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.

 Ketara wrote:
So.....if they nationalise Carillion they're hypocrites who do what they slag Labour off for and are just bailing out their rich mates,and if they don't then they're heartless politicians who put privatisation ideologies above necessity?

Bit of a 'can't win' scenario there, methinks.

Well, it's only a can't win for the politicians. For the people whose livelihoods depend on their employer not going bankrupt, one of those is definitely a winning scenario. And it's only a can't win scenario for the politicians because of their own idiotic ideology and their short sighted attacks on their opponents without considering the implications of how that will affect them when they are in a similar position.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We're all familiar with the old Napoleon maxim about lucky generals, and I look at this government and think they must have shot a unicorn or something, because they seem to lurch from one crisis to another, mostly self-inflicted.

Commentators on other newspaper forums are saying that the government should just nationalise this company, seeing as they mostly do government work anyway, and therefore, the taxpayer may as well own what they are paying for.

But is this possible under EU nationalization rules?

Yes. This is how many EU countries have nationalised rail services, as is said every time you bring up the strawman argument of how the EU is in the way of nationalisation as opposed to our own political parties.

Well, you learn something new every day.

So what's the difference between state aid and nationalisation?

If a government gives state aid to Company X, it will do so with taxpayers' money.

If a government decides to nationalise the railways, it will do so with taxpayers' money...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
So.....if they nationalise Carillion they're hypocrites who do what they slag Labour off for and are just bailing out their rich mates,and if they don't then they're heartless politicians who put privatisation ideologies above necessity?

Bit of a 'can't win' scenario there, methinks.

This is where political skill comes in if you're a good politician.

For example, 100 years ago, Lloyd George was keeping back troops from Haig, as Lloyd George didn't like Haig, and also, because he was fed up with the casulties on the Western Front.

Haig's supporters in the Commons accused Lloyd George of withholding 400,000 troops, and we know for a fact that he did it. He even admitted it later on.

But did Lloyd George stand up in the Commons and plead mea culpa?

Of course not. He pulls out facts and figures that proved that troops were heading for Flanders.

But they were cooks, and lorry drivers, and other important logistic support. By the time people realised that they weren't front-line troops, another problem averted attention.

So Haig was right, and technically, Lloyd George was keeping his word to support Haig.

So you see how good politicians and statesmen avoid, evade, and conquer problems?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We're all familiar with the old Napoleon maxim about lucky generals, and I look at this government and think they must have shot a unicorn or something, because they seem to lurch from one crisis to another, mostly self-inflicted.

Commentators on other newspaper forums are saying that the government should just nationalise this company, seeing as they mostly do government work anyway, and therefore, the taxpayer may as well own what they are paying for.

But is this possible under EU nationalization rules?

Yes. This is how many EU countries have nationalised rail services, as is said every time you bring up the strawman argument of how the EU is in the way of nationalisation as opposed to our own political parties.

Well, you learn something new every day.

So what's the difference between state aid and nationalisation?

If a government gives state aid to Company X, it will do so with taxpayers' money.

If a government decides to nationalise the railways, it will do so with taxpayers' money...

The difference is that if a government nationalises the railways they're not favoritizing one private actor over another and thus removing one possible avenue for nepotism or corruption, whereas a government supporting one private actor over others would open for all kinds of shady shenanigans.

Years of reading Private Eye have taught me that all sorts of state aid happens under the table at motorway service stations at 3am, despite the regulations being in place, so I'm not convinced there's much difference between the two.

 Ketara wrote:
So.....if they nationalise Carillion they're hypocrites who do what they slag Labour off for and are just bailing out their rich mates,and if they don't then they're heartless politicians who put privatisation ideologies above necessity?

Bit of a 'can't win' scenario there, methinks.

They’ve dug the hole for themselves by taking this unwavering line on the wonders of privatisation. Now likely going to waste a huge amount of money, delay many essential projects, bin the pensions of thousands, because of a mixture of ideology and pride.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Years of reading Private Eye have taught me that all sorts of state aid happens under the table at motorway service stations at 3am, despite the regulations being in place, so I'm not convinced there's much difference between the two.

Person A: "I'm not sure what the difference is"

Person B: *Explains difference*

Person A: "I'm not sure what the difference is"

Seriously?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


So what's the difference between state aid and nationalisation?

If a government gives state aid to Company X, it will do so with taxpayers' money.

If a government decides to nationalise the railways, it will do so with taxpayers' money...

I'm going to assume you are being serious, as the only other option is that you are being willfully obstructive and disingenuous, so I will try and explain:

Lets say you have lost your job and your car has broken down:

Nationalization - I buy your car off you, fix it and use it myself. I could employ you to drive the car for me if I wanted to, but I don't have to.
State aid - I give you £500 to fix your car on the basis that it will help you get a job.I may ask you to pay it back once you have got a job, or I may just decide you can have the money on the basis that if you are not working you can't come to the pub with me and that is worth more than £500 to me.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Years of reading Private Eye have taught me that all sorts of state aid happens under the table at motorway service stations at 3am, despite the regulations being in place, so I'm not convinced there's much difference between the two.

Renationalisation doesn't tend to go on under the table though because, well, it's pretty obvious who is running something. Whether state aid happens or not under the table, it is always illegal (though interpretation and case law make things murky). Renationalisation is bringing a service under government control (or a business solely owned by it). There's no under hand operation because all the staff TUPE across to the government body/agency/council etc. In this case it will save jobs. If on the other hand the government gave relief on part of the contracts then that might be considered state aid, or unfair procurement practices, which would likely be challenged.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Years of reading Private Eye have taught me that all sorts of state aid happens under the table at motorway service stations at 3am, despite the regulations being in place, so I'm not convinced there's much difference between the two.

You being convinced doesn't change the facts. Government buying a company is ok. Government giving cash to a company is not ok.

 Ketara wrote:
So.....if they nationalise Carillion they're hypocrites who do what they slag Labour off for and are just bailing out their rich mates,and if they don't then they're heartless politicians who put privatisation ideologies above necessity?

Bit of a 'can't win' scenario there, methinks.

Pretty much, but that's the price of their ideology. Guess they'll have to suck it up.

And into liquidation it goes.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Meanwhile this business with the parole board letting a serial rapist out is getting more attention. He’s guilty of raping a dozen and police say it’s likely in the hundreds. God knows what the priorities of the people making these decisions are, I suspect that they’re under pressure to reduce the prison population. I’m sure they’d think again if there was a chance he’d be their new neighbour or it was their wives and daughters that had been raped. I couldn’t sleep at night knowing I was responsible for letting monsters like him out of prison, I wonder how they do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42678572

Maybe they just value their paychecks too much. I'd rather resign than let him let out, but perhaps they lack the will to do the same. Alternatively, maybe they're incredibly gullible (read. stupid), and believed whatever story he feed them. Or perhaps they're of a particularly warped mindset that believes he's a victim of society and that's all everyone else's fault he commits rape. Or a combination of all three.

Also, I felt the need to share this. If anyone ever finds themselves the subject of an invoice for parking in a private car park (not parking fines for public land as that's a different matter), don't immediately pay up. It is possible to beat them, and I think I did just that.

Indeed.

The whole gamble on that one though is that they won't pursue the cost of it through the Small Claims Court, on account it typically costs more to pursue than the fine itself.

We should at least give some passing thought to the possibility that the parole board actually might be a group of well-trained, experienced professionals following a legal process and guidelines set down by the government to come to a genuine decision.

1. The law prevents the board from revealing their deliberations.
2. The board are not allowed to take into account alleged crimes that someone hasn't even been charged with, yet alone convicted of.

And so on.

There have been a few cases in recent years where the legal system has delivered a seemingly ludicrous result, the people and government have complained, and the reply has been, "We are following the rules you laid down for us."

 r_squared wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
So.....if they nationalise Carillion they're hypocrites who do what they slag Labour off for and are just bailing out their rich mates,and if they don't then they're heartless politicians who put privatisation ideologies above necessity?

Bit of a 'can't win' scenario there, methinks.

Pretty much, but that's the price of their ideology. Guess they'll have to suck it up.

I'm not sure it's really so much anything to do with them as it the people holding the views.

If I believe that the ice cream man driving down my street is a corporate exploiter of childish innocence, but the one that bypasses it a heartless crusher of children's dreams who withholds what they want, it doesn't have a huge amount to do with the ice cream man himself. It just boils down to the fact that I hate ice cream men and will castigate him regardless of whatever he does. His very existence is clearly an affront to me, and so he can never make a 'right' or correct choice. Literally the only thing he could do that I would approve of is to cease existing.

Which, I suspect, is the view of most people adopting such stances towards the Tories here. I'm not sure that it's the most logical way to approach political/economic analysis though.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We should at least give some passing thought to the possibility that the parole board actually might be a group of well-trained, experienced professionals following a legal process and guidelines set down by the government to come to a genuine decision.

1. The law prevents the board from revealing their deliberations.
2. The board are not allowed to take into account alleged crimes that someone hasn't even been charged with, yet alone convicted of.

And so on.

There have been a few cases in recent years where the legal system has delivered a seemingly ludicrous result, the people and government have complained, and the reply has been, "We are following the rules you laid down for us."

Not having a go at you, but given that courts and prisons are at breaking point, it's probably a given that the parole boards are probably hanging on by their fingernails as well, so the experienced professionals are likely to be overworked, understaffed, and have poor morale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Meanwhile this business with the parole board letting a serial rapist out is getting more attention. He’s guilty of raping a dozen and police say it’s likely in the hundreds. God knows what the priorities of the people making these decisions are, I suspect that they’re under pressure to reduce the prison population. I’m sure they’d think again if there was a chance he’d be their new neighbour or it was their wives and daughters that had been raped. I couldn’t sleep at night knowing I was responsible for letting monsters like him out of prison, I wonder how they do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42678572

Maybe they just value their paychecks too much. I'd rather resign than let him let out, but perhaps they lack the will to do the same. Alternatively, maybe they're incredibly gullible (read. stupid), and believed whatever story he feed them. Or perhaps they're of a particularly warped mindset that believes he's a victim of society and that's all everyone else's fault he commits rape. Or a combination of all three.

Also, I felt the need to share this. If anyone ever finds themselves the subject of an invoice for parking in a private car park (not parking fines for public land as that's a different matter), don't immediately pay up. It is possible to beat them, and I think I did just that.

Good on you.

I'm glad somebody has the guts to stand up to these pirates.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We should at least give some passing thought to the possibility that the parole board actually might be a group of well-trained, experienced professionals following a legal process and guidelines set down by the government to come to a genuine decision.

1. The law prevents the board from revealing their deliberations.
2. The board are not allowed to take into account alleged crimes that someone hasn't even been charged with, yet alone convicted of.

And so on.

There have been a few cases in recent years where the legal system has delivered a seemingly ludicrous result, the people and government have complained, and the reply has been, "We are following the rules you laid down for us."

This. If the police believe he has committed more crimes with enough certainty for it to affect his parole then they should charge him for them and prove it in a court of law.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We should at least give some passing thought to the possibility that the parole board actually might be a group of well-trained, experienced professionals following a legal process and guidelines set down by the government to come to a genuine decision.

1. The law prevents the board from revealing their deliberations.
2. The board are not allowed to take into account alleged crimes that someone hasn't even been charged with, yet alone convicted of.

And so on.

There have been a few cases in recent years where the legal system has delivered a seemingly ludicrous result, the people and government have complained, and the reply has been, "We are following the rules you laid down for us."

Not having a go at you, but given that courts and prisons are at breaking point, it's probably a given that the parole boards are probably hanging on by their fingernails as well, so the experienced professionals are likely to be overworked, understaffed, and have poor morale. ...

That would be a different issue to the parole board themselves being a bunch of idiot layabout political hacks who don't give a feth.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We should at least give some passing thought to the possibility that the parole board actually might be a group of well-trained, experienced professionals following a legal process and guidelines set down by the government to come to a genuine decision.

1. The law prevents the board from revealing their deliberations.
2. The board are not allowed to take into account alleged crimes that someone hasn't even been charged with, yet alone convicted of.

And so on.

There have been a few cases in recent years where the legal system has delivered a seemingly ludicrous result, the people and government have complained, and the reply has been, "We are following the rules you laid down for us."

Not having a go at you, but given that courts and prisons are at breaking point, it's probably a given that the parole boards are probably hanging on by their fingernails as well, so the experienced professionals are likely to be overworked, understaffed, and have poor morale. ...

That would be a different issue to the parole board themselves being a bunch of idiot layabout political hacks who don't give a feth.

Pure speculation on my part, but it's possible that perhaps a mistake was made as a result of all the factors I mentioned?

God knows our prisons, courts, and parole services, have made more than a few over the years.

Thank you DINLT.

I’m not out of the woods yet, as they’ve yet to respond to my final message. But I’ve let them know they’ll have to fight me to the bitter end, and even then they still won’t get a penny out of me.

I also reminded them that they have inadequate signs for their place warning of what they’ll do which is a legal requirement. And that there’s a lot of pot holes on their property that anyone could trip and hurt themselves over at any time.

They’ll have to ask themselves, is all that worth £320?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Indeed.

The whole gamble on that one though is that they won't pursue the cost of it through the Small Claims Court, on account it typically costs more to pursue than the fine itself.

There's usually no legal basis to the charge and the parking companies lose quite regularly in court against someone who has done their research. Look for the parking forum on moneysaving expert.com for all the details. There's often the option for q counterclaim for breach of dpa (~£500).

They have all sorts of hoops to jump through to hold the keeper liable and no requirement to tell them who the driver is.
You can't be held to a contract you didn't see (poor signage) and there are graCe periods at the start and end that are often ignored.

Pm me the details and I'll see if I can talk you through getting it dropped and giving them a bloody nose.

Curiosity, court costs them more than they make; the business model is purely extorting as something like 30% pay up without question and another 30% at the threat of court.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Thank you DINLT.

I’m not out of the woods yet, as they’ve yet to respond to my final message. But I’ve let them know they’ll have to fight me to the bitter end, and even then they still won’t get a penny out of me.

I also reminded them that they have inadequate signs for their place warning of what they’ll do which is a legal requirement. And that there’s a lot of pot holes on their property that anyone could trip and hurt themselves over at any time.

They’ll have to ask themselves, is all that worth £320?

Just be wary though because if the court does decide they are correct, then you can end up paying the court costs, the original costs, plus any interest accrued (which is a nasty way of increasing the cost over time to make it viable for them to chase it). It really depends on how confident you are in the case and is always best to consult that lawyer because none of us here are likely to be experts.

Only the costs on the sign, + about £50 court costs. That's usually less than on the invoices by the time it gets to court. They can't make you pay for debt collectors, solicitors etc.

They also have generally bad form for turning up to court so there's honestly no point paying it before court, knowing that the experience will cost them hundreds more than you are liable for. Plus you can allocate it to a court near you.


£320 sounds like 2 invoices plus debt collection "fees", so you're probably arguing with debt recovery plus? They can be completely ignored as powerless.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Meanwhile this business with the parole board letting a serial rapist out is getting more attention. He’s guilty of raping a dozen and police say it’s likely in the hundreds. God knows what the priorities of the people making these decisions are, I suspect that they’re under pressure to reduce the prison population. I’m sure they’d think again if there was a chance he’d be their new neighbour or it was their wives and daughters that had been raped. I couldn’t sleep at night knowing I was responsible for letting monsters like him out of prison, I wonder how they do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42678572

Maybe they just value their paychecks too much. I'd rather resign than let him let out, but perhaps they lack the will to do the same. Alternatively, maybe they're incredibly gullible (read. stupid), and believed whatever story he feed them. Or perhaps they're of a particularly warped mindset that believes he's a victim of society and that's all everyone else's fault he commits rape. Or a combination of all three.

I think we have to be careful about jumping to conclusions and generally assume the parole board is doing its job. They run parole's all the time but we only hear about those people that have committed horrific crimes. The point of prison is both a punishment and re-enablement of the person back into society. We don't know why the parole board made its decision. If, arbitrarily, after the crime they identified the person as having a disorder of some form and that medication has successfully treated that condition then they may have decided that the person no longer is a threat to society and that the person wasn't truly in control of their actions. In that case they may make the decision that it is suitable for the person to be released. To me it is surprising that someone who has been committed of multiple rapes would be allowed out so quickly when IIRC the judge indicated that should only occur when it was safe to do so. That might imply they identified a cause and perhaps the person is truly reformed (whether by medication or understanding). What I think we should avoid is becoming a frothing lynch mob accusing people of not doing their job - I'm sure that in this case they would be aware of just high profile it would be and were likely to be more pedantic over the evidence base. If on the other hand the police think he committed other crimes then he should be charged and that evidence brought forward and then a judge makes a decision on those cases. It is not for the parole board to be jurors and judges.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
Only the costs on the sign, + about £50 court costs. That's usually less than on the invoices by the time it gets to court. They can't make you pay for debt collectors, solicitors etc.

They also have generally bad form for turning up to court so there's honestly no point paying it before court, knowing that the experience will cost them hundreds more than you are liable for. Plus you can allocate it to a court near you.


£320 sounds like 2 invoices plus debt collection "fees", so you're probably arguing with debt recovery plus? They can be completely ignored as powerless.

It largely depends on if there is a contract. If the court decides that the signage was correct and on it states "By parking here you are accepting the terms and conditions at X" then you have less ground for argument (and again interest payments could escalate). It really depends on whether it is a fly by night operation or a more robust operation. Again the only real resort is to consult a lawyer because otherwise you are taking a risk.

For a "by parking here you agree to pay £100" contract to fly it needs to be unmissable, unambiguous and fair.
If you didn't see the sign (dark, too small, too high) then you can't agree to it.

If it's a "no parking. Breach costs £100" then it's never valid; you can't contractually agree to something that's forbidden.

You'd still need to argue the case in court though, and the parking companies rely on people feeling it's too much effort or iare intimidated. The material they send to make it sound like a slam dunk for the parking company are entirely misleading.

 Ketara wrote:

I'm not sure it's really so much anything to do with them as it the people holding the views.

....

Which, I suspect, is the view of most people adopting such stances towards the Tories here. I'm not sure that it's the most logical way to approach political/economic analysis though.

Which is why, when I came back from holiday, I gave up on this thread for the most part. I notice for example that the recent run of positive economic news has gone largely absent here as it would run counter to the general threads thinking.

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. In general, you absolutely let Carillion go bust. No government aid should be forthcoming.

Lastly, on the issue of state aid, countries across the EU have been doing it for years. There are a tremendous number of loopholes that permit this, such as a single source contract to pay a company to replace a security wall/fence around a "strategic asset" such as nuclear power plant, for which you can pay them a ridiculous amount of money, even if the wall doesn't need replacing. This was a favourite trick of the Italian government for a long while. You can also use research grants, carbon reduction measures and a myriad of other tricks to funnel state money into private enterprises.

@ bouncingboredom

I almost gave up on this thread too. This was the first time I’ve visited here in over a month.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Meanwhile this business with the parole board letting a serial rapist out is getting more attention. He’s guilty of raping a dozen and police say it’s likely in the hundreds. God knows what the priorities of the people making these decisions are, I suspect that they’re under pressure to reduce the prison population. I’m sure they’d think again if there was a chance he’d be their new neighbour or it was their wives and daughters that had been raped. I couldn’t sleep at night knowing I was responsible for letting monsters like him out of prison, I wonder how they do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42678572

Maybe they just value their paychecks too much. I'd rather resign than let him let out, but perhaps they lack the will to do the same. Alternatively, maybe they're incredibly gullible (read. stupid), and believed whatever story he feed them. Or perhaps they're of a particularly warped mindset that believes he's a victim of society and that's all everyone else's fault he commits rape. Or a combination of all three.

Also, I felt the need to share this. If anyone ever finds themselves the subject of an invoice for parking in a private car park (not parking fines for public land as that's a different matter), don't immediately pay up. It is possible to beat them, and I think I did just that.

Parole decisions undoubtedly help society be reintegrating the incarcerated back into the wider world. John Warboys is a high profile case due to the nature of his crimes and failings of the board and justice system to notify victims (some of whom chose not to have such information disclosed to them I might add).

If Warboys has met the stringent conditions needed then he should be released.

If the parole board has made failings then that should be investigated.

remember that their are many hundreds of criminals waiting for release via parole boards who have done smaller criminal acts who are willing to change and who have changed, to deny Warboys a release, jeopardises them, the system, and us.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Thank you DINLT.

I’m not out of the woods yet, as they’ve yet to respond to my final message. But I’ve let them know they’ll have to fight me to the bitter end, and even then they still won’t get a penny out of me.

I also reminded them that they have inadequate signs for their place warning of what they’ll do which is a legal requirement. And that there’s a lot of pot holes on their property that anyone could trip and hurt themselves over at any time.

They’ll have to ask themselves, is all that worth £320?

I had one of these a while ago, as did a friend of mine in a completely difervent area. We dealt with it quite simply by contacting the retailer that hired the company to manage the parking, provided a receipt, and asked them to deal with it. They did in both cases, and we received letters from the parking companies saying that the chage had been cancelled.
No legalese or other appeals or nonsense required.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
So.....if they nationalise Carillion they're hypocrites who do what they slag Labour off for and are just bailing out their rich mates,and if they don't then they're heartless politicians who put privatisation ideologies above necessity?

Bit of a 'can't win' scenario there, methinks.

Pretty much, but that's the price of their ideology. Guess they'll have to suck it up.

I'm not sure it's really so much anything to do with them as it the people holding the views.

If I believe that the ice cream man driving down my street is a corporate exploiter of childish innocence, but the one that bypasses it a heartless crusher of children's dreams who withholds what they want, it doesn't have a huge amount to do with the ice cream man himself. It just boils down to the fact that I hate ice cream men and will castigate him regardless of whatever he does. His very existence is clearly an affront to me, and so he can never make a 'right' or correct choice. Literally the only thing he could do that I would approve of is to cease existing.

Which, I suspect, is the view of most people adopting such stances towards the Tories here. I'm not sure that it's the most logical way to approach political/economic analysis though.

So, why is it a problem to call out the Tories on their BS? I don't hate the Tories blindly, I intensely dislike what they are doing and their ideology, but I understand that they are motivated by a belief that they are right and what they doing is, in their opinion, in the best interests of the country.

The icecream analogy is a bit of a stretch and I can't even be bothered to understand what you're gibbering on about there.

Needless to say, political beliefs are strong, but please don't assume you are the only one who can see the other side, or is "balanced" and everyone else is blinded by partisanship.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Thank you DINLT.

I’m not out of the woods yet, as they’ve yet to respond to my final message. But I’ve let them know they’ll have to fight me to the bitter end, and even then they still won’t get a penny out of me.

I also reminded them that they have inadequate signs for their place warning of what they’ll do which is a legal requirement. And that there’s a lot of pot holes on their property that anyone could trip and hurt themselves over at any time.

They’ll have to ask themselves, is all that worth £320?

Just be wary though because if the court does decide they are correct, then you can end up paying the court costs, the original costs, plus any interest accrued (which is a nasty way of increasing the cost over time to make it viable for them to chase it). It really depends on how confident you are in the case and is always best to consult that lawyer because none of us here are likely to be experts.

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.