I assume that the words 'or other obligation' covers the fact that one could be deemed to have agreed to only park for the time limit stipulated in a free to park car parking facility? But this does use the word 'or' as opposed to 'and' - so is the criteria to enable a contract to exist or not, either 'free parking' or 'other obligations' and not both? Interesting!

That's how it reads to me too!

Thanks - an interesting point.

Question: If one overstays the stated time allowed, could this action be deemed that one does not agree to the T&C's and therefore has not entred into a contract? - in otherwords, by simply ignoring any signage, can this not demonstrate that you do not agree to a contract in the first place!

It's a [problem] - simple as that: If genuinely retailers wished to kerb abuse of their car parks then why do they not have a simple system whereby one gives your registration number into the retailer when you purchase (or browsing) and your registration number can then be except from 'the system' and this would avoid genuine shoppers wrongly being targeted? Oh...hang on a minute! - that would mean that, if this logical system worked, then the revenue stream from the current system of 'blanket invoicing' customers would simply dry up! - thus the reason this system exists as it is today and is not logical in it's execution - it is nothing more than a [problem] to extract as much money from 'Joe public' as they can - simple as that.

I wouldn’t have even bother entertaining this PPC's invoice - their correspondence so far show too many errors and inconsistencies to be relied on if it where to go to court (but the chances of that are absolute zero! - ask 'angry_driver' - lol - it's not commercially viable for them to pursue). Just simply ignore and don't worry about the many more letters they will continue to send in the hope that you may pay up! - they will eventually simply move onto others who may pay.

IGNORE: a quick google search shows the 'Car Parking Partnership' is a trading name of: Name & Registered Office: LIBERTY PRINTERS (AR AND RF REDDIN) LIMITED WILLETT ROAD THORNTON HEATH CROYDON CR7 6AA Company No. 02920033 Company Type: Private Limited Company Nature of Business (SIC(03)): 2222 - Printing not elsewhere classified URL for the 'Car Parking Partnership' is: carparkingpartnership Which does nothing more than to provide a link to pay them!? (I'm not supprised) - DO NOT PAY A private company that prints tickets (one susspects), who it now appears, have jumped on the lucrative band waggon of issuing invoices - lol

Very good, pin1onu - thanks for putting in the time and effort to format this correctly (and to Lamma for posting originally) Perhaps this should be made a 'sticky' so it can be referenced easily?

I am very disappointed to see that angry_driver has not yet responded to my post. There are obviously a number of 'key points' raised here that I, and I'm sure many others, would very much like to hear his response to. .

I would recommend simply ignoring - worked for me. If you do contact them at all, then you become what's known as 'a hooked fish' and they will send letter after letter in the hope you will send them some money at some stage - if you simply ignore, they will get bored, not knowing if they have reached a human being or not, and simply move onto easier game! There are lots of threads on this site about this company, most noteable is: Civil Enforcement Ltd (again!) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/97586-civil-enforcement-ltd-again.html

'angry driver', You stated in your original post that, to quote: "I will answer openly any questions you may have.", yet to date you have ignored many key questions asked of you: Q1) 'Simon7685' - "I was wondering how you would know someone had read their PM's, I thought that is what they were private?" Q2) 'Bookworm' - "How much profit is the PPC going to actually make from this?" - "what is the profit in it? In pounds? Doesn't have to be precise, a ball park will do."? Q3) 'AI27' - "How much do you charge for a permit on said bit of land? Or are they freely given out by the church?" Q4) 'lamma' - "As asked by someone else - but the question was soundly ignored. How on earth can you know that he read PMs ?" Then your quote (post #160) states: "The reason for requesting the thread to be locked is nothing constructive can be added by any other party at this stage, with the exception of the other side." – this is not true, for I would very much like to know your answers to these important questions you have not yet answered. Then in your post #154, you state, quote: "Courts are not the place to bring actions just to prove a point, thats not a game we want to start playing". and yet you stated in post #99, to quote: "This case was NOT about the money, it was to show that parking charges (IF issued correctly with the correct signage etc..) are perfectly valid and legal DESPITE the 'park anywhere, get lots of tickets and screw them brigade' saying they are unenforceable invoices with the correct defence." and again in your post #139, to quote: "As for the money, this wasnt ever about the money it was to prove a fact that despite the best CAG/PePiPoo brains behind the defence tickets ARE enforceable and the courts do enforce them." and again in your post #145, to quote: "This victory is significant as its the one EVERYONE on here and PePiPoo said could never be done (ie, a good defence crafted by our experts will always see them off as all these tickets are unenforceable)." and again in your post #154, to quote: "We have already won a CAG/PePiPoo defence ... how many will it take before we prove it 2,3,4,50,100 ... We took on the Thomas case after it was clear that CAG/PePiPoo were involved .. we could have backed down and called the action off ... we didnt ... We saw it through to the very end and won." This to me is all evidence to suggest that you are indeed out to simply prove a point and that you are playing!! You also stated (post #145): "What has been proved, and it cant be denied as it happend - The CAG/PePiPoo defence FAILED on all counts - it was stated in many many threads this could not happen and it did." - I would like to see the transcript of the 'defence' to know if this statement is true and correct before I simply take your word for it! Then you quote (post #145): "No matter what spin you want to put on it, the defendant is £250 out of pocket .. .he was off work for 1.5days (he obviously cant afford to be off work, to us it was a jolly - the money not important)" - This apparent gloating, in my view, simply does nothing more than enforce 'Joe publics' current general negative opinion of PPC's and further damages your own reputation. Furthermore, from your gloating and confirmation that "Courts are not the place to bring actions just to prove a point", I'm sure, that in hindsight, the Judge may well now be wondering if he made a sound judgement or not! - and thus possibly damaging any defence you may produce against an appeal if one is indeed lodged! Then there is your quote (post #128'): "The PPC wants this to goto appeal but so far nothing has been heard or seen from the defendant" - (another point to prove?) - I don't know if you’re a religious person, but with reference to the church site, it could be said that God does move in mysterious ways! - in other words your apparent assumption of success to an appeals process is by no means guaranteed.

Is this evidence of my very grave concern of the DVLA selling Registered Keepers details to any 'Tom Dick & Harry', in that PPC's are now simply mailing out invoices (junk mailing 'Joe public' to what must be by now a significant database of RK who have been recorded by PPC's) in the hope they can dupe people into paying them some money? ("let's start with £100 and see how we get on", I can imagine how the conversation went!) Or is this just me being cynical? No authority in this land seems bothered in controlling the distribution of this DVLA private data, and obviously, this information can prove most profitable to the more unscrupulous among us! Damn! - have I just educated some PPC's in how to extract even more money? - I'm sure there must be a law against this - lol Simon, as MrShed has confirmed - "IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE"... and then ignore some more. This is nothing more than a Private Parking Company chancing their arm.

I second that........ If you really want to understand exactly why the world is in the depths of the current credit crunch crisis, this video explaines all, in a simple way that can be understood - it will suprise & amaze you! This should be made compulsory viewing at all schools and colleges - the governemnt keep banging on about education! - but I guess only for things they don't want to hide!!!! - the usual then - lol Nice find Hullabaloo27

Blue badge holder angry at parking fine - News - gethampshire Unbelievable! A Parking Eye spokesman said: “If you are a blue badge holder the fine will be rescinded. The blue badge is tagged to number plates and we don’t have access to that information." “We will rescind the fine and that has always been our policy. We can’t know if they have a blue badge because the system is camera operated.” This PPC (as many do) refer to these as fines! - when it is nothing more than an invoice attempting to dupe people out of money they do NOT owe under an alleged breach of contract. To have caused Mrs Pilgrim to think that "She can’t afford to pay it and I am not paying anything and that she would rather go to prison than pay the fine" causing her to shake when she read the letter received, is tantamount to harassment (a criminal offence!) - She has broken no law and owes no money to these [problematic]. The interesting fact here, is that Parking Eye admit that their "camera operation" cannot distinguish which cars 'comply with their alleged contract' (i.e. have a blue badge) and which don't! - lol - so it would appear that their stance is to just ticket everyone and see who pays! - lol - the very business model that this [problem] by PPC's works on - PROOF AT LAST! (not that you need a blue badge to park on private property, because the road traffic act does not apply to private land!) So if anyone receives such an invoice, simply ingore it, and let the PPC try and enforce their alleged breach of contract through the courts, and prove you didn't have a badge (lol) - don't think they would have much success somehow! - or that a contract exists in the first place! This system of illegally extracting vast sums of money from 'Joe public' by duping them into thinking they have broken some criminal law should be stopped forthwith by this government who, incidentally, were responsible in allowing the DVLA to sell registered keepers details to any 'Tom Dick & Harry' in the first place, and in my view are party to aiding an abetting these [problematic]. If I won the lottery, I would love to put out a TV advert at prime time and national press adverts to put 'Joe public' straight on this [problem] - it makes my blood boil to know that the government turn a blind eye to these unscrupulous practices mainly due to the fact that they benefit to the tune of £2.50 for each registered keepers details requested by these PPC's, making £millions into the bargain.

Signed - What the hell is wrong with this government?!!! This government have an absolute duty to look after the people who have served for this country - ALL service personel regardless of race creed ect, ect, ect. This government would do well to remember this, and prioritise their expenditure before offering help elswhere such as migrant immergration! - remember 'government', whithout the actions of these service personel, this country would doubtfully be in a position to offer such benifits to migrant immergrants which you currently give! Reality check!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This country is in great need and is long overdue for a government with a sense of reality and common sense!

Seconded

An intersting spin on the rules and regulations for 'selling' private data and information that should be protected under the Data Protection Act! You maybe interested in the post: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dvla/161584-bbc-investigate-dvla-selling.html and Bernie_the_Bolt's post of template letters on the subject: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/123409-data-protection-complaints-template.html Personally, I've just written to David Cameron following the BBC's investigation to ask for his comments - now waiting for the reply!

finefight - this most recent communication is evidence that they consider you to be a well 'hooked fish' (by vurtue of the fact that you wrote in the first instance - demonstration of my point made above about totally ignoring!) However, this letter is no more than further harrasment and scare tactics - I would still ingore and wait for a stamped court summons if they dare to go that far. If (and I mean IF, as I doubt they would waste their time or effort) these 'clowns' turn up, state the debt is in dispute (nothing more) and tell then to leave or you will call the police stating that they are trying to extract monies with menices (and do just that if they don't go immediatly -the more witnesses the better, so get the family round - lol) - they will soon leave or be asked to leave by the police. Bottom line - no court papers, no action! - simple as that. DO NOT PAY A PENNY TO THESE PEOPLE.

I feel "jimmylesaint" is of the view that "the cup is half empty" rather than "the cup is half full"! One should remember the fact that PPCs rely on the Law of Contract to pursue people for money in these cases. Under this Law, they would have to prove: 1) That a contract exists between the person of the alleged contravention (the driver) and the land owner. (not easy) (by them writing to the RK, this does not make the RK the 'driver'; and under contract law the RK has no obligation to confirm who the driver was - in essence a pointless exercise and a question to the DVLA as to why they provide RK details? (but that's another subject!)) 2) That they have suffered losses for the alleged contravention. (the amount they can sue you for) (they cannot impose a penalty, but simply sue for losses incurred - if it's free parking then their losses would be £0 - if it's £2 an hour and the driver stayed four, then their losses would be £8 - hardly worthwhile taking someone to court over!) In my view, it would be difficult (impossible in most cases) for a PPC to prove a case based on the above (particularly point one) and, as "robin9342" has mentioned, 'in a properly defended case', their chance of success I would consider to be nil. For an example, Excel's case got a thumbs down from the judge, ruling that the sums demanded were excessive, and did not represent losses incurred! So I'm with the people who recommend ignoring any correspondence from PPC's - it gives them absolutely no information, - (ie, that they have been successful in making contact with a potential 'victim' whom they would then 'hound', 'harass' into submission to pay - all the time knowing that they would have no success if pursued in court if the case was properly defended - (in that both parties turned up!) - and are more likley to give up in a matter of months rather than years. This is the business model that they use to make millions each year - don't be duped by their antics - simply ignore everything (except a bonifide court summons - lol) and they will eventually go away, as has happened in my case - (I have however had to make an extra trip to the dump to dispose of the extra paper I've shredded - very inconvenient - lol)

If It's any help - current latest rules from BT are that if you cancel your broadband service with them, then they will charge you £20 for disconnection (was £5 odd untill recently). However this is for total cancellation of the line or service - in other words, you do not wish to have internet access anymore. But if you migrate your broadband service from BT to another supplier using your MAC code, then this charge does not apply. Obviously the above only applies once you have completed you original contractual period, otherwise you can expect an early termination of contract charge on top of that.

It's all down to preference really - I use IE7. No software is 100% secure in my opinion - if you’re physically connected to the net then there is opportunity for your system to be compromised - the reason I choose to run two PCs and choose not to do online banking - one simply for internet access - the other (standalone) for my main activity and store of personal information. As long as you've installed a good firewall & antivirus, then you are as safe as one could expect. Despite vulnerabilities in whatever browser you choose to use, your firewall & antivirus are the real tools to detect changes to your system and prevent invasion. Therefore is it important to understand and configure both these tools correctly to offer maximum protection. I have for years simply used ZoneAlarm (firewall) & AVG (antivirus) - both available for free - and found they have protected my system without incident, but they have from time to time alerted me to threats which are dealt with immediately. Hope this helps some people. (I've never used FireFox, but with so many people recommending it over IE, I do intend to give it a go at some stage)

