Angry resident refuses to pay parking fines

Worcester News: Armstrong Drive, Diglis, resident, Matt Chapman has received two parking tickets from PCM (Parking Control Management) for parking on Portland Walk, Diglis, which he believes is public highway. Photo by John Anyon, 2814643901. Armstrong Drive, Diglis, resident, Matt Chapman has received two parking tickets from PCM (Parking Control Management) for parking on Portland Walk, Diglis, which he believes is public highway. Photo by John Anyon, 2814643901.

AN angry Worcester resident slammed with £200 worth of parking tickets is refusing to pay up as he believes he had been caught out in a deliberate trap.

Matt Chapman, of Armstrong Drive, Diglis, was issued with two parking tickets after he parked in a small bay area off Portland Walk.

The tickets, issued by Parking Control Management, a firm employed to police the parking on private land in the area, each demand £100.

But Mr Chapman says he doesn't believe he should pay the fines as they are too high and it's unclear who owns the land.

"I am not moaning because I had the tickets but my issue is I have parked on a public road," said the 31-year-old, who was issued with the tickets at 6.10am on June 14 and 6.20am on June 21.

"I have spoken with the police and they say it's a civil matter and the Citizen Advice Bureau have tried to advise me but they can only say so much.

"There is no way I am going to pay it. It's just disgusting. It's like they have done it specifically to trap people.

"I am annoyed about the tickets but it's more of an annoyance as I have only recently moved in."

Mr Chapman is also concerned about the scheme in general.

He added: "There's a lot of elderly residents and the one lady paid almost on the spot. How many people are actually paying these fines and getting ripped off? There seems to be no help and I keep hitting dead ends."

Despite his confusion though, Worcestershire County Council's highways department have confirmed the part of the road where Mr Chapman's Saxo was parked is not the public highway.

A spokesperson for the council said it is only the responsibility of the public highway up to where the double yellow lines end, after that it is private land.

The dispute is now being dealt with by an independent appeals body and Parking Control Management said they would not comment on the matter at this time.

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:07pm Fri 11 Jul 14

presterjohn says...

I seem to remember that all you have to do is tell them that it was not you driving and they are then left with very little to do other than to take you to court which they will not do. It is to time consuming and expensive for them to try and prove you were the particular driver on that particular day. Don't try this on a council car park though as they have much tougher rules and it won't go well for you.
I seem to remember that all you have to do is tell them that it was not you driving and they are then left with very little to do other than to take you to court which they will not do. It is to time consuming and expensive for them to try and prove you were the particular driver on that particular day. Don't try this on a council car park though as they have much tougher rules and it won't go well for you. presterjohn
  • Score: -5

4:33pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Marant says...

Only the police and council have the power to fine you. In every other case it's an unsolicited invoice that can't be enforced - they can even be penalised if they make it look like a fine (especially if the word fine is on it).

The most they can do is take you to small claims court to reclaim physical losses (which there aren't any).
Only the police and council have the power to fine you. In every other case it's an unsolicited invoice that can't be enforced - they can even be penalised if they make it look like a fine (especially if the word fine is on it). The most they can do is take you to small claims court to reclaim physical losses (which there aren't any). Marant
  • Score: 29

5:42pm Fri 11 Jul 14

jabroner says...

DO NOT contact them,
DO NOT dispute them
Leave them to send as many letters as they want.
They have NO rights to get money from you.
DO NOT contact them, DO NOT dispute them Leave them to send as many letters as they want. They have NO rights to get money from you. jabroner
  • Score: 25

6:27pm Fri 11 Jul 14

truth must out says...

presterjohn wrote:
I seem to remember that all you have to do is tell them that it was not you driving and they are then left with very little to do other than to take you to court which they will not do. It is to time consuming and expensive for them to try and prove you were the particular driver on that particular day. Don't try this on a council car park though as they have much tougher rules and it won't go well for you.
Well he would hardly be driving if it was a parking ticket....!!!
[quote][p][bold]presterjohn[/bold] wrote: I seem to remember that all you have to do is tell them that it was not you driving and they are then left with very little to do other than to take you to court which they will not do. It is to time consuming and expensive for them to try and prove you were the particular driver on that particular day. Don't try this on a council car park though as they have much tougher rules and it won't go well for you.[/p][/quote]Well he would hardly be driving if it was a parking ticket....!!! truth must out
  • Score: 7

6:29pm Fri 11 Jul 14

truth must out says...

"I am not moaning because I had the tickets but my issue is I have parked on a public road," said the 31-year-old, who was issued with the tickets at 6.10am on June 14 and 6.20am on June 21.

So got one ticket then went and parked there again.....!!! PAY UP you know you are parking on private land.
"I am not moaning because I had the tickets but my issue is I have parked on a public road," said the 31-year-old, who was issued with the tickets at 6.10am on June 14 and 6.20am on June 21. So got one ticket then went and parked there again.....!!! PAY UP you know you are parking on private land. truth must out
  • Score: -3

7:41pm Fri 11 Jul 14

bmoc55 says...

This guy is chancer, and WN shouldn't really be giving publicity for his stupid actions.
The whole area around Armsrong Drive including the area he parks in is known to be off limits to parking. This is also written into the covenants that cover the development.
Maybe he should take time to read the legal bits on his documentation.
He will ignore the fine at his peril.
Pay up and stop whinging and learn to park cosiderately.
This guy is chancer, and WN shouldn't really be giving publicity for his stupid actions. The whole area around Armsrong Drive including the area he parks in is known to be off limits to parking. This is also written into the covenants that cover the development. Maybe he should take time to read the legal bits on his documentation. He will ignore the fine at his peril. Pay up and stop whinging and learn to park cosiderately. bmoc55
  • Score: 11

9:59pm Fri 11 Jul 14

MorganD says...

I live just off Portland St and it's monitored so closely because it's right next to King's School. It's a MASSIVE pain however the restrictions are clearly marked. The police are out in force most mornings when it's school run time as cars parked in these places cause a massive jam whenever the Kings parents are dropping their kids off. In not sure about Armstrong Drive but I do know that all the other roads have designated resident parking.
I live just off Portland St and it's monitored so closely because it's right next to King's School. It's a MASSIVE pain however the restrictions are clearly marked. The police are out in force most mornings when it's school run time as cars parked in these places cause a massive jam whenever the Kings parents are dropping their kids off. In not sure about Armstrong Drive but I do know that all the other roads have designated resident parking. MorganD
  • Score: 6

10:01pm Fri 11 Jul 14

MorganD says...

MorganD wrote:
I live just off Portland St and it's monitored so closely because it's right next to King's School. It's a MASSIVE pain however the restrictions are clearly marked. The police are out in force most mornings when it's school run time as cars parked in these places cause a massive jam whenever the Kings parents are dropping their kids off. In not sure about Armstrong Drive but I do know that all the other roads have designated resident parking.
Following on from my comment us residents get regularly leaflets through the door reminding us of the pay king restrictions and the fines applicable. No excuse really.
[quote][p][bold]MorganD[/bold] wrote: I live just off Portland St and it's monitored so closely because it's right next to King's School. It's a MASSIVE pain however the restrictions are clearly marked. The police are out in force most mornings when it's school run time as cars parked in these places cause a massive jam whenever the Kings parents are dropping their kids off. In not sure about Armstrong Drive but I do know that all the other roads have designated resident parking.[/p][/quote]Following on from my comment us residents get regularly leaflets through the door reminding us of the pay king restrictions and the fines applicable. No excuse really. MorganD
  • Score: 7

10:51pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Redhillman says...

"Despite his confusion though, Worcestershire County Council's highways department have confirmed the part of the road where Mr Chapman's Saxo was parked is not the public highway." A typical highways department response, not wanting to help while just clearly passing the buck, regardless if the area is public highway. Pathethic.
"Despite his confusion though, Worcestershire County Council's highways department have confirmed the part of the road where Mr Chapman's Saxo was parked is not the public highway." A typical highways department response, not wanting to help while just clearly passing the buck, regardless if the area is public highway. Pathethic. Redhillman
  • Score: -3

11:27pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Moltaire says...

