Three more stories today:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2711460/Give-sites-good-banging-The-wardens-3k-bonuses-urged-bosses-issue-scores-parking-tickets-day.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2711384/Cancer-charities-Stop-bullies-Bosses-join-Mail-s-fight-rid-Britain-scourge-car-parking-pirates.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2711396/Would-risk-Lidl-introduces-free-parking-trial-10-MINUTE-limit-incurs-90-penalty.html

Two more Mail articles today:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2710175/Hospitals-send-parking-bully-boys-hound-sick-grieving-NHS-spends-cash-dodgy-debt-collectors.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2710215/NEIL-HERRON-We-saw-rogue-clampers-Now-let-s-purge-parking-ticket-pirates.html

"unfortunately, because government did not insist upon all private parking operators joining an Accredited Trade Association, it means that there are indeed ‘loopholes’ [to use a Daily Mail term] and some private companies that the motorist cannot appeal against. We think that is wrong." Except that the biggest offenders are members of the BPA

Also the Parking Prankster has blogged about this :- http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/have-you-received-court-claim-from.html

If you mean the CO-OP paying CEL, yes it's been reported several times on other forums. For instance this, from just a few days ago:- I had a fine from Coop last year from CEL which I ignored all letters. Then came the Court papers! Got straight onto Coop headquarters customer care line and was told they would pay in total. Confirmed today that check was being sent to CEL. and this from last week:- Since my email I have now received an email from Customer Services: I have now received a cheque back with me in the office and will be sending this directly to the car parking company tomorrow for you to pay this charge on your behalf. They shall send out confirmation to you of this payment once it has been processed. Thank you for your continued in this matter. Yours sincerely and this:- Good Afternoon Mr xxxx A cheque has been requested in order to pay this charge directly to the car parking company for you. This should take around 7 days to fully process and will ensure that this case is finalised for you. I shall let you know once the cheque is received back in the office. Thank you for your patience in this matter. thanks for all your help These were all posted on MSE

MET are one of the "mildest" PPCs as they don't seem to take people to court. What the paper should have concentrated on are the likes of Parking Eye, UKCPS and CEL who take people to court at the drop of a hat. What's more, the CO-OP are actually paying CEL about £150 a time to get them to drop court cases. That would make a good story, especially in the light of the CO-OPs perilous financial position.

I don't know about other people but I never seem to have any trouble with lost post either sending or receiving. I also volunteer for a charity bookshop, we send books, CDs and records all over the world and never once has anything gone astray. I wonder why this problem seems so prevalent amongst PPCs?

According to this article Parking Eye seem not to be receiving important mail that's been posted to them. Should they complain to Royal Mail! http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Motorist-8216-ecstatic-8217-Derby-court-victory/story-21658621-detail/story.html

There are similar signs on the A50 service area south of Derby.

All you need to know about expedion:- http://www.parkingticketappeals.org.uk/2014/07/expedion-ltd/

It's not council. It's a private company called P4 Parking.

To add to the above, this is a POPLA decision against VCS just posted over on MSE. As you can see, the assessor has seen through all hat boloney about their so called "losses":- Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the Operator has stated that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of the loss incurred and in the event that it is not a genuine pre estimate of loss, the charge is commercially justified. The Operator has provided evidence to show that they incur costs of £166.69 but in order to meet with the requirements of the British Parking Association, the maximum charge that can be imposed is £100. Although the Operator has stated the final charge, they have failed to indicate how this charge was calculated. Although the Operator has explained costs that may be incurred, a number of the items referred to amount to general operating costs and would not appear to be substantially linked to the cost incurred as a result of the breach. In the absence of an explanation as to how the amount of the charge was reached, I am not satisfied that the Operator has provided sufficient evidence to show that the charge represents a genuine pre estimate of the loss incurred. If the charge is not found to amount to a genuine pre estimate of loss, the Operator has stated that the charge is commercially justified. The Operator has provided a number of cases in support of this submission. In cases I have seen from the higher courts and indeed the cases submitted by the Operator, it is clear that the charge cannot be commercially justified if the primary purpose of the charge is to deter a breach. Where the charge represents damages, the amount of the charge is required to be compensatory rather than punitive; with the goal of placing the parties in the position they would have been in, had the contract been performed. In this case, the primary purpose of the charge is to prevent vehicles from parking without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket. This is to deter a breach of the terms and conditions and I am consequently not satisfied that the charge can be commercially justified. The Operator has not demonstrated that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss or commercially justified and I therefore have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the charge does not amount to a genuine pre estimate of loss. As a result, I need not decide any other issues raised by the Appellant. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed. Shehla Pirwany Assessor

That DCA probably goes by the name of "Expedion" (note the similarity in name to a well known credit reference agency) . Once again Trevor has scored an own goal. If he had done some research about that name then he would have found that the Urban Dictionary defines "expedion" as meaning a "complete lying buffoon"" .

I wonder if that contract contains a "do not take any of our customers to court" clause as per Somerfield and PE? That might be a reason why they are reluctant to show it. It's believed that Aldi might have a similar clause in their contract with PE, as they have never taken any Aldi customers to court even though PE dish out hundreds of court papers a month for other locations.

I Have just been given this information which might be of help. Its from Wigan Council:- From: Date: Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:06 AM Subject: Freedom of Information Request - 5677 To: xxxxxxxxxxx Dear xxxxxxx I am writing to respond to your freedom of information request recently received. This request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The response to your request is detailed below. We do not use ANPR on any of our car parks and therefore do not have a contract with this company.

So the motorist stopped for 8 minutes in total. I though that the BPA Ltd recommended a grace period of 10 minutes.

You really need to start your own thread, as this one deals with a different company.

UKCPS have been ordered by Savilles to drop a court case bought against a disabled motorist with a disabled son. That's how "ethical" UKCPS are. Savilles are also the land-agents who gave UKCPS the boot from the Elk Retail Park Oldham for "aggressive ticketing and harrasment of customers." back in 2010.

Two things, It would be best if you started your own thread and secondly, this is not a "fine, it's an invoice.

To back up the above, Parking Prankster is reporting that PE's credit rating has dropped from 95/100 in November last year to 38/100 at the end of last month, with hints it might be down to 25/100 now. One reason speculates PP is this:- It is not known why ParkingEye's credit has dropped so spectacularly. It may be that the agencies have realised that the company has essentially zero value. If every single motorist was to appeal their charge to POPLA on the grounds that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss then based on previous results POPLA would cancel every charge, leaving ParkingEye with zero income and POPLA costs of nearly £19 million.

Precisely! The whole private parking "industry" is founded on this myth.

So it appears that the judge ruled on it not being a true "loss". That puts another nail in the coffin for PE who have stated that PE have never ruled on that point.

Any idea what the other win was?

When you think about it, every ticket issued by them is GPEOL because there would never be any "loss" suffered by the parking company. This is why the whole private parking "industry" is based on one big myth.

Parking Eye are now losing court cases on a daily basis. Even at courts where they used to win , such as Liverpool. For some strange reason they haven't updated their "latest news" (where they crow about their wins) since September.