Continued from part 6 here; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?346170-The-great-intrest-rate-rip-off-part-6/page11

Forum to advise on preventing private-parking rip-offs [5 November 2012] Dodgy practices in the private-parking industry have led the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to create an advisory committee of consumer and motoring bodies to help sort out the mess, much of which stems from unclear signs and documents. The new ‘DVLA Consumer Forum on Private Parking Management’ will include people from the AA, the RAC, Which?, Trading Standards, the Office of Fair Trading and Citizens Advice, as well as Martin Cutts of Plain Language Commission and Nev Metson, the former police officer who has exposed many of the worst private-parking rip-offs. As we’ve reported, the industry chases drivers for around £160million a year in phoney (ie, non-official) fines for supposedly breaching car-park rules. The forum will meet twice a year. http://www.clearest.co.uk/news/2012/11/5/forum_to_advise_on_preventing_private_parking_rip_offs

I'll try and keep to the point on this post... My Mother has used Swinton since she started driving 10 years ago or more now, made one claim (Which was paid in full by the third party) and lived at the same address. She recently found that she was actually paying more for her insurance than me (22years old, Vauxhall Chavalier, Living in Essex...) and asked Swinton what the problem was. They informed her that she had various other policies that she'd never asked for and Mum asked for the rep to knock them all on the head at no cost, which was agreed. Now, they're sending DCA's after her for a £40 missed payment, inflated to about £200, which she doesn't have. This isn't the first time I've heard of Swinton giving tin-pot DCA's Carte Blanche to do as they please and add on completely absurd fees, but why? She's now insured with a small, independant broker who she pays in cash on a monthly basis and has been nothing but helpful, so why can the new broker be honest, and not be adding on life cover, accident cover and all this tripe? She's saved 50% by going to a proper broker and I've even been in there and paid on the odd occasion and have nothing but good things to say. The Swinton Reps in Mum's town are all 16 years old and just want to sell another policy, even when you're going in there to make a genuine query on an existing one! Can the DCA be ignored and told to go away? Swinton have no losses to show as the policy was up anyway, the final payment had been made and Mum just wanted shot of them. They're charging this over-inflated cancellation fee when in fact, the policy was due to cancel only a fortnight after!

Forum to advise on preventing private-parking rip-offs [5 November 2012] Dodgy practices in the private-parking industry have led the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to create an advisory committee of consumer and motoring bodies to help sort out the mess, much of which stems from unclear signs and documents. The new ‘DVLA Consumer Forum on Private Parking Management’ will include people from the AA, the RAC, Which?, Trading Standards, the Office of Fair Trading and Citizens Advice, as well as Martin Cutts of Plain Language Commission and Nev Metson, the former police officer who has exposed many of the worst private-parking rip-offs. As we’ve reported, the industry chases drivers for around £160million a year in phoney (ie, non-official) fines for supposedly breaching car-park rules. The forum will meet twice a year. http://www.clearest.co.uk/news/2012/11/5/forum_to_advise_on_preventing_private_parking_rip_offs

The following link is to an article in the Sunday Express. As you will see Eric Pickles is wanting to "revive Britian's High Street" and he is very concerned that a recent survey revealed that "7 in 10 people intentionally avoided shopping areas with extortionate parking prices". Finally....somebody is waking up! However.......far too late!!! He needs to start asking serious questions about the introduction of Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and this awful part of the Act will KILL THE HIGH STREET and force shoppers to use the internet for their purchases. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/351893/Government-launch-war-on-council-parking-charge/

Eric Pickles and his "war on rip-off parking charges" The following link is to an article in the Sunday Express. Although this concerns local authority parking tickets, it is very relevant because shoppers are keeping away from out of town retails parks becuse of the private parking companies. As you will see Eric Pickles is wanting to "revive Britian's High Street" and he is very concerned that a recent survey revealed that " 7 in 10 people intentionally avoided shopping areas with extortionate parking prices". Finally....somebody is waking up! However.......far too late!!! He needs to start asking serious questions about the introduction of Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and this awful part of the Act will KILL THE HIGH STREET and force shoppers to use the internet for their purchases. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/351893/Government-launch-war-on-council-parking-charge/

