Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
I would like to say that if you were pretty much caught unawares in what looked like a free car park, then yes, fight them tooth and nail. If however you knowingly parked on private property and/or saw the sign then you should pay up. I've been on both sides of the argument, having had to fight a ticket and been frustrated that my rented car parking space (as part of my shop) had been pinched by someone who thought they, out of the whole town, deserved free parking at someone else's expense.

It's the former. It was a simple 'free' car park in a shopping complex. It wasn't like I parked in a company car park or the car park of an an apartment bloc were it's obvious that you shouldn't be there.

In which case, carry on, Jones.

 Future War Cultist wrote:


It's the former. It was a simple 'free' car park in a shopping complex. It wasn't like I parked in a company car park or the car park of an an apartment bloc were it's obvious that you shouldn't be there.

I had something similar - I moved house a couple of years ago and had to visit a client's premises on a trading estate for work. The road had double yellow lines so of course, I found a space where there weren't any double yellow lines. When I came out to leave for home, I found a ticket on my windscreen. It turns out the road is unadopted and a private parking company tickets anyone who parks on the road. To be clear, I was not obstructing entrances or anything like that; I simply did not know that it was a private road and there was a charge - the signage was not obvious. I appealed using the parking company's own website stating I thought the charge unfair given the confusing nature of the double yellow lines but it was of course, denied. I heard nothing else about it.

Fast forward two years and 2 months later and a few months ago, I had a letter from a debt recovery company asking me to pay £99 for this ticket which I had long since forgotten about. After researching, it turns out there is something like a time limit of 6 years for these sorts of parking tickets which surprised me a little.

You might find this website helpful:

http://www.bmpa.eu/

On there, there are links to a database that shows just how many court cases have been brought against tickets issued by private parking companies - in my own case, it was something like 178 tickets went to court out of 100,000+ issued so I am reasonably confident it won't be pursued. It's important to note that even if you get threatening letters purporting to be from bailiffs or debt recovery agents, they have absolutely no legal recourse to collect anything from you. Only the private parking company can recover money from you by taking you to court. All the debt recovery firms can do is threaten, bluster, try to scare you into paying an inflated 'settlement' figure and advise their client whether to go to court or not.

Exactly, once the appeal window is done, ignore everything except a Letter Before Action or an actual claim.

There's a pretty thorough guide here on the whole process: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

 r_squared wrote:

I can't even be bothered to understand what you're gibbering on about there.

I can't help but wonder why you'd even bother responding in a mildly rude fashion to a post which you've literally just said that you're not even reading/understanding properly. How you'd expect that to lead to a productive, friendly, in line with Rule 1# political discussion is beyond me. Either way, it doesn't do much for protests of political neutrality.

I regret even answering them back. Should have just completely ignored them outright. At least it wasn't through my mobile so they won't be able to call me.

I probably shouldn't have thrown the initial letters out either. But I'll spin that to my advantage if needs be.

Speaking of tickets and fines, my Brother received an £80 on the spot fine from a Warden for cycling down a main street in Peterborough that has a cycling ban. The street apparently has sign-age at either end, but he entered the street in the middle from a side street where there are no signs and so naturally he didn't see the warnings.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Speaking of tickets and fines, my Brother received an £80 on the spot fine from a Warden for cycling down a main street in Peterborough that has a cycling ban. The street apparently has sign-age at either end, but he entered the street in the middle from a side street where there are no signs and so naturally he didn't see the warnings.

He might be able to successfully argue that. However, these kinds of fines are backed by law so be careful.

Oh the weird thing was he told me it said on the back of the ticket "You waive your right to an appeal".

Says who?? Is that even legally enforceable?

Unlikely if it’s a civil/legal right.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Oh the weird thing was he told me it said on the back of the ticket "You waive your right to an appeal".

Says who?? Is that even legally enforceable?

I’m pretty sure you can always appeal them in court. And for once I think you have a case there. They really should put signs on all entrances to the street.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Oh the weird thing was he told me it said on the back of the ticket "You waive your right to an appeal".

Says who?? Is that even legally enforceable?

