Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello I've got a parking ticket, see here... https://ibb.co/DfHqg9F https://ibb.co/QvqH52m https://ibb.co/pbPPdDg https://ibb.co/X2F1X25 I've been parking at a particular corner in a small Tesco car park for years. Recently they put two electric charging plugs, one where that spot is and one at the bay next door, so I stopped using them out of courtesy in case they need to be used (I use that Tesco every day and drive past every day but have yet to see anyone use them). Recently I went back to Tesco when it was reasonably dark. All the bays were full, including the three blue badge bays. I have one but none of the cars parked in the bays did, I noticed as I walked past them (nobody ever gets pulled for that because Tesco have never policed this small car park before). Since there was two free electric bay spaces, and since I wasn't going to be long (just one product), I parked into my former 'regular' spot. There was a notice on the wall but if I'm honest I didn't read it because (a) I'm thick, and (b) I honestly thought it was just telling people how to use the device (like I said, I'm thick) rather than this being a parking fine. I went back during daylight and the sign is very obvious (as you can see from the picture), although not so obvious at night, although probably still obvious enough for you to tell me "tough luck, pal". Now they want £100 or £60 if I pay quickly. Am I doomed?
    • Hi All   After a bit of advice to see where I stand. Bought a car in Sept 2022 on pcp. Been told it had a big inspection and was good to go. Had many issues with it throughout the year including trims coming off the car and sunroof not closing.   While getting the sunroof repaired at month 12, in Sept 2023, the bodyshop guy said your cars been in a bad accident. Garage said it hasn't but offered to take the car back at half of what I paid for it as long as I buy a replacement from them before inspecting it (probably damage control) (car was £78k, said they'd offer £40k "trade in value" as if doing me a favour).   Ended up getting a forensic inspection done for £2400 in Dec 2023, confirmed car was in a bad smash (write off level but unrecorded on hpi) and potentially unsafe to drive - front end is slightly bent towards 1 side, what looks like a hairline crack on the chasis, overspray, bonner with patches of filler all over it, damaged rubbers etc   Raised complaint to finance company and few weeks ago to FOS... just wondering what people's experiences have been like going through the FOS, main thing that concerns me is that it was 12-13 months after I bought the car that I realised what caused these issues and raised the issue to the garage/ finance co but the damage/ misaligned panels are actually visible in the advert photos which I saved thankfully.    Dealership has had my car for 4 weeks to let a few bodyshops look at it (without giving me a courtesy car!!!) Not giving me any updates either because I went to the FOS about it and didnt want to speak to them over the phone anymore as opposed to emails. Note: hanging trim was reported within 3 months but due to part delays it didn't come until like July 2023, within 2 months the piece came off again, claimed under repairers warranty for another replacement 6 weeks ago and within 2 weeks this time the trim is coming off AGAIN (assuming it won't stay on due to the car being actually bent out of shape slightly)   Any idea if I have a good case or if there's anything else I can do?   Thanks
    • After the dealer failed to refund the money I checked the sort code and account number to reveal which bank received the money. It turned out to be HSBC BUSINESS DIRECT ONLINE. I called them and they confirmed the account name wasn’t Langley Cars though obviously didn’t tell me the correct account name. My bank contacted HSBC after I reported this to be fraud and they did in fact do a charge back but reversed the decision when the dealer sent a copy of the receipt he gave me for the deposit where it said it was non-refundable. I said that doesn’t mean anything when the car should never have been put on the forecourt when it was a death trap, and not fit for purpose.   The MOT revealed only a few of the faults which he agreed to correct in a week as I needed the car to travel out of London for work. He didn’t meet that deadline either because there were other more serious problems as identified by my independent car check. The same mechanic informed the dealer of these faults. The car wasn’t fixed by the agreed date due to the extensive repairs needed. So he was in breach of our contract on many levels.    I requested the bank find out the correct name of the account and they said the only information they had was like you said was the account number and sort code. I challenged the bank stating that whenever I create a new payee if the name doesn’t match the registered account name, it declines the creation of the proposed payee. So what happened in this instance?    I checked company’s house using the address from where the dealership is located and there was neither the two names, one was aa advertised in AUTOTRADER and the other on the courtyards entrance. I thought as I had made payment to the dealers ‘Trading as’ name that it would more than likely be enforceable than any other. Indeed the Bailiff was the one to call me and say that a variation of the warrant of control needed to be done before he could go and enforce the order. I cross-checked the address on Companies House website and got 3 different business names. Only one appears to be car related.  I am unsure as to what I can do within the variation of the warrant which the bailiff felt was appropriate. I will speak to him again Monday. 
    • Their PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. iit was not posted until 13 days after the event for one thing meaning it would be deemed to arrive on the 15th day instead of the 14th day. Now though we cannot expect that your PCN also missed the deadline there were still two other things wrong with the wording of the PCN that if your PCN has the same wording as your friends means that your PCN would not be compliant either. Their PCN does not specify the period of parking as required n the Act. It does show the ANPR arrival and departure dates but as those times include driving from the entrance to finding a parking place then later driving from the parking place to the exit cannot be described as a parking period. I suspect that the " Important Note" on your form will also not comply though I cannot be sure until we see your actual PCN.The reason I can't confirm that is because they sent out the PCN too late they have said that they are pursuing your friend on the assumption that they were the driver as well as the keeper-something that Courts do not accept. But it does look as if your PCN is not compliant which means that the keeper cannot be held liable to pay the charge. Only the driver can be made to pay it. If you have not appealed and revealed who was driving, there is no way that  Excel know who was driving.  So just to be sure please send them an SAR . On another topic do you have any proof that you did not stay there for so long just to really spoil Excel's day.
    • As your first PCN was a Notice to Driver which would have been followed by a Notice to keeper over a month later [even though it may only state Parking Charge notice] it is even more necessary to send PE an SAR. If either document fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act  2012 Schedule 4 then both you and your father are in the clear. So you do not need to worry about is any paperwork from unregulated debt collectors and fifth rate solicitors. The only thing to look out for is a Letter of Claim and all you have to do is respond with a snotty letter back to them .  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Parking Eye Lose Three in a Day.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3777 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Posted by Bargepole over on MSE.

 

 

 

Case #1: 3JD00565 at Colchester County Court (ParkingEye v Rogers)

 

This had been adjourned from a previous hearing, to allow PE to produce their landowner contract. The defendant also produced photographs, showing that there was no signage at the entrance to the car park, and others were obscured. PE had produced their own photos, showing a full set of signage, which the LPC Law rep tried to argue had been taken at around the same time. However, in the background of PE’s photos were images of people in shorts, and shop signs saying “Summer Sale”. As the event occurred last November, this seemed highly unlikely. The Judge dismissed the claim on the basis of no signage = no contract.

 

Cases #2 & #3: 3QT62681 and 3QT62156 at Southampton County Court (ParkingEye v Lemon, and PE v unnamed defendant)

 

The Judge decided to hear two cases simultaneously, from the same car park, and with identical facts.

 

In the first defendant’s own words: “We won! The solicitor for ParkingEye produced a contract which was dated Feb 2013 (our parking overstay was Oct. 2012) and the judge was not amused that it hadn't been included in either his or our bundles. He also refused the claim because the wording of the sign was ambiguous.

 

Very many thanks for all your help and advice. If I can ever do anything to help, I'll be only too pleased. I have been absolutely disgusted with what I have discovered about ParkingEye Ltd.

 

We will be contacting our local paper and I will probably write to the Daily Mail and The Telegraph.

 

I'm also going to contact Trading Standards and the DVLA about the fact that PE have taken money wrongly (is illegally too strong a word?) for over a year in The Range car park here.”

 

The good thing about all these, is that the Defendants were sufficiently well briefed, and confident enough to conduct their own defences against the LPC Law advocates. A bad day at the office for Rachel, I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Case #1: 3JD00565 at Colchester county court (parkingeye v Rogers)

 

This had been adjourned from a previous hearing, to allow PE to produce their landowner contract. The defendant also produced photographs, showing that there was no signage at the entrance to the car park, and others were obscured. PE had produced their own photos, showing a full set of signage, which the LPC Law rep tried to argue had been taken at around the same time. However, in the background of PE’s photos were images of people in shorts, and shop signs saying “Summer Sale”. As the event occurred last November, this seemed highly unlikely. The Judge dismissed the claim on the basis of no signage = no contract.

 

 

Surely this was an attempt to mislead the court by PE. Why are the courts not doing something about this ?

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance that we could have copies of the documents involved in this. - Claims, defences and judgments?

Also I would like very much to talk to the defendants involved to get a sense of how it all developed.

 

Maybe you could email us on our admin address.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

which is

 

[email protected] (no spaces)

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinion only

 

I wonder if PE are issuing court papers with the hope that quite a few people are baulking at the thought of going to court so pay up

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinion only

 

I wonder if PE are issuing court papers with the hope that quite a few people are baulking at the thought of going to court so pay up

 

If they are abusing the court process in this way, then something does indeed need to be done.

 

Almost certainly people will panic if they receive a court claim through the post !

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think PE are particularly worried if they lose the odd court case.As has been stated above, if enough people just cave in and pay when they receive court papers they will still be quids in. In fact even if PE win a court case it costs them more on court and legal fees then they get back from the motorist.So they are banking on their victims being so frightened by the thought of court they they will just pay up. What a very cynical way to run a business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how debt purchasers work too, and on a much grander scale. Huge profits on the back of scaring innocent people into thinking something unspeakably terrible will befall them unless they cave in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they are banking on their victims being so frightened by the thought of court they they will just pay up. What a very cynical way to run a business.

 

It is also an abuse of the court system !!

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a shame that barratry was abolished.

 

For those, like me, who were ignorant of this ....

 

In England and Wales the common law offence of being a common barrator was abolished by section 13(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Act 1967.

 

Being a common barrator was an offence under the common law of England. It was classified as a misdemeanour. It consisted of "persistently stirring up quarrels in the Courts or out of them". It is doubtful whether in the ordinary way persons charged with commission of this offence were dealt with by indictment.[3]

 

In 1966 the Law Commission recommended that this offence be abolished.[4] They said that there had been no indictments for this offence for "many years" and that, as an indictable misdemeanour, it was "wholly obsolete".[3] Their recommendation was implemented by the Criminal Law Act 1967.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law)#England_and_Wales

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Case 1 actually made me laugh out loud :-D

 

Parking Eye you made my day!

 

The judge actually knew the true nature of a loss. That's why only £15 was awarded. Even after that judgement PE are still ploughing on with those stupid "loss" figures which are not actual losses but their day-to-day running expenses and costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

every person who folds when they receive the court papers earns PE another £75 for court fees and solicitors fee they havent paid at that point.

If you feel like throwing the towel in at least reply to the court paperwork and get them to pay the allocation fee before settling. make them do something to work for their ill-gotten gains. Unfortunately, if you are reading this you know this already but the hundreds of other who dont read here will never know the extent of the con.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some potentially fascinating figures would be revealed if only the full information could be found out -

 

Number of 'tickets' issued.

 

% paid before issue of Court papers

 

Numbers of Court papers issued (this can be obtained via SAR)

 

% of Court applications settled by payment before a Hearing

 

% of Court applications withdrawn before a Hearing

 

% of Court applications won by to PE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some potentially fascinating figures would be revealed if only the full information could be found out -

 

Number of 'tickets' issued.

 

% paid before issue of Court papers

 

Numbers of Court papers issued (this can be obtained via SAR)

 

% of Court applications settled by payment before a Hearing

 

% of Court applications withdrawn before a Hearing

 

% of Court applications won by to PE

 

 

I wish that were the case. A SAR can only be requested for your information, not company info that is likely to be commercially sensitive.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you cant get the info via a SAR, you need to go for FOI request to HMCTS. They may say that it will take too long and cost too much to answer the questions so phrase them in a way that enables the info to be collated with the least effort.

Therefore you can ask how many claims issued by parking co's, how many satisfied before hearing, how many withdrawn or not proceeded with and how many found for the apellant/defendant. Might have to specify the names of parking co's or say how many claims from BPA members to avoid commercail confidentiality. Alternatively, get your MP to ask the minister for justice in a written request or parliamentary question. Some MP's are rather keen on this sort of thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See :FOI/84035

July 2013

which used:

  • How many county court small claims have been initiated from British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme members from 01/10/2012 to 30/06/2013.

 

  • Could you break down per company for the dates above

You could try adding:

  • How many of these claims have been abandoned or successfully defended.

which has produced interesting figures in the past when requested against individual companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong, but this whole court fiasco could be avoided if every one who obtains one of these invoices in England and Wales goes through the appeals process including POPLA on the basis of Genuine Pre Estmate of Loss, Contrctual agreement and signage. PE have an almost unblemished record at POPLA when it comes to Genuine pre estimate of loss. On the subject of signage, I have recently been aware of two examples wher the DVLA has become involved and upheld complaints regarding inadequate entry signage (pictures should be taken) depite the fact that the BPA has rejected similar complaints. (No surprises there then)

 

My basis for this approach is that I fully understand that many people do not want to face a court and of course PE and others are fully aware of this fact which encourages them to issue claims through Northampton in the knowledge that a lareg proportion of people will simply pay up.

Therfore should we not be doing more to deprive PE the opportunity of frightening people into paying by providing written appeals and discouraging people from ignoring.

Please note non of the above applies in Scotland.

Just look at PE's POPLA track record.

Post number

Operator

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

18

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

68

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

77

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

93

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

121

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

138

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

144

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

149

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

160

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

166

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

177

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

181a

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

181b

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

182

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

193

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

194

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

199

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

210

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

212

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

235

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

240

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

243

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

254a

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

254b

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

255

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

262

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

263

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

272

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

288

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

291

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

298

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

299

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

317

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

321

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

347

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

332

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

348

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

359

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

377

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

390

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss.

379

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

434

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

435a

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

523

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

535

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

542

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

547

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

550

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

561

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

567

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

568

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

571

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

572

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

573

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

590

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

598

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

609

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

612

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

613

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

614

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

619

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

624

ParkingEye

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

8 Dec

631

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

9 Dec

637

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

9 Dec

638

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

9 Dec

639

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

 

With more to follow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Parking Prankster reckons that 67 POPLA decisions going against PE on GPOL. But still the PPC persists on churning out the same old rubbish that erection of signs and cameras and staff wages etc. can be counted as "losses".

 

Just a thought, as they have been told time after time by POPLA that they can't make those claims, does the fact of them persisting in this charade amount to claiming money under false pretenses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Parking Prankster reckons that 67 POPLA decisions going against PE on GPOL. But still the PPC persists on churning out the same old rubbish that erection of signs and cameras and staff wages etc. can be counted as "losses".

 

Just a thought, as they have been told time after time by POPLA that they can't make those claims, does the fact of them persisting in this charade amount to claiming money under false pretenses?

 

It will cave in at some stage, however the point I was trying to make is that by APPEALING EVERY INVOICE THROUGH POPLA using the points listed rules out the use of the court and therefore reduces the number of people who are intimidated into paying.

We also know that a number of companies are trying every trick in the book to avoid providing POPLA codes, whenever this is picked up a complaint should be made to the DVLA and of course members of parliament as they are deliberately breaching the regulations (POFA) begged for by the BPA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...