Parking Eye lose case - have to pay parking!
Discussion
Chrisgr31 said:
Who pays for the barriers as you'd need one on entry and exit? Who pays for the replacement barriers where they get damaged by vandals, by cars etc?
The reality is that the parking companies have been employed on a lot of occasions because drivers have not been reasonable their parking and therefore genuine users of the car park have been unable to park. There is then a need to enforce parking rules and that enforcement has to be paid for.
If everyone was reasonable there would not be a problem!
I'd agree, but the manner in which these parking control companies go about things isn't reasonable at all.The reality is that the parking companies have been employed on a lot of occasions because drivers have not been reasonable their parking and therefore genuine users of the car park have been unable to park. There is then a need to enforce parking rules and that enforcement has to be paid for.
If everyone was reasonable there would not be a problem!
jaf01uk said:
Think the judgement has ruled that that is indeed not the case?
There's nothing in the judgement that says a sign entering a car park cannot be a contract. The judgement in this case points to the fact that the sign was not clear enough (amongst other legal shortfalls) not that a driver cannot be bound by a sign per se. theboyfold said:
Chrisgr31 said:
Who pays for the barriers as you'd need one on entry and exit? Who pays for the replacement barriers where they get damaged by vandals, by cars etc?
The reality is that the parking companies have been employed on a lot of occasions because drivers have not been reasonable their parking and therefore genuine users of the car park have been unable to park. There is then a need to enforce parking rules and that enforcement has to be paid for.
If everyone was reasonable there would not be a problem!
I'd agree, but the manner in which these parking control companies go about things isn't reasonable at all.The reality is that the parking companies have been employed on a lot of occasions because drivers have not been reasonable their parking and therefore genuine users of the car park have been unable to park. There is then a need to enforce parking rules and that enforcement has to be paid for.
If everyone was reasonable there would not be a problem!
NinjaPower said:
The irony here is I used to get complaints about 10PS's parking/driving at the old company I worked for.
Interesting. Where was that?Edited by NinjaPower on Friday 14th March 23:20
You haven't worked anywhere where people would be exposed to my parking and driving, btw.
As for the case linked, haven't read it (document doesn't work on my phone). Not that I give a s
t either way. Each case is decided on its merits. Lower and higher courts can make mistakes. Lawyers can wrongly argue cases. Nothing in the county court binds another court.Edited by 10 Pence Short on Saturday 15th March 10:06
Chrisgr31 said:
General Fluff said:
If you like. If it's clear that's the 'price' then nobody can claim it's a penalty. Have a barrier so people pay on exit, problem solved.
Obviously £85 is a bit extreme but if the price is set at a suitably high level to deter people from staying past the free period then I can't see why it wouldn't work. Parking Eye will disappear over night so everyone's a winner.
Who pays for the barriers as you'd need one on entry and exit? Who pays for the replacement barriers where they get damaged by vandals, by cars etc?Obviously £85 is a bit extreme but if the price is set at a suitably high level to deter people from staying past the free period then I can't see why it wouldn't work. Parking Eye will disappear over night so everyone's a winner.
The reality is that the parking companies have been employed on a lot of occasions because drivers have not been reasonable their parking and therefore genuine users of the car park have been unable to park. There is then a need to enforce parking rules and that enforcement has to be paid for.
If everyone was reasonable there would not be a problem!
You collect a ticket on entry and pay on exit, sometimes its free too.
Seems to work ok as its always busy so people who drive don't mind paying affair charge.
A system in Maidenhead uses ANPR and you log in at a pay point with part of your VRN
That system works unless your front plate has fallen off
Zeeky said:
It appears to me self-evident that these charges are charges for parking and not for breach of contract.
I'm not so sure on that. Do PPCs charge VAT on their payment demands? My understanding is that they prefer to consider them liquidated damages, which do not attract VAT.98elise said:
This. I have no issue with paying for over staying etc. the issue is that the charges are not in any way reflective of the lost revenue or costs. They are fines, and a good revenue stream.
