Why?

mrcol1000

Coblcris wrote: »

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.

I think using the word victims sums up the whole problem. People try and save a few quid by parking on private property or not getting a parking ticket and then assume the postion of "victim" and cry about it to get out of it.
The real victims are the people who lose custom because their private car parks provided for shoppers are abused by commuters or local workers who are too tight to pay for parking. Then parking tickets they issue are ignored because people are told not to pay them. So they take the ultimate step of clamping cars because thats impossible to ignore and they are branded evil.
Just remember there is only supply where there is demand. If no-one parked where they shouldn't do, paid the sums they were suppose to and only parked for as long as they were suppose to these companies would all disspear. However the selfish, do as I please attudie of a lot of drivers and people in general feed these companies.

By the way the whole parking on driveway is real and happened to me a few times in London. I have found parking behind the cars so they can't get out and then inventing a friend who has gone away for two days and has the only set of keys normally did the trick.

trisontana

The problem of unauthorised parking is easily solved without resorting to the use of PPCs. Yet again I quote Coupon-mad:-

The Supermarket question is easy, just impose a minimum spend and they'd make more money. Any Store Manager should realise that people who have parked there for the station are a 'captive audience' in terms of being potentially 'captive customers' EVERY DAY if you insist they have to shop there.

A supermarket near here has a min spend policy, there are unmanned (but very robust) barriers at the exit of the car park and if you've arrived by car you can only get out if you've had your entry ticket verified at the Supermarket till. Not rocket science is it?

And bollards or a gate/fence ARE the simple answer elsewhere. Ask landowners in Scotland who are coping very well without brainless tattooed clamping knuckle-draggers carrying out their protection racket on their land any more.

Oopsadaisy

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

I would be simply parking my car in my drive. You must have seen some shadows when you immediately jumped to clamping and immobilisation.

Come, come dear boy. We all know that you're talking about blocking in the poor unfortunate who merely parked in your drive to save 50p parking charges at the local station.

As such that's immobilisation.

So again I'll ask..... why is it OK for you to clamp a car on private ground, but not for anyone else???

taffy056

Clamping should be made illegal like in scotland, these ppc should be heavily regulated to ensure fairness at the minimum, telling people blatant lies with threats and making their tickets look like council pcn's is unfair, these tickets are not enforceable telling lies don't make them legitimate. Landholders have a right to protect their investment of course, but the easiest way to do this is with barriers, and paying on exit instead of entry is logical and fair, and the supermarkets can do what coupon said above to help them, the system will pay for itself.

mrcol1000

trisontana wrote: »

The problem of unauthorised parking is easily solved without resorting to the use of PPCs. Yet again I quote Coupon-mad:-

The Supermarket question is easy, just impose a minimum spend and they'd make more money. Any Store Manager should realise that people who have parked there for the station are a 'captive audience' in terms of being potentially 'captive customers' EVERY DAY if you insist they have to shop there.

A supermarket near here has a min spend policy, there are unmanned (but very robust) barriers at the exit of the car park and if you've arrived by car you can only get out if you've had your entry ticket verified at the Supermarket till. Not rocket science is it?

And bollards or a gate/fence ARE the simple answer elsewhere. Ask landowners in Scotland who are coping very well without brainless tattooed clamping knuckle-draggers carrying out their protection racket on their land any more.

They also have this at Sainsburys opposite Huddersfield University to stop the students parking there. Bollards work but the question is why should land owners have to go to expense and hassle to stop people parking on their land? As normal the people doing wrong are dissolved of any blame because they weren't stopped from commiting the offence. Maybe all speeding fines should go to car manfactuers because they build the cars to go that speed in the first place?

taffy056

mrcol1000 wrote: »

They also have this at Sainsburys opposite Huddersfield University to stop the students parking there. Bollards work but the question is why should land owners have to go to expense and hassle to stop people parking on their land? As normal the people doing wrong are dissolved of any blame because they weren't stopped from commiting the offence. Maybe all speeding fines should go to car manfactuers because they build the cars to go that speed in the first place?

why go through the expense ? Simple really, its an investment into their business, and completey tax deductible, if they didn't spend it on that they would simply give it to the government in tax.

Oopsadaisy

taffy056 wrote: »

and completey tax deductible, if they didn't spend it on that they would simply give it to the government in tax.

Er, not quite correct.

You imply that if the bollards were £1000, they would pay £1000 less tax [ie it wouldn't actually cost them a penny] and the profits would stay the same; however the £1000 would actually go in as an operating expense [possibly even a capital expense] and as a result they would have less profits.

What I'm saying is that its not a choice of 'spend £1000' or 'give an extra £1000 to the gov', ie there is a 'real cost to the company.

taffy056

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

Er, not quite correct.

You imply that if the bollards were £1000, they would pay £1000 less tax [ie it wouldn't actually cost them a penny] and the profits would stay the same; however the £1000 would actually go in as an operating expense [possibly even a capital expense] and as a result they would have less profits.

What I'm saying is that its not a choice of 'spend £1000' or 'give an extra £1000 to the gov', ie there is a 'real cost to the company.

you are not entirely correct there, this is a business expense and is deductible against taxes, and as an investment into your business its of a benefit to your company and to ensure you increase profits by ensuring people actually do pay the full amount for parking.

flyingscotno1

trisontana wrote: »

The problem of unauthorised parking is easily solved without resorting to the use of PPCs. Yet again I quote Coupon-mad:-

The Supermarket question is easy, just impose a minimum spend and they'd make more money. Any Store Manager should realise that people who have parked there for the station are a 'captive audience' in terms of being potentially 'captive customers' EVERY DAY if you insist they have to shop there.

A supermarket near here has a min spend policy, there are unmanned (but very robust) barriers at the exit of the car park and if you've arrived by car you can only get out if you've had your entry ticket verified at the Supermarket till. Not rocket science is it?

And bollards or a gate/fence ARE the simple answer elsewhere. Ask landowners in Scotland who are coping very well without brainless tattooed clamping knuckle-draggers carrying out their protection racket on their land any more.

Minimum spends are not popular. They can drive away your casual browser in a shopping centre and are open to abuse anyway. ASDA here had both including the barrier system, but it was unpopular and removed. It now uses ANPR again with problems in PPCs!

There are no real cost effective or easy ways of managing your private roads/car park spaces in Scotland. Disabled spaces will change when they can be enforced legally by councils, but that is another minefield.

Barrier systems are unreliable and expensive. An ex-employer had this for their car park. You arrived and swiped card- barrier opened. Unfortunately years of rain and Scottish Weather meant that it eventually failed- they repaired it but it failed again and now sits permanently up.

There is a car park near me which had chronic problems with people parking on double yellows because it was outside the shop and making the road really difficult to get down. They resorted to changing the car park layout- building out kerbs and bollards on pavement. Similarly this problem happens at many car parks where people dump cars outside marked bays, often in inappropriate locations and bar shaming them on a tannoy which they don't care, nothing can be done.

Indeed sometimes PPC can get results- a friend has a flat overlooking a car park that was used by commuters and nearby office workers rather than customers and visitors of the lease holders (local streets are residents and P+D). Since a PPC went in the car park and put signs up it is now quieter and always spaces- as much as they are a waste of time, many people don't take the chance as they are not informed and clued up.

If you run a shopping centre it is very difficult to do anything to manage your parking and whilst I don't advocate the use of PPC I can understand why so many shopping centres use them.

taffy056

No real answers, but lets face it, huge legitimate companies are using ppc's to harass their clientele, their spurious tickets are often illegal, and they operate unethically, with such claims as you can appeal tickets etc when in fact you can't as they all get turned down, really these companies contract out to scammers and they drive business away from shops, sainsbury's has lost my business because I had 1 wheel over the line, and was asked to pay £50 on top of the £130 I just spent in their shop.