Redhillman wrote:
"Despite his confusion though, Worcestershire County Council's highways department have confirmed the part of the road where Mr Chapman's Saxo was parked is not the public highway." A typical highways department response, not wanting to help while just clearly passing the buck, regardless if the area is public highway. Pathethic.
Well, considering they're refusing to accept responsibility for the dangerous **** up they made with the Whittington roundabout, I'm not surprised the highways department are washing their hands here. Anything for an easy life and not taking responsibility for anything. Again!
[quote][p][bold]Redhillman[/bold] wrote: "Despite his confusion though, Worcestershire County Council's highways department have confirmed the part of the road where Mr Chapman's Saxo was parked is not the public highway." A typical highways department response, not wanting to help while just clearly passing the buck, regardless if the area is public highway. Pathethic.[/p][/quote]Well, considering they're refusing to accept responsibility for the dangerous **** up they made with the Whittington roundabout, I'm not surprised the highways department are washing their hands here. Anything for an easy life and not taking responsibility for anything. Again! Moltaire
  • Score: 3

10:26am Sat 12 Jul 14

mauro balbino says...

bmoc55 wrote:
This guy is chancer, and WN shouldn't really be giving publicity for his stupid actions.
The whole area around Armsrong Drive including the area he parks in is known to be off limits to parking. This is also written into the covenants that cover the development.
Maybe he should take time to read the legal bits on his documentation.
He will ignore the fine at his peril.
Pay up and stop whinging and learn to park cosiderately.
They just don't care. We have a problem with parking places and all are aware of the restrictions. Meanwhile, what we seem to have is a lot of selfish and opportunist people around waiting for a red carpet to their front door.

By the time of the flood early this year, the emergency staff was not even able to access with trucks carrying equipment the water treatment station in front of the bay needed to be pumped. That's the reason for such bay is there. And we all inhabitants received a letter by then explaining and asking the favour to not obstruct by simply following the existent rules. Parking restrictions, though, were suspended because our garage (that serves several buildings) had been flooded due to infiltration through the walls. Even so, you could not park at the bay.

Futhermore, the bay itself has a warning poster about parking regulations 10' away and it could not be more visible and understandable than the way it is.

Since I moved to one building at this particular section, the one pictured in this article, of Armstrong Drive one year and a half ago, I watched bollards being placed without no avail and the drive being turned into a cul-de-sac. After that, further bollards were placed all along the drive without avail too. Then, the persistent behaviour was stopped after chains (horrible things, I must say) were put in use linking bollard to bollard all the way around both sides of the drive.

The only way to stop a behaviour that we could consider social-pathological.

I agree absolutely with bmoc55.

And disagree with presterjohn whose comment only advice to be smart as chancers are, and not intelligently following the rules instead. By the way, if the Kingdom of Prester John truly existed, such mentality would have no place there.
[quote][p][bold]bmoc55[/bold] wrote: This guy is chancer, and WN shouldn't really be giving publicity for his stupid actions. The whole area around Armsrong Drive including the area he parks in is known to be off limits to parking. This is also written into the covenants that cover the development. Maybe he should take time to read the legal bits on his documentation. He will ignore the fine at his peril. Pay up and stop whinging and learn to park cosiderately.[/p][/quote]They just don't care. We have a problem with parking places and all are aware of the restrictions. Meanwhile, what we seem to have is a lot of selfish and opportunist people around waiting for a red carpet to their front door. By the time of the flood early this year, the emergency staff was not even able to access with trucks carrying equipment the water treatment station in front of the bay needed to be pumped. That's the reason for such bay is there. And we all inhabitants received a letter by then explaining and asking the favour to not obstruct by simply following the existent rules. Parking restrictions, though, were suspended because our garage (that serves several buildings) had been flooded due to infiltration through the walls. Even so, you could not park at the bay. Futhermore, the bay itself has a warning poster about parking regulations 10' away and it could not be more visible and understandable than the way it is. Since I moved to one building at this particular section, the one pictured in this article, of Armstrong Drive one year and a half ago, I watched bollards being placed without no avail and the drive being turned into a cul-de-sac. After that, further bollards were placed all along the drive without avail too. Then, the persistent behaviour was stopped after chains (horrible things, I must say) were put in use linking bollard to bollard all the way around both sides of the drive. The only way to stop a behaviour that we could consider social-pathological. I agree absolutely with bmoc55. And disagree with presterjohn whose comment only advice to be smart as chancers are, and not intelligently following the rules instead. By the way, if the Kingdom of Prester John truly existed, such mentality would have no place there. mauro balbino
  • Score: 8

10:33am Sat 12 Jul 14

Bufton Tufton says...

bmoc55 wrote:
This guy is chancer, and WN shouldn't really be giving publicity for his stupid actions.
The whole area around Armsrong Drive including the area he parks in is known to be off limits to parking. This is also written into the covenants that cover the development.
Maybe he should take time to read the legal bits on his documentation.
He will ignore the fine at his peril.
Pay up and stop whinging and learn to park cosiderately.
"The whole area around Armsrong Drive including the area he parks in is known to be off limits to parking". Known by whom may I ask? Not by me it isn't!
[quote][p][bold]bmoc55[/bold] wrote: This guy is chancer, and WN shouldn't really be giving publicity for his stupid actions. The whole area around Armsrong Drive including the area he parks in is known to be off limits to parking. This is also written into the covenants that cover the development. Maybe he should take time to read the legal bits on his documentation. He will ignore the fine at his peril. Pay up and stop whinging and learn to park cosiderately.[/p][/quote]"The whole area around Armsrong Drive including the area he parks in is known to be off limits to parking". Known by whom may I ask? Not by me it isn't! Bufton Tufton
  • Score: -7

11:06am Sat 12 Jul 14

mauro balbino says...

And you can come here if you want to.
There is a similar car to the one pictured parked there.
Same model, same colour, coincidentally.
Now...
And you can come here if you want to. There is a similar car to the one pictured parked there. Same model, same colour, coincidentally. Now... mauro balbino
  • Score: 9

11:46am Sat 12 Jul 14

MulsanneChap says...

Moltaire wrote:
Redhillman wrote:
"Despite his confusion though, Worcestershire County Council's highways department have confirmed the part of the road where Mr Chapman's Saxo was parked is not the public highway." A typical highways department response, not wanting to help while just clearly passing the buck, regardless if the area is public highway. Pathethic.
Well, considering they're refusing to accept responsibility for the dangerous **** up they made with the Whittington roundabout, I'm not surprised the highways department are washing their hands here. Anything for an easy life and not taking responsibility for anything. Again!
I'm sorry, but how on earth can this issue be something that is either the highways department's responsibility or is something they should be getting involved in? The area is private and the highways department have no responsibility for it at all, including parking. This is just another case of whenever a problem with parking occurs, whether it'd be on public or private road, let's just blame the highways department.
[quote][p][bold]Moltaire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redhillman[/bold] wrote: "Despite his confusion though, Worcestershire County Council's highways department have confirmed the part of the road where Mr Chapman's Saxo was parked is not the public highway." A typical highways department response, not wanting to help while just clearly passing the buck, regardless if the area is public highway. Pathethic.[/p][/quote]Well, considering they're refusing to accept responsibility for the dangerous **** up they made with the Whittington roundabout, I'm not surprised the highways department are washing their hands here. Anything for an easy life and not taking responsibility for anything. Again![/p][/quote]I'm sorry, but how on earth can this issue be something that is either the highways department's responsibility or is something they should be getting involved in? The area is private and the highways department have no responsibility for it at all, including parking. This is just another case of whenever a problem with parking occurs, whether it'd be on public or private road, let's just blame the highways department. MulsanneChap
  • Score: 5

11:50am Sat 12 Jul 14

Andy_R says...

The council must take some of the blame for approving a large residential development with nowhere near enough parking. The developers crammed in far too many apartments onto the site, which the council planning department should have objected to.
The council must take some of the blame for approving a large residential development with nowhere near enough parking. The developers crammed in far too many apartments onto the site, which the council planning department should have objected to. Andy_R
  • Score: 9

12:19pm Sat 12 Jul 14

mauro balbino says...

Andy_R wrote:
The council must take some of the blame for approving a large residential development with nowhere near enough parking. The developers crammed in far too many apartments onto the site, which the council planning department should have objected to.
Absolutely!
[quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: The council must take some of the blame for approving a large residential development with nowhere near enough parking. The developers crammed in far too many apartments onto the site, which the council planning department should have objected to.[/p][/quote]Absolutely! mauro balbino
  • Score: 8

1:40pm Sat 12 Jul 14

WJS1950 says...

MulsanneChap wrote:
Moltaire wrote:
Redhillman wrote:
"Despite his confusion though, Worcestershire County Council's highways department have confirmed the part of the road where Mr Chapman's Saxo was parked is not the public highway." A typical highways department response, not wanting to help while just clearly passing the buck, regardless if the area is public highway. Pathethic.
Well, considering they're refusing to accept responsibility for the dangerous **** up they made with the Whittington roundabout, I'm not surprised the highways department are washing their hands here. Anything for an easy life and not taking responsibility for anything. Again!
I'm sorry, but how on earth can this issue be something that is either the highways department's responsibility or is something they should be getting involved in? The area is private and the highways department have no responsibility for it at all, including parking. This is just another case of whenever a problem with parking occurs, whether it'd be on public or private road, let's just blame the highways department.
MulsanneChap, we have a parking issue on a road and even if it is private, the highways department still have a morale obligation to intervene and try and resolve this problem. We all pay them a huge amont through our council taxes and I don't think it is unreasonable for them to look at issues on private roads too.
[quote][p][bold]MulsanneChap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moltaire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redhillman[/bold] wrote: "Despite his confusion though, Worcestershire County Council's highways department have confirmed the part of the road where Mr Chapman's Saxo was parked is not the public highway." A typical highways department response, not wanting to help while just clearly passing the buck, regardless if the area is public highway. Pathethic.[/p][/quote]Well, considering they're refusing to accept responsibility for the dangerous **** up they made with the Whittington roundabout, I'm not surprised the highways department are washing their hands here. Anything for an easy life and not taking responsibility for anything. Again![/p][/quote]I'm sorry, but how on earth can this issue be something that is either the highways department's responsibility or is something they should be getting involved in? The area is private and the highways department have no responsibility for it at all, including parking. This is just another case of whenever a problem with parking occurs, whether it'd be on public or private road, let's just blame the highways department.[/p][/quote]MulsanneChap, we have a parking issue on a road and even if it is private, the highways department still have a morale obligation to intervene and try and resolve this problem. We all pay them a huge amont through our council taxes and I don't think it is unreasonable for them to look at issues on private roads too. WJS1950
  • Score: -5

5:05pm Sat 12 Jul 14

New Kid on the Block says...

WJS1950 wrote:
MulsanneChap wrote:
Moltaire wrote:
Redhillman wrote:
"Despite his confusion though, Worcestershire County Council's highways department have confirmed the part of the road where Mr Chapman's Saxo was parked is not the public highway." A typical highways department response, not wanting to help while just clearly passing the buck, regardless if the area is public highway. Pathethic.
Well, considering they're refusing to accept responsibility for the dangerous **** up they made with the Whittington roundabout, I'm not surprised the highways department are washing their hands here. Anything for an easy life and not taking responsibility for anything. Again!
I'm sorry, but how on earth can this issue be something that is either the highways department's responsibility or is something they should be getting involved in? The area is private and the highways department have no responsibility for it at all, including parking. This is just another case of whenever a problem with parking occurs, whether it'd be on public or private road, let's just blame the highways department.
MulsanneChap, we have a parking issue on a road and even if it is private, the highways department still have a morale obligation to intervene and try and resolve this problem. We all pay them a huge amont through our council taxes and I don't think it is unreasonable for them to look at issues on private roads too.
I don't want my taxes used for the Council to get involved in things that are not their responsibility. I pay enough Council Tax as it is.
If the Council were to get involved with this dispute where would it end. If it is your problem it is up to you to sort it out. Don't expect the Council to do it for you when it is nothing to do with them.
[quote][p][bold]WJS1950[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MulsanneChap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moltaire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redhillman[/bold] wrote: "Despite his confusion though, Worcestershire County Council's highways department have confirmed the part of the road where Mr Chapman's Saxo was parked is not the public highway." A typical highways department response, not wanting to help while just clearly passing the buck, regardless if the area is public highway. Pathethic.[/p][/quote]Well, considering they're refusing to accept responsibility for the dangerous **** up they made with the Whittington roundabout, I'm not surprised the highways department are washing their hands here. Anything for an easy life and not taking responsibility for anything. Again![/p][/quote]I'm sorry, but how on earth can this issue be something that is either the highways department's responsibility or is something they should be getting involved in? The area is private and the highways department have no responsibility for it at all, including parking. This is just another case of whenever a problem with parking occurs, whether it'd be on public or private road, let's just blame the highways department.[/p][/quote]MulsanneChap, we have a parking issue on a road and even if it is private, the highways department still have a morale obligation to intervene and try and resolve this problem. We all pay them a huge amont through our council taxes and I don't think it is unreasonable for them to look at issues on private roads too.[/p][/quote]I don't want my taxes used for the Council to get involved in things that are not their responsibility. I pay enough Council Tax as it is. If the Council were to get involved with this dispute where would it end. If it is your problem it is up to you to sort it out. Don't expect the Council to do it for you when it is nothing to do with them. New Kid on the Block
  • Score: 8

5:24pm Sat 12 Jul 14

morrismoz says...

I know this man, this same man once said he was a victim many years ago, he got accused of weeing up a door but swears he had done nothing wrong, it was only when i see it plain as day in court on video shown by the jury that what he was doin, he has come alight again acting the victim so you decide for your self, is he a victim or just an a** hole? I think he's an a** hole........ Moz
I know this man, this same man once said he was a victim many years ago, he got accused of weeing up a door but swears he had done nothing wrong, it was only when i see it plain as day in court on video shown by the jury that what he was doin, he has come alight again acting the victim so you decide for your self, is he a victim or just an a** hole? I think he's an a** hole........ Moz morrismoz
  • Score: 23

6:52pm Sat 12 Jul 14

truth must out says...

morrismoz wrote:
I know this man, this same man once said he was a victim many years ago, he got accused of weeing up a door but swears he had done nothing wrong, it was only when i see it plain as day in court on video shown by the jury that what he was doin, he has come alight again acting the victim so you decide for your self, is he a victim or just an a** hole? I think he's an a** hole........ Moz
BUSTED........brilli
ant!!!
[quote][p][bold]morrismoz[/bold] wrote: I know this man, this same man once said he was a victim many years ago, he got accused of weeing up a door but swears he had done nothing wrong, it was only when i see it plain as day in court on video shown by the jury that what he was doin, he has come alight again acting the victim so you decide for your self, is he a victim or just an a** hole? I think he's an a** hole........ Moz[/p][/quote]BUSTED........brilli ant!!! truth must out
  • Score: 16

11:01am Sun 13 Jul 14

Jabbadad says...

There has been a parking problem from Day one in this lovely developement in Diglis. It is as if the tenants are not expected to be car owners or have visitors who might come by car. Perhaps that a non-car-owner-policy should be included in the terms of the lease?. But as to this problem for Matt Chapman who might have had some sympathy until the Statement from the Council that that particular section of Road WAS / IS NOT, a public Highway and therebye comes under the rules of the owners / landlords.
So it just might be sensible to pay up, for Matt, you are in the wrong here., or get a boat.
There has been a parking problem from Day one in this lovely developement in Diglis. It is as if the tenants are not expected to be car owners or have visitors who might come by car. Perhaps that a non-car-owner-policy should be included in the terms of the lease?. But as to this problem for Matt Chapman who might have had some sympathy until the Statement from the Council that that particular section of Road WAS / IS NOT, a public Highway and therebye comes under the rules of the owners / landlords. So it just might be sensible to pay up, for Matt, you are in the wrong here., or get a boat. Jabbadad
  • Score: 2

11:24am Tue 15 Jul 14

Mr Chancer says...

bmoc55 wrote:
This guy is chancer, and WN shouldn't really be giving publicity for his stupid actions.
The whole area around Armsrong Drive including the area he parks in is known to be off limits to parking. This is also written into the covenants that cover the development.
Maybe he should take time to read the legal bits on his documentation.
He will ignore the fine at his peril.
Pay up and stop whinging and learn to park cosiderately.
Really??? I understand that the sign-age through out this site states that PCM are accredited member of the BPA (British parking association). This is NOT the case and there fore they cannot legally obtain any information from the DVLA and there fore if you do get a ticket, just rip it up and forget about it. What you forget to realise is that they only issue PARKING CHARGES and not fines. these charges relate to loss incurred by the owner of the private for the time that you were parked there, so £100 for parking on what CLEARLY looks like a public road is not going to stand up in court.
[quote][p][bold]bmoc55[/bold] wrote: This guy is chancer, and WN shouldn't really be giving publicity for his stupid actions. The whole area around Armsrong Drive including the area he parks in is known to be off limits to parking. This is also written into the covenants that cover the development. Maybe he should take time to read the legal bits on his documentation. He will ignore the fine at his peril. Pay up and stop whinging and learn to park cosiderately.[/p][/quote]Really??? I understand that the sign-age through out this site states that PCM are accredited member of the BPA (British parking association). This is NOT the case and there fore they cannot legally obtain any information from the DVLA and there fore if you do get a ticket, just rip it up and forget about it. What you forget to realise is that they only issue PARKING CHARGES and not fines. these charges relate to loss incurred by the owner of the private for the time that you were parked there, so £100 for parking on what CLEARLY looks like a public road is not going to stand up in court. Mr Chancer
  • Score: 1

9:00am Thu 17 Jul 14

Mr Chancer says...

bmoc55 wrote:
This guy is chancer, and WN shouldn't really be giving publicity for his stupid actions.
The whole area around Armsrong Drive including the area he parks in is known to be off limits to parking. This is also written into the covenants that cover the development.
Maybe he should take time to read the legal bits on his documentation.
He will ignore the fine at his peril.
Pay up and stop whinging and learn to park cosiderately.
Chancer hey??? good job i chanced it because i've won my appeal, it would appear ( like i said) it is not clear that its private road......... Here's a copy from the appeal service for you Mr BMOC55 just for you ........“The Appellant argues they should not be liable to pay the parking charge notice as they were parked on a public highway, not private land and because the signage was not clear.
With regard the first argument the Operator has provided evidence of a contract with the land owner which supports the Operator\'s contention that the land is privately owned. In the absence of any supporting documentation from the Appellant that the place he parked is a public highway I must find this point in favour of the Operator.
However, with regard to the lack of clear signage I find in favour of the Appellant. Whilst the Operator has the benefit of the map and can clearly see which land is private and which is public the Appellant cannot. There are no obstructions between the Appellant’s car and those behind it, and so to the lay person the appellant’s car appears to be on the same land as those cars, which are in fact on the public highway. In addition the only sign shown in the Operator’s evidence is on the other side of a line of bollards. This clearly implies that the sign applies to the land on the other side of the bollards to the Appellant’s car. As this is the only sign relied on I must assume that is the only one present. Consequently, there was insufficient notice.
LAUGH OUT LOUD ****
[quote][p][bold]bmoc55[/bold] wrote: This guy is chancer, and WN shouldn't really be giving publicity for his stupid actions. The whole area around Armsrong Drive including the area he parks in is known to be off limits to parking. This is also written into the covenants that cover the development. Maybe he should take time to read the legal bits on his documentation. He will ignore the fine at his peril. Pay up and stop whinging and learn to park cosiderately.[/p][/quote]Chancer hey??? good job i chanced it because i've won my appeal, it would appear ( like i said) it is not clear that its private road......... Here's a copy from the appeal service for you Mr BMOC55 just for you ........“The Appellant argues they should not be liable to pay the parking charge notice as they were parked on a public highway, not private land and because the signage was not clear. With regard the first argument the Operator has provided evidence of a contract with the land owner which supports the Operator\'s contention that the land is privately owned. In the absence of any supporting documentation from the Appellant that the place he parked is a public highway I must find this point in favour of the Operator. However, with regard to the lack of clear signage I find in favour of the Appellant. Whilst the Operator has the benefit of the map and can clearly see which land is private and which is public the Appellant cannot. There are no obstructions between the Appellant’s car and those behind it, and so to the lay person the appellant’s car appears to be on the same land as those cars, which are in fact on the public highway. In addition the only sign shown in the Operator’s evidence is on the other side of a line of bollards. This clearly implies that the sign applies to the land on the other side of the bollards to the Appellant’s car. As this is the only sign relied on I must assume that is the only one present. Consequently, there was insufficient notice. LAUGH OUT LOUD **** Mr Chancer
  • Score: 2
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree