Sign in or 
Share this
1. Latest News Stories
How difficult can it be to get a parking ticket??? | |||||||||||||
| Uk Rights teamed up earlier this week with Nationally Recognised antiparking campaigner Neil Herron - to try and gain some parking tickets in and around Brighton. Well - we spent mroe than FOUR HOURS parking in a number of parking bays that were non-complaint and we came up with nothing - not one ticket! As we drove around we found not one but many many parking bays that were painted incorrectly thus rendering them non-complinat and therefore any tickets issued in these bays would be wholly non compliant and unenforceable. Therefore - ALWAYS, when you get a ticket take photographs of ... 1. The whole of the parkiung bay - beginning, end and middle 2. The On street signs relating to the parking bays 3. The Parking ticket Machine (if there is one) as this may be non-compliant too 4. The Parking Attendant issuing the ticket. 5. Get the Parking Attendants number and name and write it down in front of him/her If you are absolutely sure that the bay is non-compliant then inform the parking attendant (on a tape recorder if you can) that "You are attempting to obtain money by deception and I require your name and badge number for the purposes of identifying you as the issueing officer in any court proceedings that may arrise from this illegal activity") Dont be rude, or agressive - just be firm and polite and don't threaten them - they are after all acting on instructions - they are not the root cause of the problem! It seemed to us that the word was out on the streets of Brighton that the parking Nazi's at the council werre about to get caught with their trousers down and so we think they were laying low for the day. To get the full story and pictures - CLICK HERE FOR NEILS BLOG Neil also runs the incredibly succesful website www.ParkingAppeals.co.uk - if you have got a Penalty Charge Notice then visit this site now to find out how to get it cancelled! We will be running some more sorties in and around Brighton in the near future - if any of you want to join us them please contaxct us here at UK Rights. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Date Submitted | 16/11/2007 |
| ource / acknowledgemets | UK Rights |
| Submitted By | UK Rights |
Gary Wayne aka Civil Enforcement Ltd EXPOSED! | ||||||
| The Government is at the centre of a 'secrets for sale' scandal after it admitted offering sensitive details about millions of motorists to private car parking companies. A Mail on Sunday investigation found that more than 150 firms have been granted access to an official database of confidential information about Britain's 30 million drivers. These car park operators, who are entirely unregulated, purchase the names and addresses of motorists who they wish to track down - and can then send them threatening letters to demand massive fines for alleged 'overstays'. The revelations raise serious questions about the way personal information held by the Government is sold commercially. They will also provoke fears about the possible abuse of Tony Blair's identity card scheme, which will create a powerful database of details about everyone in Britain. The Government's Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency last night admitted it hands out drivers' details at £2.50 a time when provided with car registration numbers. All drivers are legally required to give the DVLA their up-to-date address, although few know this information can be sold on. Private car park companies, however, have the right to obtain this information under obscure regulations introduced three years ago and waved through the Commons with no debate. The Mail on Sunday investigation found one company - used by the Co-op, Kwik Save and Aldi to manage store car parks - exploits the data to send threatening letters to motorists demanding fines of up to £170. This is three times the fine local authorities typically charge motorists who fail to 'pay and display'. Creative Car Park Management - which uses a variety of front companies to conceal its true identity and earnings - uses cameras at the entrances and exits to their sites to photograph the number plates of drivers who they allege linger beyond the 'free parking' limit. Using the information sold by the Government, the firm sends out bills - sometimes weeks later - telling motorists they will be taken to court if they fail to pay. The secretive company even threatens to send bailiffs to drivers' homes to recover money they claim to be owed. Many motorists, fearing the firm is working alongside the DVLA, may feel they have no choice but to pay up. The firm has been the subject of a series of complaints from drivers. Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker has been championing the cause of shoppers caught by Creative Car Park Management in the village of Polegate in his Lewes, East Sussex, constituency. Mr Baker said: "A private company should not be allowed to obtain information about private individuals from the State. When people provide information to the Government, they do not do so on the basis that someone is going to make a profit from it. "A huge number of mistakes have been made by the company here in Lewes, all of which appear to be in their favour. It is supposed to be free parking, but a number of my constituents have received very large bills." He added: "£170 would be an extortionate amount to charge in Central London, let alone rural Sussex." Motoring organisations claim there has been a boom in this form of 'ticket-less' parking fine, which has caught thousands by surprise. Since no tickets are placed on the windscreen, drivers can incur several fines before they even realise they have done anything wrong. The DVLA said 157 private parking companies regularly apply to it for information on 'vehicle keepers'.
Under the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, the DVLA has to provide the data assuming the companies can give 'reasonable cause' - a phrase not defined in law. The DVLA insisted that the right of parking companies to access their database predates the 2002 regulations. However, a spokesman was unable to say exactly when the DVLA began its current practice of routinely selling data. Flurry of complaints Further investigation is necessary to determine when private parking enforcement companies first applied to DVLA under the 'reasonable causeî provisions,' he said. The DVLA refused to say how much money it collected from selling data. "The fee charged for information is designed simply to cover the administrative costs of dealing with the enquiries and ensure this burden is not met by the taxpayer." The agency has a car parking code of conduct but it is purely voluntary. The Mail on Sunday began investigating Creative Car Park Management after being alerted to a flurry of complaints from motorists who felt they had been treated unfairly. With its fashionable name and glossy website, it appears to be a conventionally run business. It certainly gives that impression to the dozens of well-known companies which use its services. CCPM says it monitors about 150 car parks all over Britain on behalf of retail and property companies. But its founder and owner, Gary Wayne, goes to extraordinary lengths to hide his identity. CCPM's structure is concealed by 'shell' companies and anonymous nominee directors who play no part in the firm's management or day-today operations - a tactic that will be outlawed under the Companies Act, due to come into force in 2007. Its registered address turns out to be an accommodation address in Mayfair where Mr Wayne pays £320 a year to rent a mailbox. In fact, the 35-year-old businessman runs CCPM from his four-bedroom, £400,000 home in Mill Hill, North London. After initially claiming to be only a spokesman for the company, he eventually admitted to being its founder and sole operator. He said he had always operated within the law and provided a valuable-service in preventing commuters and long-term parkers from abusing parking regulations on privately-owned land. Signs erected by CCPM at car park entrances warn overstayers: "We will contact DVLA to obtain your details." Referring to the car park in Polegate, East Sussex, he said: "It is for the use of shoppers to premises owned by our client who very generously allows all members of the public to use the car park for a limited time free of charge. "However, the car park has been abused by commuters who leave their cars in the car park and then catch a train to Brighton or London. "There is a large station car park available for commuters' use and there is no reason why they should park on our client's land - other than to avoid the station car park charges. "Should any charge notices be issued in error, they are cancelled immediately with written confirmation sent to the vehicle owner." Asked why he was so keen to conceal his identity, Mr Wayne said car parking was a 'sensitive issue' and added: "We wish to protect the identity and security of the senior administration of the company." Inquiries by this newspaper, however, suggest that the group's 'senior administration' consists of just one man - Gary Wayne.Mr Wayne's customers use him because of the convenient, no fuss service he offers. Companies such as CCPM charge their clients nothing, deriving their income from the high fines they levy on car owners. It may come as some surprise that in the era of the Data Protection Act - the law designed to restrict access to personal details kept on databases - that the DVLA is able to sell on information about drivers. However, the provision in the 2002 Road Vehicles Regulations giving car park companies the right to find out about 'vehicle keepers' overrides any earlier restrictions in the Data Protection Act. The revelation will fuel growing concerns about the use of information held by Government departments. Ministers are planning a massive database of personal information about every adult in the UK as part of the planned ID card scheme. Ministers insist access to the data will be carefully regulated - and not sold on to private companies. However, the revelations about the way the DVLA database is exploited commercially raises fears that the much larger ID card computer could be 'raided' in a similar way. Gareth Crossman, director of policy for civil rights group Liberty, said: "I have no doubt that once the register of personal information is in place, the number of people with access to it will increase hugely." | ||||||
| ||||||
Tony Blair Speaks! (We Answer) |
| This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network. It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible. That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. (we wonder why) This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. (So Tony " a debate at National Level - you mean a referendum then? - a chance for the people that elected you to have their views heard but mor importantly taken into consideration) That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further. But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, (WHAT??? If some local schemes are being implented then it is unquestionably being forced on the motorists in those areas - without the deabte you promised earlier! - Or is this just another example of Tony pushing through the things he wants by insidiously and darkly introducing it little by little until before we know where we are we have the damn system nationwide!) but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work (you mean to tell us you have spent all this money trying to convince of this and you yourself "don't know how it would work" - so what you want is the poor motorist in certain areas (wihtout any say in the matter - to foot the bill for your research or even better fund your justificaiton for introducing this sinister plan) and inform decisions on a national scheme (Hang on a moment - I thought you said you hand't made any decisions on a national scheme - that sounds like you already made up your mind Tony?). And funds raised from these local schemes (there you are - the motorist foots the bill with a scheme that is forced upon him/her with no legal recourse to say no - whatever happend to the rights of the individual in this country - we are going to fight you tooth and nail on this one Tony - ITS JUST WRONG, MORALLY, ETHICALLY and CIVILLY!) will be used to improve transport in those areas.(Yeah right!!) One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad (Why ist bad Tony? - because you waste billions on thins that are not important while you let the transport infrastructure rot). It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government. (You have been saying this for years Tony but it doesn't get any better does it?) Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. (whose figures are those? As yo uwell know Tony there are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics) This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue. (thanks to your governments complete unwillingness / incapability to have dealth with this when you first elected). Part of the solution is to improve public transport, (So stop keep banging on about that and do something about it) and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains (you wouldn't know it Tony - We use the London Transport Network every day and its rotten and creaking at the seams!) - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades.(RUBBISH - your so called "investments" are not the reason more people are using them - thats down to the fact the roads are so bad through LACK of investment that sometimes public transport is the lesser of two evils!) And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. (how about INCREASING IT! - sustaining it just isnt enough!) We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving (So you mean more Cones, Speed Bumps, Speed Cameras, SPECS Cameras and other such jolly revenue generating wheezes!) But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. (So what does the evidence show Tony because we suspect the evidence also shows that waht you are proposing is VERY DEFINITELY NOT THE ANSWER!) So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. (Who is this "We" you keep reffering to - so far the "We" has extended to you and your cronies - we, the people that elected you really haven't got a word in edgeways since you got your foot in the door at No 10 have we Tony?) This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion. (Thats not a jusification for you to do the same in the face of such a huge wave of public disagreement! STOP MAN - THINK!!!) One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. (as you have done since you arrived in your gas guzzling Daimler!) Given the forecast growth in traffic, (Show us the Figures Tony!!) doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. ("You think???" - and to think we put you in charge!!) And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses. (the costs of the indordinate number of other "stealth taxes" you have subjected us to is VERY REAL - Tony!) A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. (just those three motorways then is it??) But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity. (theres those damn statistics again! You wield them in the same way Yoda handles a light sabre - smooth but deadly!) Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. (Oh God - The pain - Tony peerleeze STOP!! I nearly died laughing - "Diverted from other services" - that would be those same services that have been the victims of your dedicated underfunding policies?? You are hoot Tony - you should be on the Stage!!! ... Oh .... you will be once you are out of No 10! - Well perhaps you can fix the roads out of the Extortionate fees you'll no doubt be charging for that caper!) If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail. (here's a plan Tony - take all the Oiks, Layabouts, Drug Dealers, Gun Dealers, Crackheads, Dole Queue scroungers, Beggars on the Tubes, Illegal Immagrants and Non-English speakers that your government has blessed us with, round them all up and set them to work building the new infrastructure in exchange for the palatial 5 bed houses and £500 a week you give them! - That would work!! - you don't need to speak English to use a shovel now do you! [Now ... can I be Chancellor?]) That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further. (Why exactly would it not be in the interests of over half the population (Motorists) to slam the door on this - lovely pun there by the way Tony!) It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. (WHAAATT? Who writes this dross for you Tony - is it one of the non-English speaking members of the Parliamentary under-staff?? Because I speak English fluenty and I didn't understand a bloody word of that! - its complete rubbish!) But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected (What like all the cameras you have installed and let the DVLA give out information from willy nilly, no law, no checks, no protections for the motorist! - you might see why we are cybical about that Tony eh?) - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. (What the hell does a mobile phone have to do with ensuring you don't hold information - if thats the case can I use my mobile phone to ensure the Council Tax snoopers don't hold information on the massive extension I am planning for my house?? - What Planet Are you on??) But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, (STIFLED LAUGH!!!) so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society. (If thats the case then Tony and you really don't want a "big brother" society can we trust that you will start taking down all the CCTV Cameras first thing Monday - that you will be informing the ACPO to remove all speed cameras by a week wednesday?? - Tony one of the team has lived in Spain for a number of years and there are virtually no speed cameras, no CCTV in the towns, no Cameras at the rubbish tip, they clear the Rubbish EVERY DAY and the council tax is around £200 a year! - Whats YOUR PROBLEM??) I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.(And collecting revenue form the motorist!! Ergo Tax, Ergo Stealth Tax) Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. (Of course - you would move away from Road Tax the VERY DAY you introduce this mental system - do you REALLY think the masses would let you tax them twice mate - c'mon Tony wake up mate - smell the Tarmac!) This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided. (So the fact the 1.5 Million people have said "you're having a laugh mate!" doesn't come into your thinking then??) Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, (So that will be a referendum then Tony - just like you said at the outset - can you give us a date as to when that will be) as will Parliament. (How Arrogant - this is not Parliaments Decision to make - its of National Importance, it has National, Regional, Local and personal ramifications for all - No Tony - this is one decision that you need to hand to us - let us decide and ACCEPT that decision!). We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate. UKRights advises everyone to visit these further sites and make your feelings and opinion known until Tony Blair sees that if he tries to hoodwink on this one (as he has done so many times before) then it might just backfire on him and the legacy that he so desires from his term in office might be one of "Turfed out on his by a million people marching up to his front door". |
| Date Submitted | 21/02/2007 |
| Source / acknowledgemets | UKRights |
| Submitted By | UKRights.org |
|
ukrights |
Latest page update: made by ukrights
, Nov 16 2007, 9:20 PM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by ukrights
152 words added 3 images added view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
ANPR
BP Gatwick
Civil Enforcement Ltd
Gatwick Parking
Gatwick Valet Parking
Help Me Park
McDonalds Gatwick
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| alexxxzan | civil enforcement address and tel no | 4 | Feb 22 2009, 6:46 PM EST by freda123 | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 22 2007, 1:53 PM EST
Watch
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD
DBH House Carlton Square Nottingham NG4 3BP Tel: 0115 822 5022 Fax: 0115 822 5023 The address you can write for no reply, otherwise try the phone and fax nos to annoy them. |
|||||
| alexxxzan | Civil Enforcement Ltd | 2 | Aug 5 2007, 3:23 PM EDT by IanW | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 22 2007, 1:18 PM EST
Watch
I too have been scammed by the parking at BP north. Two weeks after I was there I recieved a ticket timing me as being there 41 minutes. I used the shop and spent the rest of the time in the car. Needless to say I was outraged and wrote to tell them so. They claim there are notices at the entrance, there were not and that the signs are prominent, they are'nt, and enclosed photos to prove it. They cannot be contacted by phone unless you want to pay and they do not respond to letters. They just keep sending automated agressive statements each time increasing the fine. I have now recieved a letter from a debt collection agency and again I have written back saying why I refuse to pay. The frustration is that they do not respond and they have no procedure for anyone who challenges them, but I suppose that is all part of their way of ripping you off. Anyone else out there who has recieved a ticket from CEL - DO NOT PAY. If they want to take me to court, as they threaten, I would be delighted. I have sent them my costs relating to fighting the ticket too.
|
|||||
| Matt_W | Have CEL ever taken anyone to Court? | 0 | Feb 9 2007, 8:09 AM EST by Matt_W | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 9 2007, 8:09 AM EST
Watch
I don't think so, I have been in communication with several solicitors who have never heard of such a case either.
|
|||||
Showing 3 of 7 threads for this page
- view all
