I think ASDA did try the wardens thing - without complete success. Another approach may be to have posts in the ground which can be lowered and raised and have a warden allowing people to use a space by lowering it when a qualifying person drives up to park. I like the idea of bringing it under council / RTA control. Have proper defined charges and procedures backed by law so everyone knows where they stand. Only trouble is the councils would mess it up. Mike

How did you pay? If by card then you may be able to claim the money back from the bank because you paid under duress. What do the signs say?

Yes it does. The sticky is about private parking that is not covered under the acts mentioned. Have you still got the sodden ticket? Can you dry it scan it and post it for some of the experts here to take a look at? Mike

No she doesn't - and no she won't. The info in the sticky you read does apply in this situation. Mike

If I was in your shoes I would be trying to get my money back - especially after being threated like that - in addition to any other action that may be taken against him! I wonder if he actually had authority from the tyre fillter/land owner. Mike

It is harsh and the symptomatic of the automated way this country is dealing with things. I'm sure a policemane would have been more understanding and may even have helped you find your destination. Don't forget tiglet's post. The ticket may have errors cauing it to be unenforceable. If you can sacn it, remove personal details, then post it here some of the experts will take a look at it. Mike

The template letters are for private parking companies operating on private land ie not under the road traffic act. If you have received a summons it sounds like they are operating the parking site under the road traffic act, or the similar one for railway land. If this is the case the template letters are not suitable. Do the tickets you have be given refer to a road traffic act (or similar)? Can you scan and post on the forum (having removed personal details first)? Mike

This is par for the course. Should you receive a letter from the debt collection agency, you could write back using one of the template letters.

No they would not. And you would be entitled to close the door in their face once they have identified themselves. You should write to the dept collection agency telling them that the debt is in dispute and that they must refer it back to the PPC. There is a template letter in the stickies for that. Try here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/119802-private-parking-tickets-template.html Mike

We're all doomed !

£7 Last time I stopped a cheque it was £1.50! As you say, better than the £40.

It is quite underhand how they go about so secretly. I echo what pin1onu has said, read the stickies and act accordingly. Should you feel like paying as you were "the abuser" as Illuminati suggests, might I suggest that you make a suitable charitable donation and tell the parking company to swivel! There is no way these lieing shysters should get a penny of your money.

I have had no luck with them - I have spoken to half a dozen customer services reps over the last fews weeks, each of them agreed that they charges were unfair, but none had the authority to make even partial refunds. I spoke to a manager once - and I had to be quite forceful to get to talk to him - he was the slimiest, most self-important person ever. Unbelieveably low levels of customer service! To cap it all I face another £150 of charges this month because of their charges. Mike

There is one that regularly parks in a bus stop on my way to work. It is interesting in that it is marked as a police vehicle, but has amber coloured lights on the top. There is a road in Slough where I have seen one of these vans about quarter of a mile before a GATSO spped camera. Presumably people think there is a distance to the camera, so are a little less than vigilant about their speed at the point where the camera van is parked. Cunning. Mike

Well, you may not have inconvenienced anyone - there are times when the reserved bays are virtually empty at my local sainsbury's, ie 9:30pm and often the bays are less than half full during the day. If I were to park in a reserved bay at these times, I would have inconvenienced no-one.

Hmm. Satisfying everyone is hardly realistic. What would I do? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't lie to my customers nor engage agents to lie on my behalf. Furthermore, I wouldn't dress up the lies as good charitable works. I am tired of companies (and government departments) trying to take my hard-earned money from me dishonestly. By the by, I'm not fussed about parent and toddler spaces - I managed with my 4 kids - but using spaces set aside for less-able people is not on.

Cuppacat, did you do what sidewinder advised in post #37? To quote: MIke

There is no way that you should have to pay to see the copy of the ticket - which in all probability wasn't valid anyway. People paying these charges is what allows the [problem] to continue.

As Pin1onu has said, there are alternatives to playing fast and loose with the law and lying to people.

The thing that concerns me about this is that the supermarkets are giving the private parking companies some degree of legitimacy.

I was passing an Asda and decided to look at their signage. There was nothing on the entrance and only one sign for disabled bay parking and one *really* easy to miss sign for parent and child parking. So easy to miss was it, that I had decided that they hadn't put one up. See the pictures for the T&Cs. Interesting use of the word penalty!

But there was other legal opinion expressed at that time in support of LegalAdvisors position - so that's two lawyers vs a PPC advocate. but there are alternatives to this which have been suggested and turned down - for example, a letter to the parker(s) asking for permission to give his details. Wrong - there are a number of lawyers posting here, on pepipoo and other places who would be able to prepare and defend a case. One day the PPCs might follow up on their threats of legal action and take a case to court when they have seen that a proper defence has been prepared. Of course this is unlikely - they wouldn't want to lose. In the meantime they (PPCs) continue with their dubious business practices: lies on signs; lies on the letters they send; letters from phoney debt collection agencies which state untruths about the court processes; all designed to coerce ill-informed motorists into paying something they need not. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. Mike

Hehe - as an example, albeit a rare occurance, someone I knew had a car catch fire in the middle of the night whilst parked on the road outside his house. The car had not been driven for some weeks and there was no-one around to accuse of arson. The fire damaged the road surface and the car parked in front. I don't know if the council claimed on his insurance for the repairs to the road (I think they should've), but the guy who owned the car in front did. Mike

Car insurance has always (or at least as long as I can remember) needed insurance in order to get a tax disc. Also, there are 3rd party risks involved in keeping cars on the road even when not being driven and these risks need to be insured. One of the loop holes that has always existed with the tax disk system being used to indicate that a car has both MOT and insurance is that they only need to be valid on day of issue of the tax disk. Both may run out within days yet the TAX disk would still indicate that all was in order. I have alwyas thought that MOT disks would be a good idea (and insurance disks, but that has difficulties). Of course this is changing with the insurance and MOT data being available on line. Of the 3 (tax, mot and insurance) I have always thought the tax was the least important as it has least benefit to third aprties should an accident occur.

Thanks, Hedgey. I will write a letter this evening - I don't like writing these kind of letters as I always end up voicing it too nicely. Regards, Mike