissioner or DVLA.

Enough complaints & they lose access to DVLA and give loadsa money back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi,

I feel terrible for not posting more often but throughout the process of having potential court action hanging over you, you over think things

I asked, at some point who had been down the road I was going and go to the end with no penalty

Well given it is now well over 3 years later and after one last letter 12 months after the previous they have stopped sending me demands for money

So all the good advice I got and followed was totally vindicated.

Thank you very much!

thank you!!