Regulation of Signage and Ticketing Technology (Publicly-available Car Parks) Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) 1.13 pm Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision relating to signage and ticketing technology for parking charges used in publicly-available car parks; and for connected purposes. This is a straightforward Bill. It will get a better deal for the motorist and stop them being ripped off at car parks. Misleading and confusing signs are inexcusable; it should be simple to get the signs and pay machines right. Last autumn, angry constituents came to see me when a new operator took over a town centre car park in Ebbw Vale. Within weeks, I had received a flood of complaints from blue badge holders. There were criticisms about signage, and about a complicated payment system in which drivers had to enter their car registration number into a fiddly key pad. I am fed up with poor signage in car parks that confuses and confounds the motorist. At that car park in my constituency, motorists were told, in micro-print: “Do not leave the car park to retrieve change in order to purchase a valid ticket”. The fact that they are unable to read that instruction before entry makes it hard for the motorist to do the right thing; it also helps the operator to pocket fines. However, the British Parking Association, which oversees the self-regulation of the private car parking industry, told me that that sign was acceptable. Perhaps the greatest grievance brought to my attention was the extortionate parking charge notices. Like most MPs, I bat for my constituents. I am a reasonable person, and I think that motorists should pay to park on private land. However, I expect parking operators to tell drivers how and what to pay. Signs should be clear and unambiguous, and when drivers do pay, but make a genuine mistake when entering their registration number into a machine, they should not have to pay an additional parking charge of £40, as a constituent of mine was asked to do. They had already purchased a ticket and paid for their parking space, so there was no loss whatever to the operator. My constituent had done the right thing, but was still forced to cough up. That is just wrong. I have met representatives of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which passes on vehicle registration data to the so-called approved car park operators. I have also met representatives of the British Parking Association, the industry-funded body, which requires its members to abide by its members’ club code of practice. The BPA told me that it would like statutory regulation of the sector, but that that has been spiked by the Government. When I met the Transport Minister, I was told that an independent appeals service for unfair ticketing would be introduced under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. That safeguard is welcome, but it fails to address the large-scale and deliberately exploitative ticketing operations of some in the sector. Since raising this issue in Parliament, I have been contacted by people from all over the country who have been hit by car park operators’ sharp practice. Their anger and frustration is backed up by statistics from the DVLA. In 2011-12, the DVLA received 1.57 million electronic requests for driver information. Those requests give drivers’ personal details to car park operators, and the information is used to chase up motorists for payment. The number of requests went up by one third in the past year alone. When a driver allegedly breaks the rules, the car park operator gets their personal details from the DVLA and uses them to send them an instant penalty charge notice. In short, the operators are milking the motorist. Now, following much consumer campaigning, the BPA is reducing the maximum charge, but it will still be a hefty £100. If drivers do not pay the charge, it increases and a solicitor’s letter often follows. That aptly named “threatogram” can often frighten the motorist into paying up. Such charges can cost the British motorist a staggering £125 million a year. In Stockport, a gentlemen won his case because the judge thought that the signage was poor, and that people could have been forgiven for thinking that they did not have to pay. It turned out that more than 11,000 people in the previous three years had not paid, but, yet again, the BPA thought that the signage was fine. I am pressing for simple and fair signage. I want clear notices at the entrances to car parks, to let motorists know whether or not they have to pay. Drivers also need to know how to pay, and how much. One idea is to have large signs painted on the tarmac as well. That is certainly a low-cost solution. The BPA tells me that it plans to improve signage, including through the use of larger font sizes. Let us hope that it takes inspiration from the excellent Olympics signage that we have all seen in the past few months; it was first class. Above all, the BPA must get on with this; otherwise, motorists will continue to be a soft target. I was disappointed, but not surprised, to find that the BPA is giving its car park operators up to three years to change their signs, even though we all expect the operators to make the changes quickly. That will mean another three years of unfair fines for many. I am also worried about a developing business model for this sector, in which the landowner receives the hourly charge from the motorist but the car park operator receives the income from any extra charges. So, from the car park operator’s point of view, the more confusing the signage is, the better. When it is confusing for the motorist, the car park operators make more money. That cannot be right. This Bill will end the open season on motorists; it will deliver clear, easy-to-read signs in all car parks used by the public. Payment systems, too, must be as simple as possible. Motorists who pay should not face extra charges when they have done the right thing. If we want shoppers to use our high streets, we need to make sure they can park at reasonable cost. Confusing and misleading car park signs are quite literally driving consumers out of our town centres. They are going to out-of-town retail centres, where they can park for free. Nobody is arguing for free car parking in our towns. People should pay for parking and the landowner should get a reasonable return. Motorists should not be ripped off, however. This Bill would mean that, in future, motorists can use their local town centre without fear of being fleeced. Crucially, car park operators must clean up their act. Question put and agreed to . Ordered, That Nick Smith, Stephen Barclay, Nic Dakin, Chris Evans, Yvonne Fovargue, Diana Johnson, Barbara Keeley, Ian Lucas, Seema Malhotra, John Mann and Jim Shannon present the Bill. Nick Smith accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2013, and to be p http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm120918/debtext/120918-0001.htm#12091825000002rinted (Bill 71).

