Parking Eye taking me to a small claims court
Discussion
Countdown said:
It might work for your building, I can guarantee you it doesn't work for lots of sites. To give you just one example - we have a depot which has a shared car park with 9 other units. Each unit has a certain number of parking places reserved for them/their cutsomers. Each place has a signpost identifying which unit it belongs to. The car park needs to be open access because customers for different businesses go in and out all the time.
This is essentially the problem I have.One vehicle was there on Monday morning and hasn't moved since.
I would like to see legislation allowing the land owner/user to levy increasingly severe fines on those that essentially trespass. Say, £25 for first fine, doubling for second, doubling again for third, etc.
Countdown said:
It might work for your building, I can guarantee you it doesn't work for lots of sites. To give you just one example - we have a depot which has a shared car park with 9 other units. Each unit has a certain number of parking places reserved for them/their cutsomers. Each place has a signpost identifying which unit it belongs to. The car park needs to be open access because customers for different businesses go in and out all the time. You would probably need 10 people sitting in one cabin at the site entrance for 24 hours.
The majority of people are able to read the signs and comply with requests. But, given the location of the site, you will regularly get chancers who want free parking rather than park in the NCP 50 yards away. So a member of staff turns up and there's no parking space for him, purely because some selfish twunt has decided to risk it. Such selfish twunts used to be the exception rather than the rule but it seems to becoming a regular thing.
Some of the Unit tenants solve the problem by using these to move them - doubt it does the undersides of the car much good!
Not legal to ove the car or cause criminal damage more likely to get in bother than blocking it in The majority of people are able to read the signs and comply with requests. But, given the location of the site, you will regularly get chancers who want free parking rather than park in the NCP 50 yards away. So a member of staff turns up and there's no parking space for him, purely because some selfish twunt has decided to risk it. Such selfish twunts used to be the exception rather than the rule but it seems to becoming a regular thing.
Some of the Unit tenants solve the problem by using these to move them - doubt it does the undersides of the car much good!
surveyor_101 said:
Not legal to ove the car or cause criminal damage more likely to get in bother than blocking it in
With it being a shared car park it's hard to prove who moved it. And it's got to the point where I think if you park like an inconsiderate twunt you deserve all you get.surveyor_101 said:
So you agree with criminal damage to your car if it's parked badly i.e. Over two bays?
I think if you park in a space where you are clearly not supposed to, knowing that you are likely to inconvenience others, you run the risk of people getting extremely annoyed and vindictive.ps in the example I gave above they didn't set out to damage the cars. If that had been their intention it would have been a lot easier by leaving the car in situ.
Countdown said:
surveyor_101 said:
So you agree with criminal damage to your car if it's parked badly i.e. Over two bays?
I think if you park in a space where you are clearly not supposed to, knowing that you are likely to inconvenience others, you run the risk of people getting extremely annoyed and vindictive.Countdown said:
ps in the example I gave above they didn't set out to damage the cars. If that had been their intention it would have been a lot easier by leaving the car in situ.
Criminal Damage Act 1977 said:
A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
Using a pallet trolley to move a car, without taking reasonable precaution to prevent damage, would come under "reckless".B'sides, POFA2012 prevents removal of vehicles from private land, in the same way as it prevents immobilisation of them.
TooMany2cvs said:
Sure you do. But what IS the current exchange rate of wrongs and rights? I know my mother always told me it wasn't 2:1, and I don't think it's changed much since then.
I agree. TooMany2cvs said:
Using a pallet trolley to move a car, without taking reasonable precaution to prevent damage, would come under "reckless".
B'sides, POFA2012 prevents removal of vehicles from private land, in the same way as it prevents immobilisation of them.
Then the guy whose car gets damaged can take the guilty individual to Court.B'sides, POFA2012 prevents removal of vehicles from private land, in the same way as it prevents immobilisation of them.
Countdown said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Sure you do. But what IS the current exchange rate of wrongs and rights? I know my mother always told me it wasn't 2:1, and I don't think it's changed much since then.
I agree. TooMany2cvs said:
Using a pallet trolley to move a car, without taking reasonable precaution to prevent damage, would come under "reckless".
B'sides, POFA2012 prevents removal of vehicles from private land, in the same way as it prevents immobilisation of them.
Then the guy whose car gets damaged can take the guilty individual to Court.B'sides, POFA2012 prevents removal of vehicles from private land, in the same way as it prevents immobilisation of them.
t to me. I simply don't believe you, your associates or your neighbours have ever done or would do such a thing. Countdown said:
I think if you park in a space where you are clearly not supposed to, knowing that you are likely to inconvenience others, you run the risk of people getting extremely annoyed and vindictive.
ps in the example I gave above they didn't set out to damage the cars. If that had been their intention it would have been a lot easier by leaving the car in situ.
So not over two bays but if parked in a private spot that in your mind is clearly sign posted (most people in my experience non petrol heads just abandon their cars wherever without thinking). ps in the example I gave above they didn't set out to damage the cars. If that had been their intention it would have been a lot easier by leaving the car in situ.
Saw someone park in a tesco express car park the other day and then walk to the next door fenced off council carpark and buy a ticket! Clearly missed tesco's and horizion parking but thought they would pay the local council! Peuegeot driver obviously, probably reads the dailymail and voted brexit! Any other stereo types!
surveyor_101 said:
So not over two bays but if parked in a private spot that in your mind is clearly sign posted (most people in my experience non petrol heads just abandon their cars wherever without thinking).
Saw someone park in a tesco express car park the other day and then walk to the next door fenced off council carpark and buy a ticket! Clearly missed tesco's and horizion parking but thought they would pay the local council! Peuegeot driver obviously, probably reads the dailymail and voted brexit! Any other stereo types!
Their spelling, punctuation and grammar probably suck, too.Saw someone park in a tesco express car park the other day and then walk to the next door fenced off council carpark and buy a ticket! Clearly missed tesco's and horizion parking but thought they would pay the local council! Peuegeot driver obviously, probably reads the dailymail and voted brexit! Any other stereo types!
surveyor_101 said:
So not over two bays but if parked in a private spot that in your mind is clearly sign posted (most people in my experience non petrol heads just abandon their cars wherever without thinking).
I don't think "most" people just abandon their cars wherever without thinking. I think it's a minority who are willing to chance it. If it was "most" people then the Paypark facilities would be a lot quieter. If you have a wander around the pay and display places most people seem to have a ticket in the window which suggests they realise they needed to pay and display. TooMany2cvs said:
This is the actual article, rather than a subscription page.
http://www.thecomet.net/news/are_letchworth_car_pa...
And it's just about whether the cameras had planning permission or not, not about whether they're enforceable.
If the country's biggest operator, which should dhttp://www.thecomet.net/news/are_letchworth_car_pa...
And it's just about whether the cameras had planning permission or not, not about whether they're enforceable.
n well know better, can't or won't abide by statutory regulations (it knows full well it is breaching/has breached them in multiple locations) then it is hardly surprising if individuals think 'if they don't why should I bother with their arbitrary non-statutory ones'. Sauce for the goose and all that. I was taught from an early age: lead by example. Ironic that it is now owned by a company which had massive contracts with organs of the state. Capita really needs to clean house. When the private parking industry starts behaving ethically and self-regulates properly then I'll change my tune. Landowners and their agents could, if they wished, do a lot more to scrutunise their sub-contractors and ensure that they comply fully with everything that the law demands. Unfortunately there are too many Pontius Pilates in their ranks.
PurpleMoonlight said:
I would like to see legislation allowing the land owner/user to levy increasingly severe fines on those that essentially trespass. Say, £25 for first fine, doubling for second, doubling again for third, etc.
A lot of people misunderstand the distinction between criminal and civil law. You appear from your posts to be an intelligent person so I don't know whether you are doing so deliberately or it is just a typo. Only a court can fine somebody. I can't see Parliament ever legislating to allow public/private companies or any individual to do so.When landowners take greater responsibility for the actions of the PPCs they employ, you may have a case. Until then, No Way Jose.
Red Devil said:
When landowners take greater responsibility for the actions of the PPCs they employ, you may have a case. Until then, No Way Jose.
That's a two way street. PPCs wouldn't exist if ignorant and selfish people didn't abuse landowners' property. Seems glib to criticise PPCs, when they're up against people who do everything in their power to avoid the consequences of their actions on no more solid a ground than a point of principle (that being they see PPCs (and by extension the landowners who hire them) as fair game because they don't like them).I'd prefer to see a legislative basis for private parking enforcement rather than the contractual one we have now. Trying to fit parking abuse into tort of trespass or liquidated damages is square peg, round hole stuff, but it still needs to be dealt with.
Red Devil said:
A lot of people misunderstand the distinction between criminal and civil law. You appear from your posts to be an intelligent person so I don't know whether you are doing so deliberately or it is just a typo. Only a court can fine somebody. I can't see Parliament ever legislating to allow public/private companies or any individual to do so.
I know owners/users can't currently fine selfish drivers but they need the Government to change the law so they can.It's what is needed as currently it's a free for all with little or no consequences for the driver.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Wednesday 7th September 18:05
Countdown said:
surveyor_101 said:
Not legal to ove the car or cause criminal damage more likely to get in bother than blocking it in
With it being a shared car park it's hard to prove who moved it. And it's got to the point where I think if you park like an inconsiderate twunt you deserve all you get.I see a big difference between taking the last space at a small industrial unit, and parking in an empty retail park.
janesmith1950 said:
Red Devil said:
When landowners take greater responsibility for the actions of the PPCs they employ, you may have a case. Until then, No Way Jose.
That's a two way street. PPCs wouldn't exist if ignorant and selfish people didn't abuse landowners' property. Seems glib to criticise PPCs, when they're up against people who do everything in their power to avoid the consequences of their actions on no more solid a ground than a point of principle (that being they see PPCs (and by extension the landowners who hire them) as fair game because they don't like them).I make no apology for criticising an industry whose members do not comply with legislation, be it planning rules or adhering to PoFA 2012, falsifying evidence (by tampering or simply telling lies), filing incorrect witness statements, redacting contracts to the extent that key information is concealed from the court and other dubious practices. Regular abuse of the system should not be tolerated and the ATAs are not doing anything meaningful to prevent it.
janesmith1950 said:
I'd prefer to see a legislative basis for private parking enforcement rather than the contractual one we have now. Trying to fit parking abuse into tort of trespass or liquidated damages is square peg, round hole stuff, but it still needs to be dealt with.
The challenge is how to deal with the extremely diverse nature of parking on private land (ranging from free period retail car parks to blocks of flats) compared with that provided by local authorities. Self regulation isn't working. I would like to see a statutory tribunal appeals system similar to the local authority one (London Tribunals/TPT). The adjudicators would be properly trained and knowledgeable about the subject whereas many county court judges are not (although this is starting to change as word gets around: there is more to it than Beavis despite what the industry would like you to believe).A tribunal decision would be decisive and it would not be necessary to waste the valuable time of the county courts in processing claims. I would also like to see punitive sanctions enforceable against rogue PPCs. There would then be nowhere for scofflaw parkers to hide and the system would be a lot more transparent and seen to be fair to, and by, everyone concerned.
PurpleMoonlight said:
I know owners/users can't currently fine selfish drivers but they need the Government to change the law so they can.
Absolutely not, because a precedent will have been set. Be careful what you wish for because it wouldn't stop at parking on private land. There will be endless clamour to extend the principle to other fields. Once the genie is out of the bottle it can't be put back.PurpleMoonlight said:
It's what is needed as currently it's a free for all with little or no consequences for the driver.
I agree that reform is badly needed but what you are proposing is fundamentally wrong.PurpleMoonlight said:
I know owners/users can't currently fine selfish drivers but they need the Government to change the law so they can.
It's what is needed as currently it's a free for all with little or no consequences for the driver.
/power/abuseIt's what is needed as currently it's a free for all with little or no consequences for the driver.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Wednesday 7th September 18:05
There's a reason they banned clamping due to the profit driven abuse by the enforcers. There remain plenty of rules and powers for civilian management of private land parking. Its all there - they just need to behave and use it properly, honestly and fairly and for its intended purpose. But they often dont...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff