Why?

Oopsadaisy

trisontana wrote: »

Which is no different to those many people who have a gate at the end of their driveway, and have to get out of the car to open it before they can drive onto their property, or have to get out of their car to open the garage door.

Er, once again you are factually correct. But again most people don't have a garage/gates solely to stop a muppet from parking on their drive.

I'll make the same comment, many people [yourself excluded obviously] would be extremely annoyed that they have to buy and use a bollard just to stop a muppet parking on their drive [and would see clamping as a sensible way of stopping it].

Oopsadaisy

trisontana wrote: »

I think you will find that nobody on here advocates not buying a legitimate parking ticket. What they do object to is the stupid and excessive demands from the PPCs if you break their "rules."

So you're saying that people should pay the 'invoice/charge' as long as they are not excessive or stupid??

If not, under what circumstances would you say someone should pay the unenforceable invoice??

The logic of the advice on here is to never buy a ticket and ignore all letters.

trisontana

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

Er, once again you are factually correct. But again most people don't have a garage/gates solely to stop a muppet from parking on their drive.

I'll make the same comment, many people [yourself excluded obviously] would be extremely annoyed that they have to buy and use a bollard just to stop a muppet parking on their drive [and would see clamping as a sensible way of stopping it].

But how many people have actually found somebody parking on their driveway? Anybody on here had it happen to them? I doubt it.

trisontana

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

So you're saying that people should pay the 'invoice/charge' as long as they are not excessive or stupid??

If not, under what circumstances would you say someone should pay the unenforceable invoice??

The logic of the advice on here is to never buy a ticket and ignore all letters.

But to be lawful then that "charge" would only reflect the actual material loss suffered by the landowner. Anything else would be considered a penalty. As for not paying the initial parking charge, this very question was asked on this forum recently and everyone said that they don't mind paying for parking but would not pay the unwarranted penalties.

Oopsadaisy

So if parking was £5 per 5 mins you'd be happy to pay any charges arising from you parking there and even from overstaying??

Surely following your legal contract logic the advice should be 'never buy a ticket in the first place except if you take the last space in the park and never pay any charges'.
The only exception should be is if you take the last empty space in a park, as up until then the owner is not suffering any material loss from you not paying [since you're not depriving them of the opportunity to rent that space to someone who is willing to pay].

So come on, lets get the advice straight...

Never buy a ticket to park, unless it's the last space.
Never respond to anything.
Never pay any charges/invoices'fines.

ripped_off_driver

The old "stranger parking in your drive" nonsense is a hallmark of puny PPC arguments. Yes a meteorite could come and destroy your house tomorrow but its hardly likely. If someone did it to me I would park my car in front and would expect to have no problem from that individual in future.

We can all raise spurious scenarios like this but the fact remains that the private parking industry is a scam from start to finish. Many laws are broken in the pursuit of greed and it has nothing to do with managing parking issues.

Incidentally oopsadaisy I had read some of your previous replies where you say that you said "ignore" but it appears that you did this if at all in a very backhanded, sarcastic way. Is there something in that advice which irritates or disconcerts you? You do appear very aerated over the the subject for someone who professes to be anti-PPC.

Oopsadaisy

So rippedoff, you would engage in the very practice you find so despicable, namely clamping/immobilisation of an 'offender's car'.

Why is it OK for you to do this, yet you cry foul when it's done to someone else by a PPC.

I'd have to say [based on personal experience] that back-handed and sarcastic are two tones that are pretty difficult to convey in written format [so much depends on tone and delivery], so I'm at a loss as to how you might have deduced that was my intention.

ripped_off_driver

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

So rippedoff, you would engage in the very practice you find so despicable, namely clamping/immobilisation of an 'offender's car'.

Why is it OK for you to do this, yet you cry foul when it's done to someone else by a PPC.

I'd have to say [based on personal experience] that back-handed and sarcastic are two tones that are pretty difficult to convey in written format [so much depends on tone and delivery], so I'm at a loss as to how you might have deduced that was my intention.

Jeez, Oopsadaisy for someone who likes to dream up extremely unlikely scenarios and then use responses against posters, you are a little slow. I would be simply parking my car in my drive. You must have seen some shadows when you immediately jumped to clamping and immobilisation.

Regards sarcasm reading your posts on the "ignore" strategy it would be difficult to ignore. Dripping sarcasm might just about describe it. But then you have no axe to grind, you spend your day arguing points that only PPCs have been known to use because of the intellectual stimulation it gives you I suppose.

anewman

Coblcris

Perhaps we should direct our limited time and efforts to helping the posters who are victims. Diluting our labour in this way only assists the perpetrators.