Private Parking Tickets discussion

Oopsadaisy

lucylucky wrote: »

You stated in a previous post that the "general feeling" was anti-landowner and anti-paying for parking.

If that is the feeling you get from these posts then I am surprised as it is certainly not one I share.

Who is anti landowner and anti paying for parking? ( I know I asked already but never got a reply)

In reverse order...

Anti-paying - bit of confusion here, so apologies. I believe you've looked at my summary sentence at the end of the post in which I was referring to anti-paying wrt the PPC fines/tickets/invoices, not anti-paying for parking. In fact, a few lines above this 'summary' I wrote - "Many do pay for the tickets...even in private car parks [some never pay]." So I do accept I could have been clearer in stipulating that 'anti-paying' was wrt the fines/invoices/etc and not to do with actual parking charges, hence my apologies for any confusion on your part.

Anti-landowner - well I guess that might be seen as a bit contentious, since it's also this that leads to the blatent hypocrisy. When asked 'What's a [small] business to do with rogue parkers?" most replies are along the lines of "Tough sh17, you should put in £20k barriers systems or foldy-down posts" or "Well no-one has died Scotland over this". So, usually the landowner is actually 'accused' of being the one that's somehow in the wrong. Again, a few lines above the words 'anti-landowner' I did say "Some imply that if you have a parking problem it's somehow your fault... and the only remedy is you should install a barrier and card system."; 'anti-landowner' was my shorthand for this sentence in my summary sentence.


Yet the same posters [typically] would say that if someone parked on their property they would clamp/let down the tyres, scratch, block in, etc.'....hence hypocrisy [not that I mean that in a nasty kind of way ].


HTH.

peter_the_piper

Talking from one side of the landowners pitch. We have parking for about 8 cars (business) which is open till 6 and after that anyone can park there. Neighbours know that at the quieter times of the year they can park during the day also providing they ask first. We even have the post box in the car park so have drive ins and out all day. The bus also uses the car park as an unofficial stop. All works well, No PPC or clampers. I know we are not the norm but just to show that parking does not have to be stressful and contentious.

lucylucky

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

In reverse order...

Anti-paying - bit of confusion here, so apologies. I believe you've looked at my summary sentence at the end of the post in which I was referring to anti-paying wrt the PPC fines/tickets/invoices, not anti-paying for parking. In fact, a few lines above this 'summary' I wrote - "Many do pay for the tickets...even in private car parks [some never pay]." So I do accept I could have been clearer in stipulating that 'anti-paying' was wrt the fines/invoices/etc and not to do with actual parking charges, hence my apologies for any confusion on your part.

Anti-landowner - well I guess that might be seen as a bit contentious, since it's also this that leads to the blatent hypocrisy. When asked 'What's a [small] business to do with rogue parkers?" most replies are along the lines of "Tough sh17, you should put in £20k barriers systems or foldy-down posts" or "Well no-one has died Scotland over this". So, usually the landowner is actually 'accused' of being the one that's somehow in the wrong. Again, a few lines above the words 'anti-landowner' I did say "Some imply that if you have a parking problem it's somehow your fault... and the only remedy is you should install a barrier and card system."; 'anti-landowner' was my shorthand for this sentence in my summary sentence.


Yet the same posters [typically] would say that if someone parked on their property they would clamp/let down the tyres, scratch, block in, etc.'....hence hypocrisy [not that I mean that in a nasty kind of way ].



HTH.

Many thanks for the explanation.

I think that most people would indeed be anti-paying as the PPCs simply try to extort money way beyond any reasonable amount.

If a person has received a proper council fine then that of course should be paid.

As for anti landowner, there have been a number of suggestions to previous posters, all of which avoid the necessity to employ scum.
I am not aware of landowners being told "tough !!!!!!"


Anyone who suggests damaging a car is wrong to do so, and to be honest I am not aware, again, that that is a generalisation that could be applied to threads dealing with private parking issues.

Oopsadaisy

lucylucky wrote: »

I think that most people would indeed be anti-paying as the PPCs simply try to extort money way beyond any reasonable amount. Ok, then ...what's a reasonable amount??

If a person has received a proper council fine then that of course should be paid. Why?? [Other than they might be able to trace you]. What would you suggest to someone who gets a council ticket and knows the council can't trace them or enforce it?? Surely it must be to ignore it??

I am not aware of landowners being told "tough !!!!!!" No-one has used that actual phrase; I was trying to paraphrase the comments/attitude to landowners.

Anyone who suggests damaging a car is wrong to do so, and to be honest I am not aware, again, that that is a generalisation that could be applied to threads dealing with private parking issues
Oh but it is...'direct action' against rogue parkers is the response when people have been asked on many threads on here. What would you do??
.

.................

lucylucky

I think that most people would indeed be anti-paying as the PPCs simply try to extort money way beyond any reasonable amount. Ok, then ...what's a reasonable amount?? Recompense for the money lost, so for a free car park there is no money lost, therefore a reasonable amount is £0.00

If a person has received a proper council fine then that of course should be paid. Why?? [Other than they might be able to trace you]. What would you suggest to someone who gets a council ticket and knows the council can't trace them or enforce it?? Surely it must be to ignore it?? A proper council fine is legally enforceable and is quite different from a PPC scam

I am not aware of landowners being told "tough !!!!!!" No-one has used that actual phrase; I was trying to paraphrase the comments/attitude to landowners. Could you provide an example?

Anyone who suggests damaging a car is wrong to do so, and to be honest I am not aware, again, that that is a generalisation that could be applied to threads dealing with private parking issues
Oh but it is...'direct action' against rogue parkers is the response when people have been asked on many threads on here. What would you do?? Again an example on the private parking ticket threads where "direct action" has been advocated would help your generalisation. What would I do when and in what situation?

backfoot

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

Not quite... I said this was a generalisation/flavour and [by implication] not directed at anyone person in particular. Yet people rush to point out the generalisation isn't applicable to them.

The nature of a generalisation is that it pretty much isn't applicable to 100% of the members 100% of the time...so why do people feel personally affronted??

Gosh, that's complicated. :eek:

So you wrote it all down and did or didn't want comments? Just because some people disagreed with some or all of your generalisations doesn't mean they were personally affronted.

I think quite a few were nonsense but I am very laid back about it.

Other posters have explained why they disagree and as its a forum that's pretty well to be expected.

I am trying to work out why you posted them ?

gardencrazee

Anyone ever heard from this company? I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention yet i am being chased by this company.. Their latest letter says "we would like to draw your attention to the common law doctrine of the Law of Agency. This confirms that a principal (registered keeper) is liable for the acts of its agent (the driver)." I have already had a letter from Moorcroft Debt Recovery too. Any ideas? New to this so here goes.

lucylucky

gardencrazee wrote: »

Anyone ever heard from this company? I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention yet i am being chased by this company.. Their latest letter says "we would like to draw your attention to the common law doctrine of the Law of Agency. This confirms that a principal (registered keeper) is liable for the acts of its agent (the driver)." I have already had a letter from Moorcroft Debt Recovery too. Any ideas? New to this so here goes.

Have a play with the search facility on this site and see what pops up.

Bottom line - ignore.

esmerobbo

They is the same company as this

http://www.thewheelclampingcompany.co.uk/

backfoot

gardencrazee wrote: »

Their latest letter says "we would like to draw your attention to the common law doctrine of the Law of Agency. This confirms that a principal (registered keeper) is liable for the acts of its agent (the driver)." I have already had a letter from Moorcroft Debt Recovery too. Any ideas? New to this so here goes.

It sounds like a figment of their imagination. Ignore.