Sorry.. edit as I thought we were talking about something else. This is not a charge but a civil fine. I’m assuming this is on Bridge Street? If so, I’m afraid he is going to have to pay it. It’s a very questionable ban on cycling, but is legal.

bouncingboredom wrote:
The parole board issue and Carillion actually have an odd similarity. As Killkrazy pointed out, the parole board are actually quite limited in the number of things they're able to consider, such as alleged crimes that someone hasn't actually been charged with. The authorising bodies that have given Carillion some of their contracts are similarly limited in the number of factors that can be considered when making their deliberations, which helps explain why Carillion have been able to keep winning contracts despite their precarious position.

That's not really true. The awarding organisations have lots of flexibility and it is entirely up to them as to what criteria they set as part of the procurement barring a few exceptions (such as you can't be selective by race, can't say "won't contract to someone with a CEO named Bob Smith" etc). However otherwise they are in control of the awarding criteria. What they can't do is treat different companies differently throughout the process. It is extremely common for procuring bodies to evaluate companies financial health (liquidity tests etc). However if you set the criteria and everyone fails then you have two options, either scrap the process and start again with different criteria or you waive that criteria completely. You can't edit the criteria once you've seen the submission as that leads to criteria selection of who you want consciously or sub-consciously want to pass and fail. It is rare that procurement process get canned completely and restarted because there is usually significant management/government pressure to get things actioned (imagine HS2 being delayed because no one passed the finance tests). As such there is a tendency to let some things be waived. My suspicion is that this is what has happened here in recent procurements. The tests were taken but several or all failed the tests hence they all went through and so on.

As for not awarding contracts to businesses making losses that is a rather short sighted approach. Many companies can have a bad year (say they didn't forecast a drop in the £, the increased costs in steel after an ill informed vote ) yet overall they are stable. Not awarding contracts can effectively condemns them to going bust (and might as well do that immediately). What is really needed is a method to identify those that are stable but had a bad year compared to those that are just failing and have little reasonable chance of pulling it around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Oh the weird thing was he told me it said on the back of the ticket "You waive your right to an appeal".

Says who?? Is that even legally enforceable?

Sorry.. edit as I thought we were talking about something else. This is not a charge but a civil fine. I’m assuming this is on Bridge Street? If so, I’m afraid he is going to have to pay it. It’s a very questionable ban on cycling, but is legal.

It's probably to do with payment. If you pay then you waive your right to appeal (you've acknowledged you were wrong by paying) and is usually associated with paying early to avoid a higher fine.


In Wrexit related news Norway is now putting pressure on the EU that the UK can't be given better rights that it has for less (noting they pay more person then the UK does).

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/15/norway-may-rip-up-eu-deal-over-uk-brexit-demands

Also in this article

France is fighting off attempts by Luxembourg, among other countries, to allow UK-based financial services a “backdoor” to single market access post-Brexit by allowing City of London firms to gain so-called “passporting” rights through continental shell companies allowing real operations to continue in the UK. The internal row is viewed by EU officials as a precursor to a more divisive debate within the 27 over what to offer London on financial services, with senior officials warning that, as it stands, the EU will “not go very far”.

So I think we can start to count out passporting rights.

Member states have ruled out allowing British carriers the freedom to fly passengers and luggage between destinations on the continent post-Brexit, with UK carriers to be permitted only four of the nine “freedoms” to operate they currently enjoy. There are also plans in the negotiations on fisheries to link access to British waters for EU vessels with access to the European market for UK importers.

Airline jobs going abroad then. No real change for fisheries which really had to happen anyway because fish don't give two hoots about who owns what piece of water.

EU leaders are taking control of the talks on the future trading relationship and are expected to incorporate stricter enforcement mechanisms than in any trade deal previously signed to ensure a “level playing field” in terms of levels of tax and state aid.

Not really a surprise as they don't want another tax haven on the door step given that they are trying to control this type of activity. Additionally any future trade deals are likely have to comply with the EU rules if we want access to an open market. Again this is not a surprise as they won't want the UK to become a warehouse for lower standard goods into the UK. (None of this is a bad idea as it maintains our standards too and at least helps try and control things like panama tax havens).

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Oh the weird thing was he told me it said on the back of the ticket "You waive your right to an appeal".

Says who?? Is that even legally enforceable?

Sorry.. edit as I thought we were talking about something else. This is not a charge but a civil fine. I’m assuming this is on Bridge Street? If so, I’m afraid he is going to have to pay it. It’s a very questionable ban on cycling, but is legal.

Yeah, sure its a legit fine.

But there were no warning signs on the entrance to the street that he passed through.
And he says the back of the paper said "You waive your rights to an appeal". Is that true, Is that legally enforceable? (waiving the right to an appeal just because it says so in the small print).

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Oh the weird thing was he told me it said on the back of the ticket "You waive your right to an appeal".

Says who?? Is that even legally enforceable?

Sorry.. edit as I thought we were talking about something else. This is not a charge but a civil fine. I’m assuming this is on Bridge Street? If so, I’m afraid he is going to have to pay it. It’s a very questionable ban on cycling, but is legal.

Yeah, sure its a legit fine.

But there were no warning signs on the entrance to the street that he passed through.
And he says the back of the paper said "You waive your rights to an appeal". Is that true, Is that legally enforceable? (waiving the right to an appeal just because it says so in the small print).

Whilst it bugs me that they didn’t have signs up on the high street, this one might be better dealt with by paying up. It’s usally less if you pay quickly. The stakes are higher when you’re dealing with real penalty notices.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/bolton-wonderer?utm_term=.tyvZppB7ak#.arwemm2N1z

.. what a total shambles eh ?

 Whirlwind wrote:
That's not really true. The awarding organisations have lots of flexibility and it is entirely up to them as to what criteria they set as part of the procurement barring a few exceptions

I'm afraid you massively underestimate the nature of the legal confines around public purchasing. This extends to such minuate as the nature of electronic communications (literally the government can be sued in some circumstances for using communication methods deemed to exclude certain potential bidders). There is a tremendous legal minefield to be negotiated and it is more common than you would think for contractors to take legal action.

In Wrexit related news Norway is now putting pressure on the EU that the UK can't be given better rights that it has for less (noting they pay more person then the UK does).

Why would anyone think we would get better rights for less. That's a perfectly reasonable position for Norway to take in my opinion. And it's highly unlikely we'll get better terms than Norway for less.

So I think we can start to count out passporting rights.

Except that the EU's own securities regulator produced a report a few years back on the possibility of asset managers outside the EU getting passporting rights and decided there was no good reason why it shouldn't happen. This included assessments of tax havens! An executive at Deutsche Bank has already said he only expects the EU to make a pudding out of the crumbs of London after brexit and a number of leading financial firms have openly told reporters that they don't plan to shift anywhere near as many jobs as people have been speculating. Basically the European bankers with any sense are quite happy with the way things are and are very worried about a financial shock if the EU tries to block London. Virtually everyone except for EU politicians and remain supporters has woken up to the fact that London is going nowhere and the EU is virtually certain to grant very favourable banking terms.

We're also seeing the interesting first signs that political rhetoric is giving way to economic reality. The German automotive industry has hired Deloitte to produce a number of briefings (aimed at German politicians) explaining how important the UK is to their sector and how important it is for the EU to sign a positive deal. This was always the stage in the negotiations (as was explained endlessly pre-referendum) where things get interesting, because now politicians have to put their money where their mouths are and we're already seeing the signs of buckling and infighting. As for your bit on the fisheries, the EU has no chance of gaining unrestricted access to UK waters. UK has already begun the process of withdrawing from a number of treaties in that regard.

Not really a surprise as they don't want another tax haven on the door step given that they are trying to control this type of activity.

They have basically no control over this. Which is how it should be. You also seem to be blithely ignorant to just how cosy the EU really is with many tax havens, President Juncker having been the Prime Minister of one for several years.

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/bolton-wonderer?utm_term=.tyvZppB7ak#.arwemm2N1z

.. what a total shambles eh ?

How do these people manage to dress themselves in the morning?

I'm afraid you massively underestimate the nature of the legal confines around public purchasing. This extends to such minuate as the nature of electronic communications (literally the government can be sued in some circumstances for using communication methods deemed to exclude certain potential bidders). There is a tremendous legal minefield to be negotiated and it is more common than you would think for contractors to take legal action.

Not really.... You are moving the goal posts. We are referring as to how you evaluate and determine what you can include in a contract. How you advertise said contract is different and depending on the type of contract and its value falls either under what are abbreviated as Official Journal Of the European Union (OJEU) contracts or fall under the contract procedure rules of the individual organisation (the former being much onerous in terms of how you advertise and inform people of the procurement).

Why would anyone think we would get better rights for less. That's a perfectly reasonable position for Norway to take in my opinion. And it's highly unlikely we'll get better terms than Norway for less.

Erm the government thinks it can?

Except that the EU's own securities regulator produced a report a few years back on the possibility of asset managers outside the EU getting passporting rights and decided there was no good reason why it shouldn't happen. This included assessments of tax havens! An executive at Deutsche Bank has already said he only expects the EU to make a pudding out of the crumbs of London after brexit and a number of leading financial firms have openly told reporters that they don't plan to shift anywhere near as many jobs as people have been speculating. Basically the European bankers with any sense are quite happy with the way things are and are very worried about a financial shock if the EU tries to block London. Virtually everyone except for EU politicians and remain supporters has woken up to the fact that London is going nowhere and the EU is virtually certain to grant very favourable banking terms.

Nothing will move immediately (too expensive) but you'll get a transfer over time as it becomes more viable to operate in the larger more powerful market. Subsidiaries are already being set up. It just means over time that the subsidiaries will become more useful over time as the EU becomes a greater value then the London. It will also help the EU that the banking authority has been relocated. Companies will want to be near where the 'seat of power' is.

This was always the stage in the negotiations (as was explained endlessly pre-referendum) where things get interesting, because now politicians have to put their money where their mouths are and we're already seeing the signs of buckling and infighting. As for your bit on the fisheries, the EU has no chance of gaining unrestricted access to UK waters. UK has already begun the process of withdrawing from a number of treaties in that regard.

One industry is not really having much influence though. It's not affecting Germany's approach to the Wrexit. The UK has more to lose from having a trade barrier for cars. The one thing I would predict is that there will be limited barriers for cars. However you can still have that and numerous other areas with no agreement. The EU are by far more coordinated than the UK which has no idea what it wants really (apart from a bigly good deal).

They have basically no control over this. Which is how it should be. You also seem to be blithely ignorant to just how cosy the EU really is with many tax havens, President Juncker having been the Prime Minister of one for several years.

In 2019 much more stringent controls on tax in terms of transparency will come into force. It should not be a surprise that a lot of people bank rolling the leave campaign are set to not 'benefit' from such rules.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1663_en.htm

bouncingboredom wrote:
Except that the EU's own securities regulator produced a report a few years back on the possibility of asset managers outside the EU getting passporting rights and decided there was no good reason why it shouldn't happen.

Other than sheer bloody mindedness. Seems to be a good bit of that from the posturing on both sides determined to spite their own faces for ideological reasons. I’m sure there are still those in the EU that want to make brexit painful simply to deter other nations following. And on our side there are those who just want to stick it to Europe to win popularity with some over here.

Whirlwind wrote:You are moving the goal posts. We are referring as to how you evaluate and determine what you can include in a contract.

Erm, no. As anyone that cares to check back will see I was talking about the awarding of contracts, which is what you replied to. So unlucky, another failed attempt to try and discredit someone because they pointed out something inconvenient to you. And then you wonder why this thread is becoming an echo chamber.

Erm the government thinks it can?

The government thinks no such thing. If you actually listen to what they're saying they're trying to get the best deal they can, but they no full well that they won't get an equivalent deal to Norway unless they meet the same obligations.

Nothing will move immediately (too expensive) but you'll get a transfer over time as it becomes more viable to operate in the larger more powerful market. Subsidiaries are already being set up. It just means over time that the subsidiaries will become more useful over time as the EU becomes a greater value then the London. It will also help the EU that the banking authority has been relocated. Companies will want to be near where the 'seat of power' is.

You don't seem to be listening. The people involved in the financial sector in the EU are not expecting any major movements, not the day after Brexit or the month after Brexit or the decade after Brexit. They're quite happy with the way things run right now (because everyone wins and makes lots of money). They're expecting to hoover up some small fry business on the side, the "crumbs of the city of London" but not much else. You do not seem to grasp the idea that British based banks will still be operating heavily in the EU market after Brexit, which is the whole point of the subsidaries (a requirement to gain the passporting rights). There is a myriad of reasons why there are only three really big financial centres in the world, none of which will be compromised by Brexit. I also think you're underestimating just how good banks and other financial institutions are at getting around rules designed by politicians, amd how much politicians actively aid this to benefit themselves.

One industry is not really having much influence though. It's not affecting Germany's approach to the Wrexit. The UK has more to lose from having a trade barrier for cars. The one thing I would predict is that there will be limited barriers for cars. However you can still have that and numerous other areas with no agreement. The EU are by far more coordinated than the UK which has no idea what it wants really (apart from a bigly good deal).

It's not just one industry though (just wait till the French farmers union gets involved. They make UKIP look like the green party). You do not seem to understand just how much some of the key dominoes in the Euro chain like Germany, France, Holland and Ireland have to lose from a bad deal. Germany is especially worried. There's a reason the European central bank is pumping around 60 billion euros worth of liquidity into the eurozone each month (though it might be reduced to a mere 30 billion euros per month soon...), and it's not because the eurozone is a super stable economic bloc. You, like seemingly some of the more bombastic EU politicians, just do not seem to understand the scale of the knock on effects to the Eurozone from a bad deal. Thankfully most of the people that matter do and they've already begun leaning on their respective governments. The EU is no more a unified front than I am a trained neuro-surgeon. The signs of this are becoming more apparent by the day. The fact that you choose to ignore these because you're busy shouting "WREXIT" in every other comment is irrelevant.

In 2019 much more stringent controls on tax in terms of transparency will come into force. It should not be a surprise that a lot of people bank rolling the leave campaign are set to not 'benefit' from such rules.

Ah yes, government tax regulation. How many centuries have governments been trying to clamp down on avoidance? How has that worked out? And when the president of the organisation attempting it is notorious for being one of the biggest corporate handshakers and tax avoidance artists in the business, you really think there's going to be a massive clampdown?

Howard A Treesong wrote:Other than sheer bloody mindedness. Seems to be a good bit of that from the posturing on both sides determined to spite their own faces for ideological reasons. I’m sure there are still those in the EU that want to make brexit painful simply to deter other nations following. And on our side there are those who just want to stick it to Europe to win popularity with some over here.

Neither sides extremists are going to get what they want. The final deal is likely to be what any good trade deal should be; a win-win for all. Politicians have to talk tough, it's part of their game. But behind closed doors, and especially with civil servants hanging off their ears, most of them tend to be a lot more, I guess normal is the word I'm looking for. Rationale perhaps? When faced with the consequences of a bad deal on this scale, that's when the rhetoric will rapidly go out of the window and the desire to not tank each others economies will come to the fore, because neither of us gain by giving the other side a bad lot.

 Ketara wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

I can't even be bothered to understand what you're gibbering on about there.

I can't help but wonder why you'd even bother responding in a mildly rude fashion to a post which you've literally just said that you're not even reading/understanding properly. How you'd expect that to lead to a productive, friendly, in line with Rule 1# political discussion is beyond me. Either way, it doesn't do much for protests of political neutrality.

If you're truly after political discourse, pack in the patronising analogies and attitude and we'll get along just fine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42709763

And yet the Tories have just committed us to using diesel trains for the next 40 years; nice joined-up strategy there(!)

The two aren't necessarily opposed.

Getting private transport emission free is arguably more important than public transport on account of relative carbon footprint. Plus, it's likely be very expensive to electrify the entire rail network. Finally, for all I know Diesel may in fact be the most efficient option for trains, given the electricity needs to be provided from somewhere.

There's massive electrification projects going on up here, so they are still moving in that direction.

Targetting a percentage of electric cars by 2030 doesn't necesarily mean much work/investment from the governent.

bouncingboredom wrote:

So I think we can start to count out passporting rights.

Except that the EU's own securities regulator produced a report a few years back on the possibility of asset managers outside the EU getting passporting rights and decided there was no good reason why it shouldn't happen.

AIFMD is just for a fraction of asset management, itself a fraction of financial services, and is happening already. Banking services covered by MIFID/MIFIR, CRDIV/CRR, consumer financial products, etc. aren't covered.

An executive at Deutsche Bank has already said he only expects the EU to make a pudding out of the crumbs of London after brexit and a number of leading financial firms have openly told reporters that they don't plan to shift anywhere near as many jobs as people have been speculating. Basically the European bankers with any sense are quite happy with the way things are and are very worried about a financial shock if the EU tries to block London. Virtually everyone except for EU politicians and remain supporters has woken up to the fact that London is going nowhere and the EU is virtually certain to grant very favourable banking terms.

Because everyone outside the torysphere now bets on a really soft Brexit, with UK paying for market access. Job loss will be proportional to degree of access.

We're also seeing the interesting first signs that political rhetoric is giving way to economic reality. The German automotive industry has hired Deloitte to produce a number of briefings (aimed at German politicians) explaining how important the UK is to their sector and how important it is for the EU to sign a positive deal. This was always the stage in the negotiations (as was explained endlessly pre-referendum) where things get interesting, because now politicians have to put their money where their mouths are and we're already seeing the signs of buckling and infighting.

Commissioning impact reports is just good practice (i.e. exactly the opposite of what David Davis did, or what Nicola Sturgeon just did, or what the EU published long time ago).

All of them read the same: UK should stay in the common market or there will be damage. The onus is on the UK to set the tone on how much do they want to minimise damage on both sides of the equation.

Herzlos wrote:
There's massive electrification projects going on up here, so they are still moving in that direction.

Targetting a percentage of electric cars by 2030 doesn't necesarily mean much work/investment from the governent.

There needs to be a charging network, especially for people who do not have secure parking outside our houses to allow us to have our own charging points.

In Henley currently there are four charging points compared to 600 or more council car park slots. Two of these charging points belong to the town's service centre for electric and hybrid vehicles, meaning that in all the five council car parks there are two points, which are often ICEd.

At the other end of my daily commute -- Redbridge Park & Ride in Oxford -- there is one charging point compared to over 1,000 parking slots.

If the government doesn't get a proper grip on this situation, it will end up like BT Openreach, with delayed, patchy and low quality coverage.

Indeed, but that can be a relatively gradual roll-out and I can see a lot of larger destinations expanding charging on their own initiative to lure in customers - shopping centres, tourist attractions, concert venues, airports. Essentially everywhere with large car parks that use them to entice customers.

The government can then fund infrastructure everywhere else piecemeal.

Or take the money intended to be invested in infrastructure, chuck it to their Cowboy Builder mates to pay themselves obscene bonuses, before running the company into the ground to require yet more Tax Payer cash to sort it out, including redundancy packages and Golden Goodbyes to said Cowboy Builders.

Like Carillon.

Herzlos wrote:
Indeed, but that can be a relatively gradual roll-out and I can see a lot of larger destinations expanding charging on their own initiative to lure in customers - shopping centres, tourist attractions, concert venues, airports. Essentially everywhere with large car parks that use them to entice customers.

The government can then fund infrastructure everywhere else piecemeal.

To be sure, there are signs this is already happening. For example, Westgate Shopping Centre in Oxford opened in November with 1,000 car park slots including 50 EV charging points. This while a very low percentage is still a lot better than most places.

However, if the government wants to have an effective strategy it needs to prime the pump.

People want electric cars but they are put off by the expense and by the difficulty of charging them.

Recently, demand for EVs has been stimulated by government grants. The government should also offer grants for plumbing in charge points, to encourage much wider provisin.