"Were loose" or "wouldn't happen in Germany" should see you right.
[Sussex] One Parking Solution warned by a Judge that they may face a civil restraint order
- Thread starter LadySeagull
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
"Were loose" or "wouldn't happen in Germany" should see you right.
LadySeagull
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #62
As you know the Defendant is delighted you helped push this case to the press, and without her being identified. Many thanks from me too.
We are looking forward to reading about it in the Argus and Sunday Times and I hope they do a decent job.
BankFodder
New member
Thanks.
Let's hope it gets picked up elsewhere as well
Let's hope it gets picked up elsewhere as well
Billy the Fish
Technocrat
You haven't looked at the other threads have you!
It's a shame "The world's hardest creature" poll isn't rubbing at the moment to get a taste of what goes on here. As for not following football, you're in good company as many on here don't follow football outside of BHAFC.
LadySeagull
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #65
My fave NSC off topic thread title of all time was 'Coypu dilemma'.
You couldn't make it up! This forum covers everything.
You couldn't make it up! This forum covers everything.
Arthritic Toe
Well-known member
Well chuffed.BankFodder
New member
Well the article has been published in the Sunday Times - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...r-parking-companys-abuse-of-process-5psqx2m27 if you have a subscription – but it's very disappointing and doesn't deal with any of the real issues involved which would have helped so many other people.
I'm sorry to say that it's really a poor piece of journalism
No reference to any of this:
And no reference to this:
I'm sorry to say that it's really a poor piece of journalism
No reference to any of this:
And no reference to this:
Last edited:
BankFodder
New member
Comments on the Sunday Times article so far
BankFodder
New member
It looks as if One Parking Solution has form
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/one-parking-solutions-sucker-punch-didnt-knock-me-out-vcttbnjzt
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/one-parking-solutions-sucker-punch-didnt-knock-me-out-vcttbnjzt
The Fifth Column
Lazy mug
One point I notice is these companies constantly referring to ANPR, Automatic number plate recognition. They do not use ANPR, only law enforcement agencies use genuine ANPR as it gives an operator an automatic result as a number plate registers on the camera as it passes. No parking companies have any direct access to proper ANPR all they have is CCTV cameras logging vehicle indexes as they enter and leave car parks, they still have to then manually apply for the vehicle owner details. They use the term ANPR much like they use the term Penalty charge notice, to make it seem more official and legitimate, this tactic of using terms the police often use is widespread amongst these companies.
Jonathan Livingstone
New member
- Aug 13, 2019
- 2
Sunday Times 19 May 2019
Kate Palmer
One Parking Solution’s sucker punch didn’t knock me out
Tracked down via his number plate, a boxing coach had the evidence to fight his corner.
Most mornings, boxing coach Neil Donohue would stop at his favourite coffee shop in Worthing, West Sussex, on his drive to work. Neil, 52, who owns a boxing and bodybuilding gym in nearby Lancing, would regularly leave his vehicle in a six-space private car park operated by One Parking Solution, paying the minimum 50p for a ticket while he popped into Starbucks for five minutes.
And a few days later, more often than not, Neil would get a £100 fine in the post.
One Parking Solution, a private firm, operates CCTV cameras to record the number plates of cars entering and leaving the car park, which included Neil in his Volkswagen Tiguan. In his case, the company would then go onto a government database, lawfully, to find his home address and issue him with a fine for, it claimed, failing to pay and display.
Neil assumed that the fines — 30 in total, which began arriving in 2015 — were a mistake and ignored them, but he did keep all his paper tickets and would staple the relevant one to the notice for each fine. On occasions when the ticket machine was not working, he would print out a picture of the broken dispenser, taken on his phone, storing all the evidence in a folder.
Then he was landed with a bill for £3,000: 30 “unpaid” tickets at £100 a time.
“One Parking’s behaviour is farcical,” said Neil, who has previously contacted Citizens Advice and Trading Standards in an attempt to report the firm.
“If this is happening to me, who else is One Parking doing it to? It could be people more vulnerable than myself.”
Neil’s case highlights again the tactics used by parking firms to chase drivers who claim to have done nothing wrong. Money has been inundated with complaints since we first started shining a light on the industry last year.
In April this year, One Parking Solution raised the stakes by instructing a solicitor and threatening to take Neil to court over four of the unpaid fines, imposed between January and June 2018. Each fine was originally for £100 but One Parking Solution had incurred extra costs, so the total amount being claimed was £463.72 for one fine, relating to January 13, and a combined £695.93 for the other three on April 14, June 1 and June 29.
Neil said this was what he had wanted all along: his day in court with One Parking Solution. “I think it’s a scam,” he said. “The firm knows that hardly anyone keeps their paper ticket — they just throw away the evidence [that they paid].”
Neil wrote to the court asking for a few extra days to prepare his defence, and the parking firm agreed that he had until May to argue his case. On April 23, however, a week earlier than the agreed deadline, One Parking Solution made a request to the court for judgement on its £695.93 claim — without Neil’s knowledge.
“I hit the roof,” said Neil, who only discovered what had happened when he received the judgment against him in the post. “Of course the court found against me — I’d failed to give it any evidence.”
One Parking Solution agreed to withdraw the case after Neil accused the firm of breaking their agreement. The company has now said it will not be pursuing him for the other fines.
Neil is one of nearly 7 million drivers who will have their personal details, including their home address, shared with private parking firms this year.
The DVLA hands out drivers’ details to private parking firms for a £2.50 fee. The companies do not have to provide a reason or prove they are in the right, but they must be registered with either the International Parking Community or the British Parking Association.
The parking companies have been able to buy these details since legal changes were made seven years ago, and the practice has become highly lucrative for them. Industry insiders said that about half of the people issued with the fines — typically for £20 to £100 — tend to pay them without question.
“Private parking companies shouldn’t see motorists as a meal ticket,” said Paul Tilley at solicitors Wannops. “Neil parked in accordance with the rules. He shouldn’t have been ticketed when he went about his business lawfully.”
It is hoped a new parking bill, which became law in March, will stop these companies from profiting from innocent drivers through the creation a code of conduct. If firms break the code, now being drawn up by ministers, they will be blocked from accessing driver details through the DVLA — in effect, putting them out of the business of issuing fines.
It will also prevent firms from issuing fines that imitate the look of official penalty tickets from local authorities or the police — when, in fact, they are merely invoices for alleged breach of contract.
Greg Knight, the Conservative MP who spearheaded the bill, said: “We want the wording of fines to make it clear the parking charge notice is an invoice from a company and not a fait accompli. The new parking code will also, I expect, stop invoices from copying the colour, wording and format of official penalty tickets.”
One Parking said: “The driver had numerous opportunities to correspond with us and provide evidence. He failed to do so.”
Kate Palmer
One Parking Solution’s sucker punch didn’t knock me out
Tracked down via his number plate, a boxing coach had the evidence to fight his corner.
Most mornings, boxing coach Neil Donohue would stop at his favourite coffee shop in Worthing, West Sussex, on his drive to work. Neil, 52, who owns a boxing and bodybuilding gym in nearby Lancing, would regularly leave his vehicle in a six-space private car park operated by One Parking Solution, paying the minimum 50p for a ticket while he popped into Starbucks for five minutes.
And a few days later, more often than not, Neil would get a £100 fine in the post.
One Parking Solution, a private firm, operates CCTV cameras to record the number plates of cars entering and leaving the car park, which included Neil in his Volkswagen Tiguan. In his case, the company would then go onto a government database, lawfully, to find his home address and issue him with a fine for, it claimed, failing to pay and display.
Neil assumed that the fines — 30 in total, which began arriving in 2015 — were a mistake and ignored them, but he did keep all his paper tickets and would staple the relevant one to the notice for each fine. On occasions when the ticket machine was not working, he would print out a picture of the broken dispenser, taken on his phone, storing all the evidence in a folder.
Then he was landed with a bill for £3,000: 30 “unpaid” tickets at £100 a time.
“One Parking’s behaviour is farcical,” said Neil, who has previously contacted Citizens Advice and Trading Standards in an attempt to report the firm.
“If this is happening to me, who else is One Parking doing it to? It could be people more vulnerable than myself.”
Neil’s case highlights again the tactics used by parking firms to chase drivers who claim to have done nothing wrong. Money has been inundated with complaints since we first started shining a light on the industry last year.
In April this year, One Parking Solution raised the stakes by instructing a solicitor and threatening to take Neil to court over four of the unpaid fines, imposed between January and June 2018. Each fine was originally for £100 but One Parking Solution had incurred extra costs, so the total amount being claimed was £463.72 for one fine, relating to January 13, and a combined £695.93 for the other three on April 14, June 1 and June 29.
Neil said this was what he had wanted all along: his day in court with One Parking Solution. “I think it’s a scam,” he said. “The firm knows that hardly anyone keeps their paper ticket — they just throw away the evidence [that they paid].”
Neil wrote to the court asking for a few extra days to prepare his defence, and the parking firm agreed that he had until May to argue his case. On April 23, however, a week earlier than the agreed deadline, One Parking Solution made a request to the court for judgement on its £695.93 claim — without Neil’s knowledge.
“I hit the roof,” said Neil, who only discovered what had happened when he received the judgment against him in the post. “Of course the court found against me — I’d failed to give it any evidence.”
One Parking Solution agreed to withdraw the case after Neil accused the firm of breaking their agreement. The company has now said it will not be pursuing him for the other fines.
Neil is one of nearly 7 million drivers who will have their personal details, including their home address, shared with private parking firms this year.
The DVLA hands out drivers’ details to private parking firms for a £2.50 fee. The companies do not have to provide a reason or prove they are in the right, but they must be registered with either the International Parking Community or the British Parking Association.
The parking companies have been able to buy these details since legal changes were made seven years ago, and the practice has become highly lucrative for them. Industry insiders said that about half of the people issued with the fines — typically for £20 to £100 — tend to pay them without question.
“Private parking companies shouldn’t see motorists as a meal ticket,” said Paul Tilley at solicitors Wannops. “Neil parked in accordance with the rules. He shouldn’t have been ticketed when he went about his business lawfully.”
It is hoped a new parking bill, which became law in March, will stop these companies from profiting from innocent drivers through the creation a code of conduct. If firms break the code, now being drawn up by ministers, they will be blocked from accessing driver details through the DVLA — in effect, putting them out of the business of issuing fines.
It will also prevent firms from issuing fines that imitate the look of official penalty tickets from local authorities or the police — when, in fact, they are merely invoices for alleged breach of contract.
Greg Knight, the Conservative MP who spearheaded the bill, said: “We want the wording of fines to make it clear the parking charge notice is an invoice from a company and not a fait accompli. The new parking code will also, I expect, stop invoices from copying the colour, wording and format of official penalty tickets.”
One Parking said: “The driver had numerous opportunities to correspond with us and provide evidence. He failed to do so.”
LadySeagull
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #73
One amusing thing during the hearing was OPS' barrister-trained hired rep launching into an explanation of ANPR and that the parking firm had to take pictures of the car at the entrance and exit...blah blah...so that was why they were saying it was 12 minutes when in fact the 'stationary in a bay' time' was ten and a half minutes...
I coughed and said: ''Sir, that might well be true in an ANPR car park but this is not ANPR'!''
It's manual CCTV monitoring the driver's every move, plus passing pedestrians and the road outside. Nothing like ANPR, and not restricted to an in/out photo.
The Sunday Times article is very lightweight. I bought a free trial to read it and the comments online, and to add some comments myself, as did Bank Fodder.
An Argus journalist was on the phone to me last week for an hour - come on Argus publish a better piece than that, to reach locals.
I coughed and said: ''Sir, that might well be true in an ANPR car park but this is not ANPR'!''
It's manual CCTV monitoring the driver's every move, plus passing pedestrians and the road outside. Nothing like ANPR, and not restricted to an in/out photo.
The Sunday Times article is very lightweight. I bought a free trial to read it and the comments online, and to add some comments myself, as did Bank Fodder.
An Argus journalist was on the phone to me last week for an hour - come on Argus publish a better piece than that, to reach locals.
phoenix
Well-known member
- May 18, 2009
- 2,652
Lady Seagull, thanks Great read .
Just a quick note. I live in a private block of 9 flats (I own my flat) we have OPS as our chosen company to check the car park
Well Late last year i received a PCN on my windscreen attached directly under my fully visible parking permit.
I just laughed at thought "no it can't be" well 2 weeks later i received a invoice. So i filled in the appeal form on line (They even had pictures on line of the ticket with my permit showing) on the link OPS gave me. Stating the fact that i had a valid parking permit.
And it was in the picture. They wrote back saying sorry your appeal has been unsuccessful. Because
(A)They hadn't given me permission to park there.
(B) I wasn't parked in a marked bay.
I informed OPS that
(A) I believed they HAD given me permission to park because they issued me with the parking permit.
(B) Funniest of all there are no bay markings whatsoever on the premises.
Anyway I appealed to POPLA waited about 3 weeks then got the reply.
That they (OPS) were dropping the charges.
As it was on that day 2 other permit holders had been issued pcn's. And both had paid £60.
So my next challenge is to get them removed as parking enforcement for the properties.
Thanks for reading, rather long i'm afraid. But i good example of the sort of company we are dealing with here
Just a quick note. I live in a private block of 9 flats (I own my flat) we have OPS as our chosen company to check the car park
Well Late last year i received a PCN on my windscreen attached directly under my fully visible parking permit. I just laughed at thought "no it can't be" well 2 weeks later i received a invoice. So i filled in the appeal form on line (They even had pictures on line of the ticket with my permit showing) on the link OPS gave me. Stating the fact that i had a valid parking permit.
And it was in the picture. They wrote back saying sorry your appeal has been unsuccessful. Because
(A)They hadn't given me permission to park there.
(B) I wasn't parked in a marked bay.
I informed OPS that
(A) I believed they HAD given me permission to park because they issued me with the parking permit.
(B) Funniest of all there are no bay markings whatsoever on the premises.
Anyway I appealed to POPLA waited about 3 weeks then got the reply.
That they (OPS) were dropping the charges.
As it was on that day 2 other permit holders had been issued pcn's. And both had paid £60.
So my next challenge is to get them removed as parking enforcement for the properties.
Thanks for reading, rather long i'm afraid. But i good example of the sort of company we are dealing with here
LadySeagull
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #75
I read the above, and was about to reply to tell you to do the below, but you are ahead of me!
No parking firm is needed AT ALL in residential parking spaces and OPS, PCM, Link, UKCPM and VCS would be the five I would pick out as the worst.
All will sue people and this sort of crap just is not needed in a residential estate, at all. Introducing such a firm just because of a few normal parking issues every now and than is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Got a problem with an odd rogue parker, as some estates do? Get a gate or just a parking post (the latter costs about forty quid) and sort it without engaging a thug ex-clamper firm to harass and rinse everyone in the entire place.
Given the local interest and that many on here are local tax payers I thought the results of my FOI request to B&H Council would be of interest ( I'll be using them to campaign for the council to stop using OPS from now on ).
So in summary :
B&H Council use One Parking Solutions Ltd to "manage" parking at 119 sites across the city. Quite why they don't use their primary contractor NSL ( who [MENTION=15278]Beach Seagull[/MENTION] clearly 'works' for ) will become clear below.
The council get NOTHING from any fake ticket OPS Ltd issue. So if you get a ticket OPS not a penny goes to the council coffers. In turn, and this is why the council don't use NSL to 'manage' these 119 sites, it costs the council nothing. So, anyone who doesn't pay an OPS fake ticket shouldn't feel guilty - you are NOT doing the council out of any money. Instead you should use the MSE templates to get the ticket cancelled ( or at least show OPS that you won't take any shite as they are a member of IPC which is a kangeroo court ) or alternatively I will deal with it for you ( as I'm sure would [MENTION=18265]LadySeagull[/MENTION] ). Your council are using a bunch of clowns - DO NOT PAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So in summary :
B&H Council use One Parking Solutions Ltd to "manage" parking at 119 sites across the city. Quite why they don't use their primary contractor NSL ( who [MENTION=15278]Beach Seagull[/MENTION] clearly 'works' for ) will become clear below.
The council get NOTHING from any fake ticket OPS Ltd issue. So if you get a ticket OPS not a penny goes to the council coffers. In turn, and this is why the council don't use NSL to 'manage' these 119 sites, it costs the council nothing. So, anyone who doesn't pay an OPS fake ticket shouldn't feel guilty - you are NOT doing the council out of any money. Instead you should use the MSE templates to get the ticket cancelled ( or at least show OPS that you won't take any shite as they are a member of IPC which is a kangeroo court ) or alternatively I will deal with it for you ( as I'm sure would [MENTION=18265]LadySeagull[/MENTION] ). Your council are using a bunch of clowns - DO NOT PAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
LadySeagull
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #77
Latest update, I wasn't involved in the hearings at this later stage but the Claimants appointed a top barrister on appeal and steamrollered the first judgment, and she has to pick up half their costs, which were enormous:
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/193...rking-solution-stopping-eastgate-wharf-lewes/
This never happens normally and private PCNs are still very winnable in court. Also the good news is, the Government is about to regulate the industry properly but the wheels are moving slowly with one public consultation done, decisions made (including reducing many charges to £50, or £25 if paid early because the Government agreed with the public who called for a 50% discount) but another consultation is coming soon:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...e-enforcement-framework-consultation-response
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...hnical-consultation-on-fairer-parking-charges
If I've ever helped you with a parking charge with my advice here, please:
(a) read that Argus article and the fundraiser linked by the journalise there, and share it widely so that anyone so minded might see fit to help Norma's plight,
and
(b) take part in the 'technical consultation' when the MHCLG publish it, about the level of parking charges. I will give everyone the heads up when that consultation starts.
The public must be heard.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/193...rking-solution-stopping-eastgate-wharf-lewes/
This never happens normally and private PCNs are still very winnable in court. Also the good news is, the Government is about to regulate the industry properly but the wheels are moving slowly with one public consultation done, decisions made (including reducing many charges to £50, or £25 if paid early because the Government agreed with the public who called for a 50% discount) but another consultation is coming soon:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...e-enforcement-framework-consultation-response
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...hnical-consultation-on-fairer-parking-charges
If I've ever helped you with a parking charge with my advice here, please:
(a) read that Argus article and the fundraiser linked by the journalise there, and share it widely so that anyone so minded might see fit to help Norma's plight,
and
(b) take part in the 'technical consultation' when the MHCLG publish it, about the level of parking charges. I will give everyone the heads up when that consultation starts.
The public must be heard.
LadySeagull
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #78
Most comments in the Argus article are from people who are not the biggest fans of these ex-clampers (they used to be called 'Ethical' Parking).
Also, clearly it's not just Sussex that has issues with OPS:
https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/art...lling village’§ionIs=news&searchyear=2021
Please do read about Norma's shocking case.
She won, then money was thrown at it and the Circuit Judge actually decided (wrongly) that PPCs don't need landowner authority.
Right, so this industry can put signs up anywhere, then, because it's only about whether a contract exists and nothing about the framework within which this industry must operate? I think the DVLA would have something to say about that, given there are some safeguards before they will release registered keeper data, that include...yes...a requirement for landowner authority..
I haven't published the GoFundMe link as not sure I am allowed, but it's in the Argus article.
Please share or Tweet it. This is a really rare case and not about a run of the mill situation.
She got one parking charge at a place where the entrance sign was twisted away from view from approaching drivers so she never saw the signs let alone any terms, and thought she was pulling over on the road, into a bay (as you can).
Also, clearly it's not just Sussex that has issues with OPS:
https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/art...lling village’§ionIs=news&searchyear=2021
Please do read about Norma's shocking case.
She won, then money was thrown at it and the Circuit Judge actually decided (wrongly) that PPCs don't need landowner authority.
Right, so this industry can put signs up anywhere, then, because it's only about whether a contract exists and nothing about the framework within which this industry must operate? I think the DVLA would have something to say about that, given there are some safeguards before they will release registered keeper data, that include...yes...a requirement for landowner authority..
I haven't published the GoFundMe link as not sure I am allowed, but it's in the Argus article.
Please share or Tweet it. This is a really rare case and not about a run of the mill situation.
She got one parking charge at a place where the entrance sign was twisted away from view from approaching drivers so she never saw the signs let alone any terms, and thought she was pulling over on the road, into a bay (as you can).
Deleted member 37369
Well-known member
- Aug 21, 2018
- 1,994
Calling [MENTION=18265]LadySeagull[/MENTION]
We have another PCN - that's a 'Parking' Charge Notice from our 'friends' at OPS!!
Same car park as the one we had a problem with back in 2020!
My wife parked and paid for 2 hours using the Poppay app - paid within 2 minutes of entering the car park. She extended it for an hour before the time ran out. She then realised she wasn't going to make it back in time again, but this time couldn't find the option to extend. So instead, she just paid for another hour through the app - before the time on the previous purchase ran out. So 4 hours parking paid for - entry time was recorded as 1:44:02 PM and exit 5:18:51 PM - so well under the 4 hours paid for.
My assumption is that the app hasn't tied up the third payment for the final hour.
PCN is for £100 or £60 if paid within 14 days.
Would appreciate some advice on how best to proceed to get it cancelled.
LadySeagull
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #80
Hiya! I have replied to you.
General tips for all:
1. Never ever use Vantage Point car park. Avoid like the plague as it is a notorious entrapment zone. In my opinion, OPS do not deserve your money and too many people get a PCN even when they've paid. Just do not drive in there and tell your friends and family never to use it.
2. If you get any private PCN (from any company) always complain to the landowner or retailer first. That's the easiest way to cancel it and pee off the PPC by getting their unfair ticketing noticed by their clients. All good. The industry deserve more complaints.
3. After exhausting a complaint, then try appeal but never as driver. Always as keeper, using the MSE template wot I wrote (or the hire-lease car version if applicable, which is also shown here):
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.co...ket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou
4. If parking on a Sunday use a single yellow. No need to seek out a car park on a Sunday in Brighton. Look on Google Streetview first and check out the streets with single yellow lines. As long as the signs says Mon-Sat, it's free parking on Sundays. Plenty around in Brighton.
5. Oh, and avoid the Brighton Station old 'drop off' point round the back of the station near the car park, as it's no longer a drop off but an entrapment zone for APCOA parking. It's a badly signed taxi only area. Dead easy to appeal and win any APCOA ticket through - the easiest, along with most Supermarket ones.
6. New Government regulation in the form of fair (non-biased) appeals and a statutory Code of Practice coming in soon. I was heavily involved. Very happy with it, and now can't wait to see it implemented!
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.co...code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1
HTH
General tips for all:
1. Never ever use Vantage Point car park. Avoid like the plague as it is a notorious entrapment zone. In my opinion, OPS do not deserve your money and too many people get a PCN even when they've paid. Just do not drive in there and tell your friends and family never to use it.
2. If you get any private PCN (from any company) always complain to the landowner or retailer first. That's the easiest way to cancel it and pee off the PPC by getting their unfair ticketing noticed by their clients. All good. The industry deserve more complaints.
3. After exhausting a complaint, then try appeal but never as driver. Always as keeper, using the MSE template wot I wrote (or the hire-lease car version if applicable, which is also shown here):
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.co...ket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou
4. If parking on a Sunday use a single yellow. No need to seek out a car park on a Sunday in Brighton. Look on Google Streetview first and check out the streets with single yellow lines. As long as the signs says Mon-Sat, it's free parking on Sundays. Plenty around in Brighton.
5. Oh, and avoid the Brighton Station old 'drop off' point round the back of the station near the car park, as it's no longer a drop off but an entrapment zone for APCOA parking. It's a badly signed taxi only area. Dead easy to appeal and win any APCOA ticket through - the easiest, along with most Supermarket ones.
6. New Government regulation in the form of fair (non-biased) appeals and a statutory Code of Practice coming in soon. I was heavily involved. Very happy with it, and now can't wait to see it implemented!
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.co...code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1
HTH