Why?

anewman

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

ie there is a 'real cost to the company.

And in the case of Huddersfield University and Sainsburys it is either have students (and no doubt staff also) park there all day and night long (library is open 24 hours sometimes and there's the student union etc [which in fact the new one was built in a car park removing some spaces]) - or do something to make sure only people who want to shop there park there. The operating expense of taking no action is far greater than taking action, and the expense of taking action is relatively small. £1000 for an automated barrier system (okay they might cost somewhat more) is like you or me tossing a penny in the river when you consider the profits the supermarket will make.

Students if they can will park where it is cheapest. Do not forget also that supermarkets are not free of other similar moral foibles. They employ staff for as little as possible (often close to minimum wage), they get things for as cheap as possible (which means people like farmers end up effectively running at a loss), and they sell items for as much as they think they can get away with. I am sure there are many more such examples. In this world everyone screws everyone else over. That doesn't mean it is an excuse to screw someone else over, just highlighting a fact of life. And lets face it, if Sainsburys don't make a profit because of having to buy a poxy barrier, then they'd have closed down or moved elsewhere by now. As the Ferengi would say, "Greed is eternal!"

I am sure most of us here pay for tickets and try to park in accordance with displayed requests if they are reasonable. What is not reasonable is if someone overstays 22 seconds being made to think they have been fined £60 and harassing them for payment pretending that they have authority enshrined in law to do so (they do not). It is also reasonable to assume that if there is a supermarket car park that this is a sensible place to park in order to go elsewhere - unless they have a barrier, or charge to park there etc etc.

Oopsadaisy

The only place I ever bothered to pay was airports with lifty up exit barriers...until I realised you could just drive out behind the car in front.

flyingscotno1

anewman wrote: »

The operating expense of taking no action is far greater than taking action, and the expense of taking action is relatively small. £1000 for an automated barrier system (okay they might cost somewhat more) is like you or me tossing a penny in the river when you consider the profits the supermarket will make.

£1000 for a barrier system- might cost more- aye 10x that at least- plus installation costs. Can't remember the exact cost for one but having been involved in a multi-storey getting one it was a lot more than £1000 for a system.

Supermarkets hate barriers thou as they detract customers from coming in- even if it is free for 2 hours or refunded. People associate barriers with paying and you make people who are only coming in for a few items nervous if you have a min spend esp if others don't

Iceland near me has a £1 P+D and gives money back at till, but waste of time too.

Oopsadaisy

Ok, here's a thought.....

Would everyone support moving parking control over private parks to the council??

You know, proper appeals process, operatives NOT on bonus or self-employed scammers, proper rules and clear signs, only hot-spots targetted as opposed to the money making spots, etc.

Oh, and the same rule wrt the RK being liable even if they were no the driver.

ripped_off_driver

Troll = someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response.

Check.

Remember DNFTT.

Oopsadaisy

Hypocrite = someone who whinges about "clampers" and then says they would do the exactly the same thing themselves.

mrcol1000

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

Ok, here's a thought.....

Would everyone support moving parking control over private parks to the council??

You know, proper appeals process, operatives NOT on bonus or self-employed scammers, proper rules and clear signs, only hot-spots targetted as opposed to the money making spots, etc.

Oh, and the same rule wrt the RK being liable even if they were no the driver.

Personally I think it should stay private. At least they have the balls to go after these people rather than the council who backs down at the first tears from the "victim".

trisontana

mrcol1000 wrote: »

Personally I think it should stay private. At least they have the balls to go after these people rather than the council who backs down at the first tears from the "victim".

Yes, they go after people with fake threats, documents that pretend to be from the council and talk of "court" and "bailiffs". In the end these PPCs do not have a case that would stand up in court and they know it. The law is not on their side.

Oopsadaisy

We seem to want to have our cake and eat it on here.

We moan about 'unfair' PPC behaviour yet we seem releuctant to embrace any form of 'fairer' system.

What % of invoices are issued 'fairly' ie signs up in clear view, etc??

The 'I was only going in to do a U-turn, etc' account for what kind of % [Looking at my local Sains and Asda as examples about 90% of the cars that would get a ticket are genuine 'offenders' eg no blue badge, parking in 2 bays, parking on yellows, etc]

So assuming most 'offenders' are in the wrong, why are we keen to castigate landowners and PPCs totally??

I guess the PPCs don't much care about the 'I know it's an unenforceable invoice' brigade as long as they have a high enough 'pay up' rate from the others to cover the costs of the DVLA access, their operating costs and make a profit.

Remember never, ever, ever buy a ticket
Never respond to anything from a PPC
Never, ever ever pay a fine/invoice/ticket.

ripped_off_driver

trisontana wrote: »

Yes, they go after people with fake threats, documents that pretend to be from the council and talk of "court" and "bailiffs". In the end these PPCs do not have a case that would stand up in court and they know it. The law is not on their side.

Indeed, many laws are broken by these rogues in carrying out their letter scam. The recent posts of the Roxburghe/Graham white template letters shows the scam for what it is. The private parking companies are simply in it for greed and it has nothing to do with parking management. The landowner often does not care or they are getting a cut of the ill gotten gains so are tainted in the scam.

If the private parking companies really believed in the legality of their begging letters they would take every non payer to court. They would appeal the cases they have lost. None of this happens because the companies in question know that a fair percentage of the recipients will fall for the scam tactics and assume the ticket has some legal validity like a council ticket. In this way it is a nice little earner for these parasites but now that the nature of the scam is being exposed these sites are a problem. Hence the continued fairly obvious attempts at infiltration.