Well, what an interesting (censored) video clip we have here! Remember that both the DVLA and the BBC are run by the Government - and this clip goes to demonstrate that the whole story is not told (why would they want the public to know that what is being allowed here breaches many rules, regulations and laws of our country, but earns the Government millions of pounds!). Here are some facts that they neglected to mention: 1) These private car parking companies can only rely on contract law to persue alledge monies owed from breach of contract. (a civil matter - NOT criminal) (and yet we see many try to imitate official paperwork in tickets issued and follow-up letters demanding cash to quite literally scare Joe public into paying - which are in fact criminal offences). 2) Under contract law, private car parking companies can only sue for losses - in other words, if you park in a free car park, and alledgedly breach their contract by overstaying the alloted time allowed, then they can sue you for their losses of 'free parking', which would equate to £0 (zero pounds). - so to issue one with a demand for £125 would be viewed by a court as excessive at the very least - this a [problem] by any other definition. 3) The alleged contract can only exist between the parties involved in the contract - in these cases, the actual driver and landowner. 5) These private car parking companies are simply a 3rd party employed by the landowner. 6) The registered keeper of the vehicle is by no means automatically the driver of the vehicle and has no obligation under contract law to divulge who the driver in fact was, in any event in civil matters - so on what justifiable grounds does the DVLA think they have to issue registered keepers details to these private companies in pursuance of breach of an alleged contract under civil law that can only exist solely between the driver and the landowner - NOT the registered keeper? In this video clip the DVLA state (to quote): 1) "All these firms (PPC's) have signed a clear contract with us" What does this mean? - a mutual contract to maximise revenue for both parties by duping Joe public into paying sums that in law is not justified! - this is equil to extortion, and with menaces when they send the threatening debt collection letters - another criminal act! 2) "We know they're actually looking to the levels of security that we've asked them to, they're looking to various guidelines we've asked them to and we do periodic checks to make sure that they are doing that" Well how come they are comfortable to 'sell' details to 'firms' with directors/owners who have criminal convictions for extortion - Civil Enforcement Limited to name but one of a few I'm aware of! - doesn't sound like a very thorough check is done for this and the fact that they impersonate official documentation and demonstrate harassment in the way that they typically persue payment would suggest otherwise. 3) "Any complaints or feedback that we get we actually will investigate them and take the appropriate action" This I can prove to be 'spin & presentation' for I've complained via my local MP and all I got was a standard response letter from Jim Fitzpatrick (a Transport Minister) which can be read in my post: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dvla/123302-dvla-should-sued-under-3.html#post1440568 No mention of any action being taken! - lol The video clip goes onto say: "The Information’s Commissions say if there's appropriate evidence that the DVLA has given personal details without good cause, they will take the issue up with them - but they add that if drivers have evidence that their information is being used inappropriately, they should complain to them" Exactly what I did via my local MP and look what response I got! - I imagine that these 'firms' are compiling a national database of gulible registered keepers who can easily be duped into paying large summs of money for no legal reason whatsoever! Conclusion: In my view ALL private parking companies do not have 'good cause' to request registered keepers details, for the simple reason that their pursuance of monies is solely with the driver (the person who is alleged to have breached their contract under civil law) and it has nothing to do with the registered keeper under contract law - therefore the DVLA is wrong to provide this information, and, in my view, is in breach of our privacy laws. To add insult to injury, the DVLA not only provide this information to 'anyone who requests it', but they sell this information and profit from it!!!!! - making millions of pound for themselves into the bargain. So in summary, the DVLA are in cahoots’ with this activity of extortion of monies from 'innocent' motorists and are simply aiding and abetting their dubious activities, with the Government simply turning a blind eye because they are on a good little earner from it too! If this is allowed to continue, I can see no rational reason the Government would have to not stump up the £4M the Queen is now asking for, to maintain her estate - lol

I like it - what a great idea - lol

Same with me - nothing now for some 5 months! I never wrote or responded to any of their begging 'letters' - and yes I got all the 'same old threats' of court action and prompt payment discounts, ccj's ect from both CEL and Newlyn - lol They are nothing more than a bunch of [problematic] chancing their arm at extracting monies out of people for having done nothing. If you park in a free car park then their damages are zero under the law of contract - why would anyone take you to court to sue you for zero pounds? - EXACTLY - lol My advice is simple - don't respond, get on with your life and don't even worry about it.

I second that - ignoring has worked for me - lol