Parking Eye - What's the current advice for these?
Discussion
blueg33 said:
Of course I don't. Its why my carparks hasve barriers.
Landowners need to decide what they want from their car park and act accordingly. Using a PPC who have no legitimate authority to collect penalties is not the way to do it.
Entry and exit barriers ? Do you think it is acceptable to have entry barriers on a busy car park if it affects traffic flows for the whole area including people just passing ?Landowners need to decide what they want from their car park and act accordingly. Using a PPC who have no legitimate authority to collect penalties is not the way to do it.
Do you think it should be Anpr in and barrier on exit ? But then you still get people saying 'i didn't see the signs' even when they are 6 foot wide and plastered everywhere on the site.
speedyguy said:
Entry and exit barriers ? Do you think it is acceptable to have entry barriers on a busy car park if it affects traffic flows for the whole area including people just passing ?
Do you think it should be Anpr in and barrier on exit ? But then you still get people saying 'i didn't see the signs' even when they are 6 foot wide and plastered everywhere on the site.
Barriers have to be installed to meet Council highways dept requirements. Do you think it should be Anpr in and barrier on exit ? But then you still get people saying 'i didn't see the signs' even when they are 6 foot wide and plastered everywhere on the site.
Problem with just 1 barriert is that people will do as you suggest and try and leave via the entrance.
PurpleMoonlight said:
It's only FREE if you park in accordance with the terms and conditions notified on the signs. Something you are obviously unable to comprehend or are to selfish to care.
What about if someone cannot read? Whilst it might sound like a pedantic point - there are a large number of lower/working class people who cannot read. Without imposing a reading test as part of a driving test, I can't see how you will know everyone has read the notices. Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Saturday 4th October 09:43
Also - you get into the point where you have to question just how far you want to go with terms and conditions. If I put up a notice saying if you knock on my door and walk down my drive you will be charged £100 would that be reasonable? I could argue that it annoys me that I have to answer the door to uninvited visitors.
The fact is, the law as it stands doesn't allow you to claim money just because you do not like something. They must have done something that has caused a loss. Invoice people for the cost per hour of parking, and a modest admin charge (how much it takes to send a generic letter and a stamp). That way the charges would be fine - it's the punitive nature of the charged which is wrong.
I don't agree with parking on peoples land. However I do feel that parking companies are there to make money out of it, rather than stopping it. Parking Eye want more people to overstay not less, as then they will make more money.
photosnob said:
What about if someone cannot read? Whilst it might sound like a pedantic point - there are a large number of lower/working class people who cannot read. Without imposing a reading test as part of a driving test, I can't see how you will know everyone has read the notices.
You do know the theory test involves reading don't you?blueg33 said:
Owning land comes with responsibilities, one of those is that if you have an issue with parking then erect barriers, its what we do.
It's not practical to put barriers on all car parks. And along with any responsibilities are the associated "rights". For example the "right" of my staff and customers to park on the land that I have paid for, the "right" to expect that people can read and understand signs that say "PRIVATE PARKING - STAFF ONLY" mean.blueg33 said:
The point was though. If no loss is suferred and other spaces are available, what is the damage?
I'm not sure when or why this ever became an acceptable argument in relation to car parking when it wouldn't be considered acceptable in any other area. Would you be happy for me to use your house, TV, microwave, gym etc as long as you suffered "no loss"?blueg33 said:
A well managed paid for carpark makes huge amounts of money.
Of course it does. NCP et al make a fortune from doing it, because that's what they do. But (using the example above) it's a bit like saying it's OK for people to use your house/garage/kitchen etc - the onus is on you to offer B&B services. After all if Travelodge can make huge amounts of money a well managed B&B should be able to do the same.We have no interest in making money through car parking. We need the spaces for our staff and our customers. There are plenty of well-signposted "Pay" spaces nearby. However some people are incredibly selfish, will knowingly park in spaces marked "PRIVATE" to save money regardless of the effect it has on others.
Countdown said:
Of course it does. NCP et al make a fortune from doing it, because that's what they do. But (using the example above) it's a bit like saying it's OK for people to use your house/garage/kitchen etc - the onus is on you to offer B&B services. After all if Travelodge can make huge amounts of money a well managed B&B should be able to do the same.
We have no interest in making money through car parking. We need the spaces for our staff and our customers. There are plenty of well-signposted "Pay" spaces nearby. However some people are incredibly selfish, will knowingly park in spaces marked "PRIVATE" to save money regardless of the effect it has on others.
Using a barrier is much the same as having a lock onm your front door. We have no interest in making money through car parking. We need the spaces for our staff and our customers. There are plenty of well-signposted "Pay" spaces nearby. However some people are incredibly selfish, will knowingly park in spaces marked "PRIVATE" to save money regardless of the effect it has on others.
You shouldn't have to do it, but the fact is that it makes sense.
Using a PPC who flouts the law is not the solution much as having an oubliette just inside your front door is not an alternative to a lock
blueg33 said:
Using a barrier is much the same as having a lock onm your front door.
You shouldn't have to do it, but the fact is that it makes sense.
Using a PPC who flouts the law is not the solution much as having an oubliette just inside your front door is not an alternative to a lock
Having a lock on your house door is one thing. Suggesting something similar for a commercial premises is different. It would be like Asda having a lock on their main entrance. It isn't practical or efficient.You shouldn't have to do it, but the fact is that it makes sense.
Using a PPC who flouts the law is not the solution much as having an oubliette just inside your front door is not an alternative to a lock
FWIW I don't support PPCs who operate at the margins of legality. I thought cowboy clampers were rightly despised. I sympathise with people who have been genuinely misled. I do have a touch of contempt for those who know what they are doing is wrong and then look for ways of wheedling out of their punishment when they're caught.
PurpleMoonlight said:
You do know the theory test involves reading don't you?
When I did mine you could have it speak the questions to you. It would also be more relevant if we did not allow people with Foreign license to drive on the roads.
The fact is - if someone can not read the notice, should it apply to them? Should I be able to put notices up and send out speculative invoices and expect the courts to support me?
This isn't just an argument about parking. If we think the courts should support this, think about the ramifications. Simply doing something someone doesn't like and who has told you not to do could lead to civil action, even if you have caused them no harm.
Edited by photosnob on Saturday 4th October 12:10
photosnob said:
This isn't just an argument about parking. If we think the courts should support this, think about the ramifications. Simply doing something someone doesn't like and who has told you not to do could lead to civil action, even if you have caused them no harm.
What about respecting other people's private property? Is it ok to use other people's land/facilities as long as you cause "no harm"?Edited by photosnob on Saturday 4th October 12:10
Countdown said:
blueg33 said:
Using a barrier is much the same as having a lock onm your front door.
You shouldn't have to do it, but the fact is that it makes sense.
Using a PPC who flouts the law is not the solution much as having an oubliette just inside your front door is not an alternative to a lock
Having a lock on your house door is one thing. Suggesting something similar for a commercial premises is different. It would be like Asda having a lock on their main entrance. It isn't practical or efficient.You shouldn't have to do it, but the fact is that it makes sense.
Using a PPC who flouts the law is not the solution much as having an oubliette just inside your front door is not an alternative to a lock
FWIW I don't support PPCs who operate at the margins of legality. I thought cowboy clampers were rightly despised. I sympathise with people who have been genuinely misled. I do have a touch of contempt for those who know what they are doing is wrong and then look for ways of wheedling out of their punishment when they're caught.
Also, what you conveniently forget is that a number of PPCs have been/are run by ex-cowboy clampers (see this example). Anybody can set up a PPC and join the industry trade representative body, BPA. It would appear that the latter doesn't do any background checks at all. The emperor has merely changed clothes. Wearing a suit instead of armour doesn't change the person underneath.
I'm 100% with blueg33 on this. You either use a barrier or frame the contracts correctly. The latter is not rocket science but it would mean that PE and their ilk wouldn't make anything like the same income/profit and they are simply too greedy to make that change.
Another issue which complicates matters is the wide variety of parking situations on private land. A retail park (where free parking is encouraged to bring in the punters) is a very different animal from a residential development or a company staff car park.
If PPCs stopped resorting to dodgy/flawed practices and trying to impose grossly inflated sums for transgressions in order to maximise their returns I believe that the majority of motorists would see things rather differently. However there are too many vested interests* involved for this to happen and it will take a concerted media campaign by the national press to force a change.
* For example the DVLA stands to lose a LOT of money if they impose a ban on PE as they did with Excel. Plus the inconvenient truth that Capita has huge government contracts and is a major donor to the Conservative party.
Red Devil said:
Plus the inconvenient truth that Capita has huge government contracts and is a major donor to the Conservative party.
Massive nail right on the head there, It doesn't take much rooting http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita just to touch the tip of the iceberg and Crapita.
A quick search of Crapita and Government contracts will make you squirm.
But it's ok because they are a private company and not pseudo civil servants by any other name
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff