For information Sussex Security Solutions Ltd have been struck of the register of companies as at 13 June 2017.

This is my 1st post. Have received a 'Contractual Payment Charge' from the above for parking on a road on double yellow lines with a valid Disabled Blue Badge clearly displayed on my dashboard. There were no visible signs apart from a sign at the entrance to a car park opposite. I made an appeal on the day it was issued explaining he circumstances (was with my elderly, disabled Aunt blah blah blah). Can anyone suggest what I should do? Thanks for any help

dear all I have read this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440374-Capital2coast-PCN-Lewes-Clamform-received&p=5045522#post5045522 with interest as I am still lumbering on with so called debts from Sussex Security Solutions Ltd who issued PCN at Eastgate Wharf, Lewes in August 2016. Sussex Security Solutions Ltd being owned by the same dodgy dealer as One Parking Ltd (trading as Capital 2 Coast). Having appealed as standard to SSS I heard absolutely nothing, not even a letter to confirm my appeal had not been agreed. Then followed debt recovery letter from DRP in November 2016. Silence until June 2017 when I received a letter from the notorious ZZPS LTD and finally in July a letter from Wright Hassall solicitors acting on behalf of ZZPS acting on behalf of SSS!! I am just penning a letter to Wright Hassall as I am getting to the point of being tired and angry that I keep getting harassed by every parking conman/woman in the land. I didn't even park (as such) on the so called private land I wasn't trying to get away with free parking whilst I shopped. Merely picked up my daughter who was waiting on the pavement at that spot (it looked a safe place to collect stop and let her in the car rather than on the high street!!) I guess the reason for my rant/post is just to check there is someone out there who is still holding up the flag by not paying up. ..It feels a lonely battle and quite intimidating at times.

Hi - I received a parking charge notice after returning a few minutes late to the car last month. Parking Enforcement sent the familiar letter stating that I owed them £100 or, if I paid up early, as a goodwill gesture they would only want £60. I wrote to them explaining that I considered their charge was excessive and wasn't going to pay. They have written back stating that I don't have that option and I must pay within the next 10 days. Any advice?

Grave of brave Sussex born WW1 sailor finally rededicated almost a century later READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/grave-of-brave-sussex-born-ww1-sailor-finally-rededicated-almost-a-century-later

Whilst searching for my usual weird things I was searching and found that Sussex Police are stating that an EA can still enter by using a window, shame they have this so wrong, maybe a quiet word in their shell like would be great, see the bailiff section on their site or read here ... The link was edited by the system so have used this link instead http://www.sussex.police.uk/admin-section/search.aspx?searchtext=bailiffs They have posted up some allegedly useful info for those facing an EA, this is the first time I have seen this on a Police website so I will see how many others do this and what they state. It also states correctly that they must not use the thresh-hold method either... There are several sections on their site re the EA... I had to edit the link due to the word S cam in the link it is now working

Received an email from a friend earlier detailing another success against a PPC at appeal - this time with the IAS rather than POPLA The young lady in question parked in a residential car park managed by Sussex Security Solutions trading as Parking Enforcement. Received a ticket for £100 (reduced to £60 blah blah blah) for a 'breach of terms and conditions meaning that a contractual fee was now due' (parked in a contractor bay due to building work temporarily removing all of the legitimate spaces). Appealed to the PPC at an early stage and (unsurprisingly) this was rejected - rejection letter was mumbo jumbo and insisted that the contractual amount was payable, no GPEOL was required as the PPC was managing the car park in line with their contract with the landowner, which was a service at no cost to the landowner and that the contractual payment contributed to the costs of managing the business and running the parking service. Two types of signs in the car park - one by where the vehicle was parked stated 'Contractors Only' but had no warning of any payment being claimed in the event of a breach, and others elsewhere did notify of a contractual payment being due in the event of a breach. Incredibly the signs also claimed AOS as a BPA Approved Operator despite them having ditched the BPA in favour of IPC several months ago! The driver received the IAS code for independent appeal along with the initial rejection so put forward a case based on 1. Inadequate signage - PPC had claimed a contractual payment but stated a breach on the ticket. Insufficient detail on teh contractor bay sign to form a contract and even the ones elsewhere (which had not been seen due to the font size and height) were insufficiently detailed to form a binding contract. 2. PPC had claimed that no GPEOL was required, but the appellant held that GPEOL was crucial in this case as a payment on a breach must be deemed a penalty in the absence of GPEOL as this was the basis of the ticket wording and the signage. 3. The PPC had not provided more than vague details of the contract with the landowner and the appellant was unable to adequately assess whether the PPC had lawful authority to issue tickets in their own name or to enforce those tickets. 4. The PPC was falsely and misleadingly claiming membership of a trade body (the BPA) IAS considered the case and responded within just three days that the appeal was upheld and the ticket would be cancelled. The grounds were that on the first point - the inadequate signage was insufficient to bind the appellant to a contractual obligation - as the signs stating a 'contractual payment' would become due only said that a payment 'MAY' be payable, this was insufficient and therefore the appeal must succeed. Annoyingly for the appellant the adjudicator stated that there was no need to rule on the other grounds as the first was successful in itself, but nevertheless the win was sufficient. No doubt Parking Enforcement will be replacing the signs as quickly as possible, however the appellant has already notified Trading Standards of the misleading claim of BPA membership on the signs and is asking questions of the local authority as to whether the property is subject to business rates - after all, by their own admission, the PPC is given a free hand to run their business independently of the landowner and is charging amounts in excess of any GPEOL and is therefore presumably generating some amount of profit in the process!

ok here we go the service level agreement http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/146196/response/360396/attach/3/SLA%20CenSus%20redacted.pdf the request in full http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/baliff_information#comment-35657 break down total number of complaints to the council about rossindales - 20 upheld complaints - 0 if anyone can help with this "public intrest test" then i would be grateful