hi, i stupidly downloaded a form off the net to try to claim some ppi i thought i had paid, i sent the form off without looking at the fee , i sent details of the claim the dates, the account number, everything that they needed, meaning that they did not have to look up my account, i phoned them a few weeks later [i paid for call ]and tried to speak to someone to tell them that i had received a questioner from the loan company. no one rang me back so i filled the questioner in myself and sent it back my self [i paid for stamp] a few weeks went buy and i was offered £4.5k from company, in the meantime i got a letter from ppi company saying that i have to pay £1600 to them, but for what i did all the work! i was told that i would have a cheque in 10 to 15 days, ,i have just received a automated message to my mobile telling me to contact them[ppi company] i had to pay top ring them back and spoke to some obnoctious prat telling me to set a post dated payment for when i received payment,i told him what he could do! i know hindsight us a wonderful thing but i thought it would be a hard fight, and i really did not know that i would be charged 30% can i make a complaint because the ppi company has not done anything many thanks

I would like publicly offer my condolences to the family of Colin Traynor for there loss.. Colin Traynor RIP http://www.channel4.com/news/disability-testing-system-failing-says-dead-mans-parents

i watched fascinated as a 9 year old as a man landed and walked on the moon, that man was Neil Armstrong...sadly passed away yesterday....RIP

Organisers accused of making disabled people use 40p-a-min booking line Meanwhile, the able-bodied can simply buy tickets online for no extra cost. story here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193616/London-2012-Olympics-Only-wheelchair-users-forced-use-high-cost-phone-lines.html

hi i took out a cover about a month ago,policy is for £400 i forgot to mention about a claim which was not my fault (its a non fault claim and they understand this ) now they have decided to increase my policy by £68 i have decided to cancel my policy but they asking for £50 cancellation and £50 non refundable arangement fee ( they say its noted on my policy) I'm paying on DD monthly. i think its policy of office of fair trading not to go beyond £50 and hence they have decieded to go for standard £50 for every item, why not £40 ? why not £60? i think they just a rip off , can they do this? my other concern is i read some where on the forum that people been charged £107 for change of address and moving 1 mile only! looks like i be paying significant money over long term. any advice is appreciated

I would like to alert anybody that may be considering buying double glazing units, because dialling ABLE GLAZE LTD could be a very costly experience. ABLE GLAZE LTD are an Essex based company who carry out Double Glazing Repairs and also Door and Window locks repairs. They advertise their business NATION WIDE in the THOMSON LOCAL DIRECTORY. I contacted ABLE GLAZE LTD and asked for a quotation they then phoned their North West agent from their Essex headquarters, who came to measure up. My wife accepted their quotation of £520.00 PLUS vat = £624.00 and gave them an order for 10 doubleglazed units. Four small and six medium units. ABLE GLASS LTD then phoned their North West agent to order the glass. Coming home from my work that day I noticed that my wife had left a note with the quote saying that she had ordered the units. I was not comfortable with the price and phoned ABLE GLAZE LTD, you can guess how the conversation went, which included a promise to put ABLE GLAZE on this Consumer Forum. After half an hour a 10% discount was offered, at 45mins a superior employee offered a15% discount, that was their final offer or I could cancel the order, but that would have cost me £312.00 lost deposit. Throughout the conversation I repeatedly asked for the name of the company that was actually making my units, and they consistently refused, but having taken much of their time over the phone they eventually gave me the companies name. I phoned the Glass Company that was making the units and curiously asked for a quotation for 10 double glazed units - they quoted £181 plus VAT =£ 217.00. Unbelievable! I was speechless. the local glass company in the north west sold my order to ABLE GLAZE LTD who are based in Essex for £217.00 vat included. ABLEGLAZE LTD, who have made nothing, wanted to charge me £620.00 including vat. That would leave a difference of £407.00 I would have been paying, if it wasn’t for challenging ABLE GLAZE’S original cost , just because they made a phone call. ABLE GLAZE LTD who advertise their services in the THOMSON LOCAL DIRECTORY gave me the impression that they are riding off the back of the NATIONS local GLAZING COMPANIES, and it looks like from our experience that they are using them as CASH COWS . I hope that this post will save somebody hundreds of pounds by making them aware of ABLE GLAZE LTD, who will be advertising in your THOMSONLOCAL and using one of your local glaziers that you could actually phone yourself. So the choice is yours , will it be ABLE GLAZE LTD you phone, maybe you would like to receive one of their quotes, like we did, or one of the many others glazing firms in your area, to compare them first?