Private parking signs
Discussion
PurpleMoonlight said:
Yes, I don't disagree that.
But I disagree that those are the majority. I feel they are a small minority.
If they were the why do POPLA uphold so many appeals/case thrown out of SCC?But I disagree that those are the majority. I feel they are a small minority.
I think one way would be to think of an ethical parking company whose main interest is not to dish out PCNs but charge the landowner to actually manage the car parks.
I think you need to factor in that a huge amount of people will just pay these companies thinking they have some form of authority without question. If there wasnt such a big problem with the practices of the PPCs then there wouldnt be the call for proper legislation and regulation of the industry
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Friday 1st September 12:37
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Friday 1st September 12:38
pavarotti1980 said:
If they were the why do POPLA uphold so many appeals/case thrown out of SCC?
I think one way would be to think of an ethical parking company whose main interest is not to dish out PCNs but charge the landowner to actually manage the car parks.
I think you need to factor in that a huge amount of people will just pay these companies thinking they have some form of authority without question. If there wasnt such a big problem with the practices of the PPCs then there wouldnt be the call for proper legislation and regulation of the industry
What percentages of charges issued go to appeal?I think one way would be to think of an ethical parking company whose main interest is not to dish out PCNs but charge the landowner to actually manage the car parks.
I think you need to factor in that a huge amount of people will just pay these companies thinking they have some form of authority without question. If there wasnt such a big problem with the practices of the PPCs then there wouldnt be the call for proper legislation and regulation of the industry
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Friday 1st September 12:37
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Friday 1st September 12:38
If people didn't park like numpties then the PPC's would quickly go out of business. People have the power but refuse to use it.
PurpleMoonlight said:
What percentages of charges issued go to appeal?
If people didn't park like numpties then the PPC's would quickly go out of business. People have the power but refuse to use it.
These companies are not angelic, of which you will soon find out being in bed (via MAs) with VCS. If people didn't park like numpties then the PPC's would quickly go out of business. People have the power but refuse to use it.
For figures have a look at POPLA website and you will see for yourself
PurpleMoonlight said:
Neither are drivers.
I may as well bang my head against a brick wall. PPCs are predatory and maniulative in their practices and you only have to see the variou sposts on here and other forums to realise that they dont care how they make their money, whether it is within the legislative framework of POFA or and consumer rights legislation. Some drivers or tw4ts but i dont think the millions of PCNs issued reflect that the majority are.
If you think the industry is fine and worthwhile in protecting landowners with their current practice why do they government want to legislate the industry? And was their carmageddon prior to the proliferation of parking companies offering their services?
pavarotti1980 said:
I may as well bang my head against a brick wall. PPCs are predatory and maniulative in their practices and you only have to see the variou sposts on here and other forums to realise that they dont care how they make their money, whether it is within the legislative framework of POFA or and consumer rights legislation.
Some drivers or tw4ts but i dont think the millions of PCNs issued reflect that the majority are.
If you think the industry is fine and worthwhile in protecting landowners with their current practice why do they government want to legislate the industry? And was their carmageddon prior to the proliferation of parking companies offering their services?
The majority of drivers aren't, but there are sufficient numbers in existence to warrant the existence of PPC's. Some drivers or tw4ts but i dont think the millions of PCNs issued reflect that the majority are.
If you think the industry is fine and worthwhile in protecting landowners with their current practice why do they government want to legislate the industry? And was their carmageddon prior to the proliferation of parking companies offering their services?
I have personal experience of them. Since the notices went up on my site parking space stealing as declined dramatically.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 1st September 13:46
PurpleMoonlight]avarotti1980 said:
I may as well bang my head against a brick wall. PPCs are predatory and maniulative in their practices and you only have to see the variou sposts on here and other forums to realise that they dont care how they make their money, whether it is within the legislative framework of POFA or and consumer rights legislation.
Some drivers or tw4ts but i dont think the millions of PCNs issued reflect that the majority are.
If you think the industry is fine and worthwhile in protecting landowners with their current practice why do they government want to legislate the industry? And was their carmageddon prior to the proliferation of parking companies offering their services?[/quot
The majority of drivers aren't, but there are sufficient numbers in existence to warrant the existence of PPC's.
I have personal experience of them. Since the notices went up on my site parking space stealing as declined dramatically.
But the signs are a waste of space and not able to contract a driver and leave your MA open to legal action for DPA breaches along with VCS. Although you dont have to worry about this bit unless they make you jointly liable for the MAs actionsSome drivers or tw4ts but i dont think the millions of PCNs issued reflect that the majority are.
If you think the industry is fine and worthwhile in protecting landowners with their current practice why do they government want to legislate the industry? And was their carmageddon prior to the proliferation of parking companies offering their services?[/quot
The majority of drivers aren't, but there are sufficient numbers in existence to warrant the existence of PPC's.
I have personal experience of them. Since the notices went up on my site parking space stealing as declined dramatically.
pavarotti1980 said:
But the signs are a waste of space and not able to contract a driver and leave your MA open to legal action for DPA breaches along with VCS. Although you dont have to worry about this bit unless they make you jointly liable for the MAs actions
What part of the DPA is breached by the erection of a sign?PurpleMoonlight said:
What part of the DPA is breached by the erection of a sign?
DPA breaches would occur if the PPC decided to go to the DVLA for keeper details for vehicles which you have photographed and sent to them. As they dont have a legally binding contract with the driver they do not meet the rules of KADOE and therefore do not have the necessary "rights"for the details. At this point a technical DPA has occured and leaves the PCC, joinly liable with the MA, and maybe you for their actions in the breach. Effectively you are instructing them to commit DPA breaches simply by contracting them.As pointed out you have picked well with VCS
pavarotti1980 said:
DPA breaches would occur if the PPC decided to go to the DVLA for keeper details for vehicles which you have photographed and sent to them. As they dont have a legally binding contract with the driver they do not meet the rules of KADOE and therefore do not have the necessary "rights"for the details. At this point a technical DPA has occured and leaves the PCC, joinly liable with the MA, and maybe you for their actions in the breach. Effectively you are instructing them to commit DPA breaches simply by contracting them.
As pointed out you have picked well with VCS
Ah okay.As pointed out you have picked well with VCS
I haven't contracted anyone.
I assume I will be taking the picture of the parking thief and emailing to the PPC though.
pavarotti1980 said:
Kuji said:
I agree with the obvious sentiment.
IF we didn't have some many dim-witted retards deliberately parking where they damn well know they should not and then breaking a fingernail over being asked not to, then the parking companies wouldn't exist.
Its just a shame that too many people get so fixated on the (subsequent)parking companies greed and errors that they lose sight of the real (original) villain of the whole piece.
Even worse is when said deliberate retards manage to misuse the rules established to actually protect innocent people to lord over the fact that they managed to get one over on a local landowner - by hitching their retard wagon to some poor sod who's continually trying to fix all the problems the retards like him/her have created.
/rant.
You dont have to be a dim-witted retard to receive a PCN from private parking company. They target 1000s upon 1000s of people who have parked perfectly fine but for various reasons dont comply with the elaborate rules dreamt up by the parking companies. For example, does parking in your own parking space mean you should receive a ticket?IF we didn't have some many dim-witted retards deliberately parking where they damn well know they should not and then breaking a fingernail over being asked not to, then the parking companies wouldn't exist.
Its just a shame that too many people get so fixated on the (subsequent)parking companies greed and errors that they lose sight of the real (original) villain of the whole piece.
Even worse is when said deliberate retards manage to misuse the rules established to actually protect innocent people to lord over the fact that they managed to get one over on a local landowner - by hitching their retard wagon to some poor sod who's continually trying to fix all the problems the retards like him/her have created.
/rant.
CambridgeEnglishDictionary said:
adjective: deliberate
/d??l?b(?)r?t/
done consciously and intentionally.
I mentioned innocent people, who have some recourse (Poopla was set up for such people) to get those incorrectly issued tickets overturned./d??l?b(?)r?t/
done consciously and intentionally.
.
I have bolded out the relevant part of my comment for your assistance.
Of course, you may have a different opinion and hence may feel strongly that those people who park where they know they shouldn't are just as much a victim as those who do so in error, or get ticketed in error - because its a parking firm (whom you very clearly dislike with blinkered abandon).
Kuji said:
I mentioned innocent people, who have some recourse (Poopla was set up for such people) to get those incorrectly issued tickets overturned.
.
I have bolded out the relevant part of my comment for your assistance.
Of course, you may have a different opinion and hence may feel strongly that those people who park where they know they shouldn't are just as much a victim as those who do so in error, or get ticketed in error - because its a parking firm (whom you very clearly dislike with blinkered abandon).
Its not blinkered abandon. There are some ethical companies whos practice is not to make money from PCNs but to charge the customer a set annual amount for the parking services and operate systems effectively. Systems such as pay on exit are simple and easy to inplement and manage..
I have bolded out the relevant part of my comment for your assistance.
Of course, you may have a different opinion and hence may feel strongly that those people who park where they know they shouldn't are just as much a victim as those who do so in error, or get ticketed in error - because its a parking firm (whom you very clearly dislike with blinkered abandon).
pavarotti1980 said:
Its not blinkered abandon. There are some ethical companies whos practice is not to make money from PCNs but to charge the customer a set annual amount for the parking services and operate systems effectively. Systems such as pay on exit are simple and easy to inplement and manage.
If they were simple and easy to implement and manage then more Landlords would do it. At various times I have been responsible for dealing with office parking at sites throughout Manchester and Lancashire. In each and every one of those sites "Pay on Exit" was not an option. There were various reasons, such as the site being a shared car park with other business premises, or the site needing regular visits (by joiners/engineers/tradespeople) to pick up and drop off materials.One site had 4 NCP car parks within a 100m radius. But twuntish people would rather inconvenience others and save themselves £5 on the off chance they don't get a ticket and, if they DO get a ticket, start a long and complicated argument about why the signs aren't "compliant".
Countdown said:
If they were simple and easy to implement and manage then more Landlords would do it. At various times I have been responsible for dealing with office parking at sites throughout Manchester and Lancashire. In each and every one of those sites "Pay on Exit" was not an option. There were various reasons, such as the site being a shared car park with other business premises, or the site needing regular visits (by joiners/engineers/tradespeople) to pick up and drop off materials.
One site had 4 NCP car parks within a 100m radius. But twuntish people would rather inconvenience others and save themselves £5 on the off chance they don't get a ticket and, if they DO get a ticket, start a long and complicated argument about why the signs aren't "compliant".
That was just one example One site had 4 NCP car parks within a 100m radius. But twuntish people would rather inconvenience others and save themselves £5 on the off chance they don't get a ticket and, if they DO get a ticket, start a long and complicated argument about why the signs aren't "compliant".
Other systems are available
pavarotti1980 said:
Countdown said:
If they were simple and easy to implement and manage then more Landlords would do it. At various times I have been responsible for dealing with office parking at sites throughout Manchester and Lancashire. In each and every one of those sites "Pay on Exit" was not an option. There were various reasons, such as the site being a shared car park with other business premises, or the site needing regular visits (by joiners/engineers/tradespeople) to pick up and drop off materials.
One site had 4 NCP car parks within a 100m radius. But twuntish people would rather inconvenience others and save themselves £5 on the off chance they don't get a ticket and, if they DO get a ticket, start a long and complicated argument about why the signs aren't "compliant".
That was just one example One site had 4 NCP car parks within a 100m radius. But twuntish people would rather inconvenience others and save themselves £5 on the off chance they don't get a ticket and, if they DO get a ticket, start a long and complicated argument about why the signs aren't "compliant".
Other systems are available
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff