Beavis v Parking Eye procedural rules/reserved Judgement
Discussion
The key issue is that private commercial companies shouldn't be allowed to effectively 'fine' citizens. The reason I say that is that they get greedy, they get slippery and slimy and they get carried away. Someone is put on a performance related bonus and it all gets out of hand.
The illustration above by Ninja is a cut and dried 'taking the pi$$' one and I wouldn't give a damn if selfish motorists get 'fined' £85. However my octagenarian parents were also 'fined' £50 for spending their money in Debenhams and Costa recently and thus spent more than 2 hours in their half empty car park. That incenses me as its an irrelevance and there is no loss or damage caused. It turns me completely off these companies and any legitimacy they may well have in different circumstances. Vinci also slapped a ticket on my windscreen at 2am outside A&E - well my baby daughter's lips were blue and I didn't have time to read their small print given the hour...
So given that they do exist I do consider an £85 'PCN' unconscionable (not being on a judges wage...)
The illustration above by Ninja is a cut and dried 'taking the pi$$' one and I wouldn't give a damn if selfish motorists get 'fined' £85. However my octagenarian parents were also 'fined' £50 for spending their money in Debenhams and Costa recently and thus spent more than 2 hours in their half empty car park. That incenses me as its an irrelevance and there is no loss or damage caused. It turns me completely off these companies and any legitimacy they may well have in different circumstances. Vinci also slapped a ticket on my windscreen at 2am outside A&E - well my baby daughter's lips were blue and I didn't have time to read their small print given the hour...
So given that they do exist I do consider an £85 'PCN' unconscionable (not being on a judges wage...)
Ken Figenus said:
The key issue is that private commercial companies shouldn't be allowed to effectively 'fine' citizens.
So given that they do exist I do consider an £85 'PCN' unconscionable (not being on a judges wage...)
So do you the legislation should be amended to something similar to statutory charges but rather than £70 reduced to £35 if paid within 14 days, it should be £35 then allowed to double to £70 if not paid within 14 days or a month ? So given that they do exist I do consider an £85 'PCN' unconscionable (not being on a judges wage...)
JustinP1 said:
The problem is there are a significant number of people who take the piss. It is those who have meant that the system is financially viable, been put in place, and unfortunately not allowed your wife the leniency she would otherwise have been given.
Do you really think that the majority are taking the piss rather than the system is set up to catch the majority who are simply a few minutes late and then can't be bothered to contest it?TX.
speedyguy said:
So do you the legislation should be amended to something similar to statutory charges but rather than £70 reduced to £35 if paid within 14 days, it should be £35 then allowed to double to £70 if not paid within 14 days or a month ?
'Legislation' is a strong word there in the context of existing contract law being punitively levered like this.I think its fair that car park owners should be allowed to manage pi$$ takers in a reasonable manner - local authorities have precedents as you suggest (if you accept that commercially driven companies should be allowed to operate in a similar manner to 'authority'). However the 'penalty' sought is currently disproportionate to any loss (if any...ever) and it is TOTALLY NOT about managing the parking; it is about making a big sideline profit. That is the rub and where they lose the argument. That is unconscionable for me (but I'm not on £170k).
Or put it another way no one will get too upset at a £1 bill from an automated ANPR mail highlighting a 15 minute overstay + £15 admin? That seems fair and reasonable to me...
And...
There is a reason they don't want you to be able to pay for what you actually used on exit (as you can in say a multistorey). They would rather set up a complex ANPR system to chase you for a 'fine' rather than have a simpler fairer, instant, proportionate, pay on exit barrier...
That seems a fairer nicer system to me rather than crystal balling it on entry.
Simples...
There is a reason they don't want you to be able to pay for what you actually used on exit (as you can in say a multistorey). They would rather set up a complex ANPR system to chase you for a 'fine' rather than have a simpler fairer, instant, proportionate, pay on exit barrier...
That seems a fairer nicer system to me rather than crystal balling it on entry.
Simples...
Terminator X said:
JustinP1 said:
The problem is there are a significant number of people who take the piss. It is those who have meant that the system is financially viable, been put in place, and unfortunately not allowed your wife the leniency she would otherwise have been given.
Do you really think that the majority are taking the piss rather than the system is set up to catch the majority who are simply a few minutes late and then can't be bothered to contest it?TX.
Imagine any other situation where you enter into a contract and agree to do something, but you don't do it. Is that taking the piss?
Then, if in that contract, it outlined the financial consequence of not doing what you agreed to do at the outset, is it fair that you suck up that pre-agreed cost?
Ken Figenus said:
And...
There is a reason they don't want you to be able to pay for what you actually used on exit (as you can in say a multistorey). They would rather set up a complex ANPR system to chase you for a 'fine' rather than have a simpler fairer, instant, proportionate, pay on exit barrier...
That seems a fairer nicer system to me rather than crystal balling it on entry.
Simples...
No, there's a reason why many owners don't erect barriers. There is a reason they don't want you to be able to pay for what you actually used on exit (as you can in say a multistorey). They would rather set up a complex ANPR system to chase you for a 'fine' rather than have a simpler fairer, instant, proportionate, pay on exit barrier...
That seems a fairer nicer system to me rather than crystal balling it on entry.
Simples...
It costs money to put those in, maintain them, run a ticketing system, and then pay someone to come out to site numerous times a day when someone has lost their ticket, or their ticket doesn't work.
It's one thing for a 'paid' car park - but where does the money come from to do that for a car park provided free to shoppers for a couple of hours?
Why should everyone have to pay for a car park just to protect the owner from people taking the piss?
Clear signage and financial consequences is not a problem at all.
JustinP1 said:
It depends on your definition of taking the piss. Forget parking for one second, as it seems to have an emotionally charged exception to the law in this country.
Imagine any other situation where you enter into a contract and agree to do something, but you don't do it. Is that taking the piss?
Then, if in that contract, it outlined the financial consequence of not doing what you agreed to do at the outset, is it fair that you suck up that pre-agreed cost?
Personally I negotiate contracts of any significance. If you applied your principle to every contract you would be a far bigger loser than any 'minor parking contract' dodgy parker... Imagine any other situation where you enter into a contract and agree to do something, but you don't do it. Is that taking the piss?
Then, if in that contract, it outlined the financial consequence of not doing what you agreed to do at the outset, is it fair that you suck up that pre-agreed cost?
JustinP1 said:
No, there's a reason why many owners don't erect barriers.
It costs money to put those in, maintain them, run a ticketing system, and then pay someone to come out to site numerous times a day when someone has lost their ticket, or their ticket doesn't work.
lIt costs money to put those in, maintain them, run a ticketing system, and then pay someone to come out to site numerous times a day when someone has lost their ticket, or their ticket doesn't work.
Nah - don't buy that J - the other options have a financial cost as well and remember I am coming from the point of view of the parkers you despise but that I want ytou to treat decently and fairly - my 88 yr old dad and my daughter with pneumonia for e.g... In my book any business has a duty to be fair not screw the parkers or make the biggest return based on the smallest triviality.
JustinP1 said:
No, there's a reason why many owners don't erect barriers.
It costs money to put those in, maintain them, run a ticketing system, and then pay someone to come out to site numerous times a day when someone has lost their ticket, or their ticket doesn't work.
It's one thing for a 'paid' car park - but where does the money come from to do that for a car park provided free to shoppers for a couple of hours?
Why should everyone have to pay for a car park just to protect the owner from people taking the piss?
Clear signage and financial consequences is not a problem at all.
Why should they pay people to work tills in the shops, and pay security guards, and pay for tags and detectors at the door, or for that matter doors at all. Why can't the shops just be open and people just be trusted to leave the money for what they've taken, and not steal anything?It costs money to put those in, maintain them, run a ticketing system, and then pay someone to come out to site numerous times a day when someone has lost their ticket, or their ticket doesn't work.
It's one thing for a 'paid' car park - but where does the money come from to do that for a car park provided free to shoppers for a couple of hours?
Why should everyone have to pay for a car park just to protect the owner from people taking the piss?
Clear signage and financial consequences is not a problem at all.
If you have something which is of value to someone, you should be expect to take some reasonable steps to protect it. Certainly not do nothing while you film people helping themselves, and then use the courts to recover the money, that seems like a pretty unreasonable thing to do, yet when it comes to the motorist, seems to be ok.
ging84 said:
JustinP1 said:
No, there's a reason why many owners don't erect barriers.
It costs money to put those in, maintain them, run a ticketing system, and then pay someone to come out to site numerous times a day when someone has lost their ticket, or their ticket doesn't work.
It's one thing for a 'paid' car park - but where does the money come from to do that for a car park provided free to shoppers for a couple of hours?
Why should everyone have to pay for a car park just to protect the owner from people taking the piss?
Clear signage and financial consequences is not a problem at all.
Why should they pay people to work tills in the shops, and pay security guards, and pay for tags and detectors at the door, or for that matter doors at all. Why can't the shops just be open and people just be trusted to leave the money for what they've taken, and not steal anything?It costs money to put those in, maintain them, run a ticketing system, and then pay someone to come out to site numerous times a day when someone has lost their ticket, or their ticket doesn't work.
It's one thing for a 'paid' car park - but where does the money come from to do that for a car park provided free to shoppers for a couple of hours?
Why should everyone have to pay for a car park just to protect the owner from people taking the piss?
Clear signage and financial consequences is not a problem at all.
If you have something which is of value to someone, you should be expect to take some reasonable steps to protect it. Certainly not do nothing while you film people helping themselves, and then use the courts to recover the money, that seems like a pretty unreasonable thing to do, yet when it comes to the motorist, seems to be ok.
Guards, tags and the like act as a deterrent, that's all. That cost is passed onto the majority of good consumers. They are paying for piss-takers.
What if shops had a CCTV ANPR type automated method of reclaiming losses and costs from thieves, and the deterrent could be signs that they would indeed be charged these costs?
Who could have a problem with this - especially when these savings are a clear benefit to shoppers in their pocket?
Edited by JustinP1 on Sunday 26th April 00:24
JustinP1 said:
It depends on your definition of taking the piss. Forget parking for one second, as it seems to have an emotionally charged exception to the law in this country.
Imagine any other situation where you enter into a contract and agree to do something, but you don't do it. Is that taking the piss?
Then, if in that contract, it outlined the financial consequence of not doing what you agreed to do at the outset, is it fair that you suck up that pre-agreed cost?
For a consumer, the contract needs to be fair. I don't see how requiring someone to pay £50 (or more) for overstaying in a hospital car park is fair if that person is dealing with medical issues.Imagine any other situation where you enter into a contract and agree to do something, but you don't do it. Is that taking the piss?
Then, if in that contract, it outlined the financial consequence of not doing what you agreed to do at the outset, is it fair that you suck up that pre-agreed cost?
V8 Fettler said:
For a consumer, the contract needs to be fair. I don't see how requiring someone to pay £50 (or more) for overstaying in a hospital car park is fair if that person is dealing with medical issues.
How would you then differentiate between those that are unavoidably delayed and those who intentionally pay for less than they require in the knowledge that can argue 'medical issues'?PurpleMoonlight said:
How would you then differentiate between those that are unavoidably delayed and those who intentionally pay for less than they require in the knowledge that can argue 'medical issues'?
So you hit someone unavoidably delayed by some very serious, life-changing medical condition with a huge fine, and accept no "excuses"?There's a word for people who do things like that.
If you can't find a better way to do it then don't do it.
Phatboy317 said:
So you hit someone unavoidably delayed by some very serious, life-changing medical condition with a huge fine, and accept no "excuses"?
There's a word for people who do things like that.
If you can't find a better way to do it then don't do it.
I stand to be corrected but the vast majority of people who have been ticketed have been "done" in retail parks/McDonalds or other private car parks. There's a word for people who do things like that.
If you can't find a better way to do it then don't do it.
Countdown said:
Phatboy317 said:
So you hit someone unavoidably delayed by some very serious, life-changing medical condition with a huge fine, and accept no "excuses"?
There's a word for people who do things like that.
If you can't find a better way to do it then don't do it.
I stand to be corrected but the vast majority of people who have been ticketed have been "done" in retail parks/McDonalds or other private car parks. There's a word for people who do things like that.
If you can't find a better way to do it then don't do it.
What makes this doubly wrong is that the same parking charges which were purportedly introduced to ensure sufficient parking places for patients is now being used against those very patients.
PurpleMoonlight said:
V8 Fettler said:
For a consumer, the contract needs to be fair. I don't see how requiring someone to pay £50 (or more) for overstaying in a hospital car park is fair if that person is dealing with medical issues.
How would you then differentiate between those that are unavoidably delayed and those who intentionally pay for less than they require in the knowledge that can argue 'medical issues'?The solution? Manage the issue to the benefit of patients.
Phatboy317 said:
The subject was specifically hospital car parks.
What makes this doubly wrong is that the same parking charges which were purportedly introduced to ensure sufficient parking places for patients is now being used against those very patients.
Beavis isn't about hospital car parks. Some posters are using hospital car parks in the same way the anti-speed brigade use the "Won't somebody think of the children?" line.What makes this doubly wrong is that the same parking charges which were purportedly introduced to ensure sufficient parking places for patients is now being used against those very patients.
And people parking without paying the appropriate amount are the ones reducing the availability of spaces for other people.
JustinP1 said:
Terminator X said:
JustinP1 said:
The problem is there are a significant number of people who take the piss. It is those who have meant that the system is financially viable, been put in place, and unfortunately not allowed your wife the leniency she would otherwise have been given.
Do you really think that the majority are taking the piss rather than the system is set up to catch the majority who are simply a few minutes late and then can't be bothered to contest it?TX.
Imagine any other situation where you enter into a contract and agree to do something, but you don't do it. Is that taking the piss?
Then, if in that contract, it outlined the financial consequence of not doing what you agreed to do at the outset, is it fair that you suck up that pre-agreed cost?
They do it because they can. Its simply a fine, not legitimate costs, and that should not be legal.
Our local Wikes even say its a fine on their signs.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff