A Disabled Charity And A PPC

trisontana

lucylucky wrote: »

Nice to see the PPC trolls back. Haven't been any around for a wee while.

And who's only other posting was back in March going on about raffle tickets being given away by MacDonalds.

trisontana

As an example of the lies spouted by PPCs, you only have to look at the parking ticket left by our old friend UKCPS on a car, and featured on Pepipoo. According to this PPC "The owner of the vehicle must pay £100" and "unauthorised removal or interference of this parking ticket is an offence".

grmc

Just to clarify, I don’t work for a PPC, am not called Helen, and nor do I seek to defend the misleading threatening tactics of PPCs. I know all too well about the types of characters in the industry and the ways they operate, and for the record I find them largely repugnant.

I do, however, think there needs to be some effective deterrent against the misuse of disabled spaces, and am genuinely intrigued as to why some are outraged by the basic principle of a charging system as a deterrent.

You claim that the only cases that have ever been won by any PPC are “set ups”. I presume that by this you mean the defendants were in some way “stooges” who deliberately set out to lose, or that the claimant only proceeded to trial where a weak or spurious defence was entered.

I’d be interested in the veracity of such a bold claim, but assuming it [hypothetically] to be true, it could be argued by the same token that more cases aren’t won simply because the claim is weak. The quality of a claim can vary just as much as the quality of a defence. In an adversarial legal system it is invariably the substance of what is put before the judge that swings the outcome.

The fact that, until now, PPC litigation has been scarce and largely unsuccessful is probably more to do with the lack of legal expertise in an industry awash with chancers with no legal training who are looking to earn a fast buck.

Don’t write off the possibility that a PPC could one day succeed in their claim if it were better argued and presented, and formed upon different principles of contract law to those avenues we have typically seen the PPCs wander down.

The success of the banks in the Supreme Court last November surprised thousands of internet keyboard warriors who had all spent the previous few years convincing each other that there was only one possible outcome. The enforceability of private parking charges has no governance of stare decisis and remains something of a quagmire for county court judges, but only a fool would put money on a PPC never being able to win a case or obtain a favourable precedent at High Court level.

To return to my original point re. blue badges on private land, I’d be interested to hear of a better alternative to the system of charging those who don’t display a blue badge, but I note that nobody has picked up the gauntlet. Is this because not one of you has anything constructive to offer to the debate, or do you simply prefer complaining about the status quo?

trisontana

I think the first thing you have to ask is how widespread is the "abuse" of disabled parking spaces. I would guess that it doesn't occur very often. Most people are decent and fair minded and will not park there. So it might be a solution to a non-existent problem

You might say that's because of the threat of getting a "ticket". I don't think so. For instance there is a small Sainsbury's near where I live with about fifty parking spaces and six disabled bays. This particular car-park has not come under the evil clutches of a PPC. So Sainsbury's have posted up a sign which says. "If you are registered disabled, please feel free to use these spaces. For all other customers please leave the spaces free for those that need them" And it works. Disabled drivers do park in those spaces, and others park elsewhere.

The irony of all this is that UKCPS seem to be targeting genuine disabled drivers who have made simple mistakes, such as not displaying their blue badge. Even when this is pointed out to UKCPS they still demand these outrageous sums of money.

taffy056

Currently;

1) the blue badge sheme does not apply in private car parks
2) terms and conditions in private car parks are largely illegal
3) parking bays in private car parks are advisory only
4) a private company cannot legally penailse car drivers
5) a ppc suffers no loss as they are not the landowner
6) there is no loss in a free car park

In summary the PPCs operate a scam , the watchdog program we link to confirms by a legal expert, you are not qualified to refute his outcome, and by the there is another watchdog program dedicated to this next week, its about the ppcs making their tickets look like police fpn's and council pcn's .

grmc

Firstly, with regards the abuse of disabled bays by non-disabled drivers, I think you will find a wealth of information available following surveys carried out by several impartial organisations in the past (i.e. non PPCs). I do believe that a fairly consistent level of 20% abuse was identified over several years. I can provide links to this data when I am next back in my office.

I too am a stickler for the decent and fair minded approach, and it annoys me intensely when I see (every day) people acting in a selfish manner. I therefore have observed the phenomenon of disabled bay abuse on a daily basis.

I totally agree (as I have already stated) that the likes of UKCPS are acting unconscionably and those sorts of practices need to stop.

taffy056; your points are based on preconceptions on the way PPCs have dealt with matters in the past. As I have said, the industry is awash with legally unqualified individuals who, from the way they have approached their respective "victims" (and routinely shirked the idea of having the matter put before a judge) clearly know little about contract law. How dare you assert that I am "not qualified to refute his outcome" (whatever that means) - you don't know me! I can, however, assert that I do know more about the law than you do, as evidenced by the naivety in the way you list your points as being irrebuttable and closed. I think you will find the law is fluid, and the scope is much wider than the spectrum you see (and don't take my word for this - run it by a lawyer you trust).

But, nobody has yet offered an alternative to the incorporation of Blue Badge Scheme terms in the use of a private parking facility. If you can't offer an alternative solution, you really oughtn't criticise current practice.

pstuart

Beginning to see who you are and what you are now!

sarahg1969

grmc wrote: »

I too am a stickler for the decent and fair minded approach, and it annoys me intensely when I see (every day) people acting in a selfish manner. I therefore have observed the phenomenon of disabled bay abuse on a daily basis.

What do you classify as abuse? Bays being used by people without a blue badge, who could, for all you know, be disabled? Bays being used by blue badge holders who are having a good day and don't really need the extra space? Bays being occupied by police cars? Bays being used by elderly, very infirm people who can't manage in an ordinary bay?

We all see people who look OK parking in bays, and there probably ARE people who shouldn't use them - people just nipping in to the shops, people using the cash machine, but I'm not sure that that justifies a car park owner discriminating against disabled customers just because they don't have a blue badge. And I'm absolutely certain they're not justified in upholding tickets issued to blue badge holders just because they forgot to display their badge, or overstayed by 5 mins.

If the supermarkets do really want to discourage people from parking in disabled bays, why don't they issue tickets for say, £3 or £5, which would be much more likely to be upheld by a Court? And why don't they stop making them look like official PCNs? Do you really think that the PPCs are doing this out of some consideration for disabled drivers?

Coupon-mad

grmc wrote: »

Firstly, with regards the abuse of disabled bays by non-disabled drivers, I think you will find a wealth of information available following surveys carried out by several impartial organisations in the past (i.e. non PPCs). I do believe that a fairly consistent level of 20% abuse was identified over several years. I can provide links to this data when I am next back in my office.

As Sarah says, that '20% of parking bay abuse' can ONLY have been cars without a Blue badge on show. That is NOT to say the driver or passenger was not disabled so that is NOT any proof of any 'abuse' at all.

The fact that sometimes all disabled bays in a Supermarket car park are full, and some cars don't show a Blue Badge, means NOTHING AT ALL except that the Supermarket is busy. Your wrath should be aimed at the Supermarket and asking them to create more disabled bays if they haven't provided enough for the local need.

I have disabled relatives, used to work as a disability advice centre Manager, also as a driver for people with various disabilities in another job recently. I know about the DDA, clearly you either don't know or don't care about the law.

The fact is the DDA takes precedence over any alleged contract on a poxy sign.

cocktail

grmc wrote: »

Firstly, with regards the abuse of disabled bays by non-disabled drivers, I think you will find a wealth of information available following surveys carried out by several impartial organisations in the past (i.e. non PPCs). I do believe that a fairly consistent level of 20% abuse was identified over several years. I can provide links to this data when I am next back in my office.

I too am a stickler for the decent and fair minded approach, and it annoys me intensely when I see (every day) people acting in a selfish manner. I therefore have observed the phenomenon of disabled bay abuse on a daily basis.

I totally agree (as I have already stated) that the likes of UKCPS are acting unconscionably and those sorts of practices need to stop.

taffy056; your points are based on preconceptions on the way PPCs have dealt with matters in the past. As I have said, the industry is awash with legally unqualified individuals who, from the way they have approached their respective "victims" (and routinely shirked the idea of having the matter put before a judge) clearly know little about contract law. How dare you assert that I am "not qualified to refute his outcome" (whatever that means) - you don't know me! I can, however, assert that I do know more about the law than you do, as evidenced by the naivety in the way you list your points as being irrebuttable and closed. I think you will find the law is fluid, and the scope is much wider than the spectrum you see (and don't take my word for this - run it by a lawyer you trust).

But, nobody has yet offered an alternative to the incorporation of Blue Badge Scheme terms in the use of a private parking facility. If you can't offer an alternative solution, you really oughtn't criticise current practice.

grmc i agree that disabled places even in a private car park should not be abused by the non-disabled.
what however confuses me is that the charge notices that you put on the car windscreen says--it is an offence for an unauthorised person to remove the sticker
can u explain --
how is it an offence to remove a sticker from the windscreen, who is the authorised person who can remove the sticker .
under what authority are you considering someone authorised to remove the sticker