Pensioner hits out at car park owner after being fined £100 for 37-minute stay
Jim Robinson was shocked to discover he had been slapped with the charge after visiting Greenock with his wife Margaret last month for an appointment.
Despite paying a £2 fee to use Hunters Place car park, Mr Robinson received a fine through his letterbox from Civil Enforcement Limited, a Liverpool-based parking fine company.
He was told in the letter that the fined had been levied because he and his wife had either stayed longer than the allotted four-hour time slot or that a payment has not been made 'in accordance of notified terms'.
But Mr Robinson maintains that he paid for his visit and left well before the allotted time was up.
The 85-year-old Ardentinny resident says he has made two appeals to Civil Enforcement Limited, but has not had any response yet, and added that he is 'frustrated' with the firm's 'poor communication'.
(Image: George Munro) He told the Tele: 'I parked here with confidence that my money was accepted, and I was covered.
'I would hope that they would ask me why I am appealing because at the moment when I try to appeal, I am not hearing anything back.'
Other News
'Papering over cracks': £250k IRH ward upgrades welcomed but more funding needed
Couple travel 300 miles to visit the cruise ship where their love story began
New retailer set to move into former Gourock Co-op store
The former community councillor parked in Hunters Place as his wife struggles with mobility issues and says that spot was best for accessibility.
Mr Robinson wants to make sure no one else gets 'caught out' with a fine and says he will continue to appeal his charge.
He added: 'There are all of these disables parking spaces, and it doesn't count when people don't park here for fear they will be fined.
'You think you follow the correct procedure and then you get a letter through your door telling you otherwise.
'A lot of people would just pay the fine, but I am not one of those people I am afraid.'
(Image: George Munro) Mr Robinson added: 'I know a few people who belong to Inverclyde and even they say locals never use this car park because they have had all sorts of problems with it.'
The car park, which is primarily used by Oak Mall shoppers, is owned by the shopping centre, but is not operated by them.
The Telegraph contacted both the Oak Mall and Civil Enforcement Limited for comment on Mr Robinson's fine, but at the time we went to print had not received any response.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pensioner hits out at car park owner after being fined £100 for 37-minute stay
AN ANGRY pensioner has told how he was hit with a £100 fine after leaving his vehicle at a local car park for just 37 minutes. Jim Robinson was shocked to discover he had been slapped with the charge after visiting Greenock with his wife Margaret last month for an appointment. Despite paying a £2 fee to use Hunters Place car park, Mr Robinson received a fine through his letterbox from Civil Enforcement Limited, a Liverpool-based parking fine company. He was told in the letter that the fined had been levied because he and his wife had either stayed longer than the allotted four-hour time slot or that a payment has not been made 'in accordance of notified terms'. But Mr Robinson maintains that he paid for his visit and left well before the allotted time was up. The 85-year-old Ardentinny resident says he has made two appeals to Civil Enforcement Limited, but has not had any response yet, and added that he is 'frustrated' with the firm's 'poor communication'. (Image: George Munro) He told the Tele: 'I parked here with confidence that my money was accepted, and I was covered. 'I would hope that they would ask me why I am appealing because at the moment when I try to appeal, I am not hearing anything back.' Other News 'Papering over cracks': £250k IRH ward upgrades welcomed but more funding needed Couple travel 300 miles to visit the cruise ship where their love story began New retailer set to move into former Gourock Co-op store The former community councillor parked in Hunters Place as his wife struggles with mobility issues and says that spot was best for accessibility. Mr Robinson wants to make sure no one else gets 'caught out' with a fine and says he will continue to appeal his charge. He added: 'There are all of these disables parking spaces, and it doesn't count when people don't park here for fear they will be fined. 'You think you follow the correct procedure and then you get a letter through your door telling you otherwise. 'A lot of people would just pay the fine, but I am not one of those people I am afraid.' (Image: George Munro) Mr Robinson added: 'I know a few people who belong to Inverclyde and even they say locals never use this car park because they have had all sorts of problems with it.' The car park, which is primarily used by Oak Mall shoppers, is owned by the shopping centre, but is not operated by them. The Telegraph contacted both the Oak Mall and Civil Enforcement Limited for comment on Mr Robinson's fine, but at the time we went to print had not received any response.
New York Times
4 hours ago
- New York Times
Another Premier League season dawns – with only silence regarding Manchester City charges
Richard Masters sat down in a low armchair and awaited the barrage. The Premier League CEO has been doing the rounds on the eve of the new season and on each occasion has been assailed by the same opening question. The Premier League's legal battle with Manchester City is unresolved. There has been absolute silence in this calendar year. Can anyone, and especially the Premier League's most powerful figure, explain what is going on? Advertisement On his last public appearance in London on Thursday before Liverpool host Bournemouth on Friday evening, Masters wanted to take control of the narrative. 'Obviously it's the eve of the season, everybody's excited,' he began. 'I was in Liverpool yesterday for the season launch event, I'll be in Liverpool tomorrow. Up in that city there's a whole load going on — the champions strengthening their squad, (Everton's) new Hill Dickinson Stadium round the corner. There's lots of optimism in Liverpool and that's across the league as well.' So far, so expected. But even when not intending to speak about Manchester City, the topic seeps into the upcoming season's very fabric. 'I think there's some unique qualities going into the season,' he continued. 'I think that will hopefully give us a really competitive and dramatic season because that's what we all want.' Unique and dramatic? Certainly. Of course, we have been here before. 'Welcome to the season when everything might change, or nothing might change,' The Athletic wrote 12 months ago. Nothing it was. The Premier League's investigation into Manchester City's alleged financial wrongdoing began way back in March 2019. In February 2023, after four years of digging, it announced 115 charges would be brought against City — depending on classification, this could be understood as 130 breaches. City deny all the allegations. Broadly, the Premier League's accusations fall into five main categories: Another 18 months passed until the official hearing began on September 16, 2024. The hearing lasted almost three months, until December 6. On that date, the three-person independent panel were sequestered away to write up their decision. Nothing has been heard publicly since. Six years on from the beginning of the Premier League's investigation, there is still no resolution over the legality of the success achieved by English football's dominant club of the past decade. Advertisement Various theories have been put forward about when a verdict should be expected, but the complexity of this case is unprecedented — while it took around a month for decisions to be reached in Everton and Nottingham Forest's PSR cases in 2023-24, that was for just one charge. City had at least 115. At points, statements from the likes of Pep Guardiola — 'In one month, I think there will be a verdict and a sentence,' he said in February — have put the league's administrators, clubs, and fans on notice. Over this period, every month between January and August brought claims of an imminent D-Day, citing figures close to the process who are, nevertheless, not the three members of the independent tribunal that matter. Outside of them, every date is an estimate. Over the summer, officials at the Premier League remarked privately that they had no idea when the verdict would arrive, but that they were taking work laptops on any holiday they booked. Masters, meanwhile, was on stand-by to return to London from the Summer Series in the United States in the event of any resolution. Neither City nor the Premier League have been particularly forthcoming about their feelings on the case — publicly or privately — but in conversations with lawyers and officials involved, both sides have expressed confidence. That is to be expected and means little — each side has been entrenched in their opinion for some time now. The stakes are massive and much wider than whether City's on-pitch achievements will be undermined. Little news has emerged over what was actually discussed during the hearing, but The Athletic revealed in March that a mysterious 'Person X' at the heart of the alleged wrongful sponsorship payments was Jaber Mohamed, a key aide of Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan (MBZ), now the ruler of Abu Dhabi. Advertisement Should City be found guilty, it raises uncomfortable questions that are wider than the club, not just about the source of the funding for the sponsorship payments, but also as to whether the payments were known about within the highest seats of power in the UAE. When contacted in March, none of the parties involved wished to comment. And on the Premier League's side, Masters is fighting for his own future. Several clubs are frustrated at the way the City case has been managed and have privately expressed the belief that the league's chief may have to resign if City are not found guilty. These are all reasons those involved in the case say its confidentiality regulations are the tightest they have ever encountered. But the silence has meant that City's broader actions have been micro-analysed and are capable of being construed either way. Their spending in January is one example. They bought Omar Marmoush, Abdukodir Khusanov, Vitor Reis, and Nico Gonzalez in a £180million ($244m) splurge, the second-most expensive winter window in Premier League history. For some, it was evidence that City would be cleared of all charges. Why would they spend this much if they thought a major points deduction was a possibility? For others, it was tantamount to an admission of guilt — the need to spend before any potential sentence. With the legal process for the 115 charges ongoing, City also opened up another tactical front. They took the Premier League to a separate tribunal over what they alleged were anti-competitive associated party transaction (APT) rules — and the panel agreed with them, calling them 'unlawful' and 'void and unenforceable'. The Athletic has explained the full ins and outs here, but the drama is not over. Though the Premier League hastily amended its rules, City are arguing that they still breach UK competition law, and another hearing is scheduled for the autumn. This could spell further trouble for the Premier League, opening them up to the argument and possible legal claim that clubs were materially disadvantaged by unsound regulations. Advertisement Legal letters have been flying between both parties — often made public in a briefing war — though it was wryly noted in June's shareholders meeting that Manchester City did not utter a single word on any topic over the course of several hours. It only adds to the opacity of the past 12 months. Masters is, in many ways, in an unenviable position. Facing battles over APT rules, City's case, and the incoming football regulator, battle lines are being drawn on every side, with the CEO often caught in the middle. Another long-running investigation, into historic financial irregularities at Chelsea, is still live, which could throw the league into further tumult. But much of it is also a PR issue. Under Premier League rules, Masters is able to say little publicly about City's case and is reduced to stating that the process is being run by an independent panel, over which he has no jurisdiction. But under ordinary social rules, in which transparency is generally rewarded, the lack of clarity over the progress of legal proceedings only weakens the Premier League's global image. The latest example occurred on Thursday afternoon, when, after Masters finished his introduction, the questions about the City case continued — and so did the opacity. Was he disappointed that there was still no resolution? 'I really can't comment and there are very good reasons for that,' he replied. 'As you know, our rules are very clear. I can't talk about the process in any aspect between the period when allegations and charges are announced until a decision is handed down, and it would be wrong for me to speculate about when or whether there are any frustrations in the system.' Would the decision eventually be made public? Masters sighed and readjusted himself in his seat before answering. 'This is an independent panel independently selected,' he emphasised. 'And they're in charge of the case. They're in charge of the process and the timings. We have no influence over that. So we have to be patient and wait for these things to happen. Advertisement 'Our rules state that when a decision is handed down at some point, it will be made public. And I'm sure that's going to be the case here.' But these fears are natural. Even if the City decision comes in the season's opening months, an appeal is considered likely. The clock starts again. If City were found guilty, in a hypothetical world, would a points deduction kick in immediately or be suspended until the end of the appeals process? Of course, the Premier League would be unable to comment on that process. And so, once again, here we are. Welcome to 2025-26, the season when everything might change — or nothing might change. (Top image — Illustration: Demetrius Robinson / The Athletic; Photos: Visionhaus, Alex Davidson,, Joe Prior/Visionhaus via Getty Images) Spot the pattern. Connect the terms Find the hidden link between sports terms Play today's puzzle
NBC News
5 hours ago
- NBC News
Louisiana attorney general sues Roblox, calling the platform 'the perfect place for pedophiles'
Louisiana's top prosecutor sued the popular online gaming platform Roblox, alleging in a lawsuit filed Thursday that the company's failure to implement strong safety protocols for children has made it 'the perfect place for pedophiles.' The suit, filed by Attorney General Liz Murrill in Louisiana's 21st Judicial District, accuses the California-based company of intentionally or recklessly designing a platform with no age verification process, allowing Roblox's tens of millions of users to easily create accounts with fake birthdays. Adults can pose as children, according to the suit, and kids can bypass controls meant for users under 13. Launched in 2006, Roblox has a sprawling catalogue of games and "experiences," many of which are designed by users and include real-time messaging. According to the company's 2024-2025 annual report, 20% of the platform's 82 million active users were under the age of 9, the lawsuit states. 'Roblox is overrun with harmful content and child predators because it prioritizes user growth, revenue, and profits over child safety,' Murrill said in a statement. 'Every parent should be aware of the clear and present danger [posed] to their children by Roblox so they can prevent the unthinkable from ever happening in their own home.' The 42-page suit points to a raft of sexually-explicit 'experiences' that have been on the platform, including 'Escape to Epstein Island,' 'Diddy Party' and 'Public Bathroom Simulator Vibe,' and it alleges that a man arrested on suspicion of possessing child sexual abuse material in Louisiana last month was using the platform at the time he was taken into custody. The man had used voice-altering technology to mimic the sound of a young female to lure and sexually exploit minors on the platform, according to the suit. The suit, which alleges unfair trade practices, negligence and unjust enrichment, does not specify damages but seeks a permanent order barring Roblox from violating the state's unfair trade practices act or promoting its safety features as adequate, which the suit says the company routinely does. A spokesperson for Roblox declined to comment on the allegations, citing pending litigation, but said the company dedicates "substantial resources" to help "detect and prevent inappropriate content and behavior, including attempts to direct users off platform, where safety standards and moderation may be less stringent than ours." "While no system is perfect, Roblox has implemented rigorous technology and enforcement safeguards, including restrictions on sharing personal information, links, and user-to-user image sharing," the spokesperson said. "The safety of our community is a top priority." In November, the platform announced a series of safety measures that barred users under the age of 13 from sending direct messages and included new content categories to help determine what is age-appropriate for users. Those measures were rolled out the month after New York-based analyst Hindenburg Research called Roblox an 'X-rated pedophile hellscape, exposing children to grooming, pornography, violent content and extremely abusive speech.' Roblox denied the claim, saying in a statement that the analyst's report was misleading and citing what it described as significant investment in trust and safety measures. Thursday's lawsuit described the company's recent safety measures as 'too little, too late, and woefully inadequate.'