Playing devil's advocate here, who much would you be happy to pay for overstaying?If you consider it costs a couple of quid to get your detail from the DVLA, and you have wages, printing and post to write to you to tell you, and maybe another letter or two to remind you, if you take that cost into account first, how much would be fair to pay?
The problem with the PPC model and claiming liquidated damages is that a large value charge is required to act as a deterrent to parking. If it was five or ten pounds, people would simply take a punt. Yet deterrent is not an accepted principle of liquidated damages.
PPCs would prefer to avoid simply classing the fine as payment for parking, as it would then attract VAT and either impact on their bottom line or they'd have to increase the charges beyond acceptable levels.
One thing I would way, is be careful of what you wish for. If landowners are unable to successfully control their land, there will be changes to the law ahead.
PPCs would prefer to avoid simply classing the fine as payment for parking, as it would then attract VAT and either impact on their bottom line or they'd have to increase the charges beyond acceptable levels.
One thing I would way, is be careful of what you wish for. If landowners are unable to successfully control their land, there will be changes to the law ahead.
10 Pence Short said:
The problem with the PPC model and claiming liquidated damages is that a large value charge is required to act as a deterrent to parking. If it was five or ten pounds, people would simply take a punt. Yet deterrent is not an accepted principle of liquidated damages.
PPCs would prefer to avoid simply classing the fine as payment for parking, as it would then attract VAT and either impact on their bottom line or they'd have to increase the charges beyond acceptable levels.
One thing I would way, is be careful of what you wish for. If landowners are unable to successfully control their land, there will be changes to the law ahead.
In which case any company that's losing out significantly would be stupid if they didn't change the business model. So they are either still raking it in, or stupid. PPCs would prefer to avoid simply classing the fine as payment for parking, as it would then attract VAT and either impact on their bottom line or they'd have to increase the charges beyond acceptable levels.
One thing I would way, is be careful of what you wish for. If landowners are unable to successfully control their land, there will be changes to the law ahead.
The problem you seem to want to solve is a genuine landowner grievance. What PE and the like deal with generally is parasitic behaviour, for example parking over a white line on an end bay, with no obstruction caused. I suspect most PHers would sympathise with a genuine charge for use of land.
10 Pence Short said:
The problem with the PPC model and claiming liquidated damages is that a large value charge is required to act as a deterrent to parking. If it was five or ten pounds, people would simply take a punt. Yet deterrent is not an accepted principle of liquidated damages.
PPCs would prefer to avoid simply classing the fine as payment for parking, as it would then attract VAT and either impact on their bottom line or they'd have to increase the charges beyond acceptable levels.
One thing I would way, is be careful of what you wish for. If landowners are unable to successfully control their land, there will be changes to the law ahead.
If the changes to the law included scrapping the POPLA appeals organisation and replacing it with a truly independent appeal system (perhaps even use the existing appeals systems for Council parking tickets) then that can only be a positive move.PPCs would prefer to avoid simply classing the fine as payment for parking, as it would then attract VAT and either impact on their bottom line or they'd have to increase the charges beyond acceptable levels.
One thing I would way, is be careful of what you wish for. If landowners are unable to successfully control their land, there will be changes to the law ahead.
POPLA refuse to publish any decisions (unlike the real appeals services) and have even been found to be holding confidential briefings with parking companies explaining how they should formulate their submissions to improve their likelihood of winning. They also refuse to include any mention of the (so far) virtually foolproof appeal reason on their list of possible reasons on their site.
JustinP1 said:
98elise said:
This. I have no issue with paying for over staying etc. the issue is that the charges are not in any way reflective of the lost revenue or costs. They are fines, and a good revenue stream.
Playing devil's advocate here, who much would you be happy to pay for overstaying?If you consider it costs a couple of quid to get your detail from the DVLA, and you have wages, printing and post to write to you to tell you, and maybe another letter or two to remind you, if you take that cost into account first, how much would be fair to pay?
There is a seperate car park for season ticket holders which is never full, but they still feel the need to put a row of season bays in the pay and display car park, even though the daily spaces get full. Someone more cinical than myself might think its to catch people out and get them to pay £60 for one days parking rather then £5.
If they really don't want you to park there, you might think they would put a clear sign rather than put it in 5mm letters on a sign that you can't read as you enter the car park.
10 Pence Short said:
NinjaPower said:
The irony here is I used to get complaints about 10PS's parking/driving at the old company I worked for.
Interesting. Where was that?Edited by NinjaPower on Friday 14th March 23:20
You haven't worked anywhere where people would be exposed to my parking and driving, btw.
As for the case linked, haven't read it (document doesn't work on my phone). Not that I give a s
t either way. Each case is decided on its merits. Lower and higher courts can make mistakes. Lawyers can wrongly argue cases. Nothing in the county court binds another court.Edited by 10 Pence Short on Saturday 15th March 10:06
It was in Appleby. A couple of residents wrote in complaining about you and said "this is him" enclosing newspaper cuttings about you from the time of your court case.
Parking in the wrong space or with a wheel over the line, or even in an ampty car park does cost them money though because they have to pay for the enforcement.
This is of course where the problem comes in, enforcement costs money and who should pay for that enforcement? Why should the landowner pay it? Why should those parking within the rules pay it? So that leaves those that transgress the rules to pay for it. So therefore you would end up with a disproportionate cost for transgressing the rules.
Well thats how I think the system should work but thats not to say the penalty should be excessive just that it should cover the costs of enforcing the parking rules. Mind you that means that if only person broke the rules they'd have a very big bill to pay!
However it would still be better if everyone parked reasonably so that there was no need for enforcement.
This is of course where the problem comes in, enforcement costs money and who should pay for that enforcement? Why should the landowner pay it? Why should those parking within the rules pay it? So that leaves those that transgress the rules to pay for it. So therefore you would end up with a disproportionate cost for transgressing the rules.
Well thats how I think the system should work but thats not to say the penalty should be excessive just that it should cover the costs of enforcing the parking rules. Mind you that means that if only person broke the rules they'd have a very big bill to pay!
However it would still be better if everyone parked reasonably so that there was no need for enforcement.
10 Pence Short said:
Wrote in to where? About parking where?
And interesting they should write in to some company about about my driving.
Oh, and I've never heard of you, btw. Which I would have done, if you were telling the truth.
Of course, it's utter bks, that's why.
I have PM'd you rather than derail this thread.And interesting they should write in to some company about about my driving.
Oh, and I've never heard of you, btw. Which I would have done, if you were telling the truth.
Of course, it's utter b
ks, that's why.Chrisgr31 said:
Parking in the wrong space or with a wheel over the line, or even in an ampty car park does cost them money though because they have to pay for the enforcement.
They CHOOSE to pay for enforcement. What heinous crime is committed by putting a wheel over the white line on an end parking space?
Alpinestars said:
They CHOOSE to pay for enforcement. What heinous crime is committed by putting a wheel over the white line on an end parking space?
Although I agree that putting a wheel over a white line is not a heinous crime the issue remains that the enforcement needs to be paid for. Yes they choose to pay for enforcement but thats usually because they have to because people abuse the parking area so that those who are authorised to use it cannot.After all we see complaints on this forum about people parking in other peoples spaces etc. I also guess you would not be terribly impressed if random people parked on your drive and you than had to spend money to stop them.
In some cases enforcement is introduced as it is a means to raise money, but in most cases it is introduced to get rid of a problem, and is a last resort and the landowner has been forced to introduce it by those irresponsible, inconsiderate parkers. Are you saying that landowners should accept that drivers can park on whoevers land they like, whenever they like, and that if a landowner doesnt want them there then they should pay for enforcement to stop them?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff