Or any patient, not just a disabled person. Of equal interest, does this mean that if we find an item purchases from our local supermarket is not fit for purpose, that we can seek a penalty payment from the seller? If the answer is "no", is there not an imbalance to be redressed here? If the patient is delayed, can a penalty then be imposed upon the hospital? This could result in a ridiculous spiralling version of the "crash for cash" ilk.

There seem to me (I'm not a Lawyer, Paralegal or parasite) to be some conflicts in terminology - not just in this and above threads, but generally in reference to the relationship between the motorist, retail car park land-owner, retail STORE & car park owners, and lastly- the car park "management" company. I have read in various places ambiguous references to "The client" - Is this the land-owner, the PPC or the motorist - or even the retail unit having leased or purchased premises on the retail park which has employed the PPC to manage the car park for the benefit of the motorist (in which case we are arguably the "client")? This is a fundamental question, because if the PPC is EMPLOYED to fulfil a task, i.e. manage the car park for the benefit of the retail unit(s) does that make the PPC a CONTRACTOR? In this case, is it surely correct that a penalty should apply to the performance level of said contractor, based upon its success rate. This would be best indicated by the level of compliance as indicated by the number of tickets needing to be issued! This would of course be different to how parking rules are enforced on Council-owned "off-road" car parks. Consider, also another term used - certainly by Co-operative Food - to describe the relationship as landowner (CO-op) and the PPC (in this case, CEL) as "Concessions". As I understand it, a "Concession" is an arrangement where a business is permitted to operate on a landowner's premises - a bit like the car-wash operators and ice-cream vans seen on large retail parks, and other such businesses on Motorway Services and supermarket car parks ....... all for a financial contribution to the land-owner! Barry rightly points out other points of concern, like "The new law is dangerous, as it opens the door to unscrupulous operators and rogue traders in other industries to charge 'penalties' for ..... exceeded download limit ..... late collecting your child from Nursery, or missed doctors appointment. It's really scary." Very scary indeed and consumer groups like CAG, MSE, Pepipoo et al will surely be pressing for safeguards, not just on PPC matters but ALL performance-related issues. This is a big job for Trading Standards, surely?

For anyone interested in (or affected by) Debt Enforcement and Action Ltd, they were formed almost a year go and according to rumour (careful choice of words all through this post!), by Gary Wain, CEO of Civil enforcement Ltd and also of Creative Parking Ltd. Very creative. They were kicked out of Co-operative Food's Whitby store#s car park last September after a local furore, and since appear to be resurrecting old "debts". We believe locally that CEL have now lost all of Co-op's sites and are concentrating on pursuing Co-op customers. "Many have had Notice of Assignment of Debt" letters sent indicating Co-op's share of that "debt" is 13.5%. I am led to believe that Co-op have never claimed this money. I have helped some people defend these claims with quite a bit of success. Part of this is because CEL assigned a sun to DEAL who have not tried to enforce it, just sent nasty letters for a bit then stopped, and suddenly CEL have issued proceedings in their own name for the debt they no longer own. THAT'S CREATIVE! And they haven't even correctly filled-in the form identifying the status of the signatory, the name of the firm of solicitors or if the facts are believed to be true or known to be true. I must write to Northampton County Court about that! A debt which has lain dormant for 6 years is statute-barred but if there has been contact of any sort between creditor and debtor the period restarts on the date of receipt of the communication and can last another six years. Therefore, is it a good idea to"ignore, ignore" No! Any claim for money is surely valid as what it is, be spurious, genuine or speculative and if you don't defend it these guys are just as likely to pop up at your will-reading and claim it then if not before. In effect, If you had a PCN from CEL for upsetting them EVER in a Co-op car park - make notes and be ready to defend yourself.

Point taken, by me at least. Hope my previous post answers a few questions.

Well, it seems my last post was deleted, and two replies. I'll apologise for my sarcasm, but can't apologise for being a bit annoyed with people who just want to snipe, ridicule and make wisecracks. OK, to answer the question, what have I achieved? For a start, we have managed to get the xxxx sacked from the site. As for further progress I can't put that on yet because we don't have a conclusion on "Appealing the Appeal", but we do have some progress in at least getting BPA to consider it. POPLA next! So in the meantime, if anyone has had an appeal refused based upon POPLA taking the word of the Operator against theirs - and we ought not to be surprised if they do - there has to be an answer, and I believe we found it. People posted on the Protest Page, we contacted them back with advice we did not poach from here, and eventually we were left with a group of people whose only "sin" was to wait patiently in a queue to pay for their parking, but were delayed by the insufficient number of hard-to-see (and complicated & temperamental) ticket machines but did not stay for longer than they paid for. Nevertheless, they broke a rule, so were told to pay. CEL confirmed that the signs told of the ten minute rule, there were plenty of signs,hence the result! However, in at least one case it has been established that CEL wrongly claimed there was no reason to have not complied with the ten minute rule, but by collaborating, six have now got independent evidence, backed up by images, that there was very good reason to believe the appellants' version. There are obvious implications of xxxx, which may or may not be brought to consideration based upon whether inaccurate evidence/information was used to support a claim at POPLA, so we are entering very interesting territory here. This is as much as I can say so far. Even the biggest cynic will understand why I sought to direct people to my protest Page - -more people in the group the better. For any others involved in this or similar situation the answer is - get independent evidence letters to right the wrong, and if anyone has in-depth knowledge of how the Theft Act & Fraud Act might play a part here - please post it here.

Yes, actually, I felt I had somethig to contribute - if only to allow the Luddite smarty-pants to express themselves. I have already achieved much but will only publish it here when job's done. By the way, what is your achievement here?

If you checked this out, does this apply to the group of companies they are part of?

funny that when I did so, that got panned. All I tried to do was help some folks. I then get told not to direct people elsewhere when I've bee directing folk here for ages. Honestly I'm amazed at the attitude of some of you, just happy to mock and act superior. This site is supposed to be about ACTION so rather than put folk down - why not do something more to try to help people who still feel oppressed by these vultures. You tell them "nothing to worry about" but they continue to be harassed. You expect them to take as read what a total stranger tells then who hides behind a pen name and takes no responsibility for the advice they give. A bit of help would have been nice.

I was actually lookin for help not more work. I can't find Sidewinders post, by the way. I'm not going to respond to any more posts.

Main interest is clearing their victims from further hassle if, as threatened, CEL sell or have sold their "debts" to DCAs, one of them might be a new subsidiary.

Then you need to delete the post, I'm done wasting time here. Have one last read of it and if you can think of a way to help, please let me know. Failing that, cancel my account. Oh, I will re-register if/when we win!

CEL rode into Whitby Town in midsummer 2012 and caused uproar with Co-op customers and visitors, especially since Spring 2013 with their "Ten Minute Rule". I've been waging war on them since, and started a Facebook protest page. October 2013 they were sacked! Rumour has it they've lost dozens of other Co-op sites too!! Having had both of my PCNs cancelled I left the Protest Page running, even though a second one started. Where we are now up to is fighting their "ten minute rule" - a moneymaker if ever I saw one, and we now have a set of images and an independent witness letter from myself initially - but we will soon have several. I'd like to hear from anyone either still being chased for payment under this rule, or else who has paid it under pressure. Even if you've lost an appeal to POPLA, all is not lost - their evidence seems to trump yours ..... so far. but I'm confident that is about to change. At present we have a chance with the small numbers we have recruited. They reputedly check these forums so I don't want to put more details here, but if you care to PM me I'll let you know how to take it forward. Remember, no addresses, vehicle or PCN numbers, NOTHING WHICH ENABLES YOU TO BE POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED! I'll post any progress here.

Will do, I hope I'm not going to be deleted, accused of spamming, though.

I don't seem able to reply to the PM I received earlier about spamming Actually, I thought I was helping. There is an online petition at Gov't website calling for review of the legislation covering these cowboys. A group of us here in Whitby are also trying to get CEL banned, possibly prosecuted for misrepresenting their evidence. It used to be called Deception until it came under the Theft Act and could be a bit of an earthquake in the PPC industry if we can get it. We'll only get this quicker if enough people come forward, hence my post. So far I am in correspondence with BPA and POPLA, but what we need is witnesses - the sort of people who come on here. I will continue and not return to this site if you prefer me not to, but I did think it was Consumer ACTION group. Now, do you want to help get action or not? Not wishing to offend I shall stay away unless you are happy for me to continue. I am, after all, only trying to help. If you leave my posts as they were I will, as promised, post progress there, otherwise I'd best stay away.M'd me earlier. Is this really goodbye? BOO HOO!