Warning - apcoa - must see

Driver8

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

You must not argue with sassy, or he'll close the thread. But your advice is correct.

I would also say that taking advice from para legals who hide behind nics and deliver up zip proofs of their arguments is fanciful. If you cut through the inept arguments and folklores, you will find that this thread has actually delivered some truths:

1) people have had and continue to have judgments against them, contrary to the myths they don't exist
2) no one would be foolish enough to expect all judgements to go in favour of PPCs
3) oracles are always generous with other people's time and money
4) keep a paper trail just incase
5) the law is not an exact science and often very subjective
6)just because you find a flyer on your windscreen from an article clerk don't make it so
7) PPC's couldn't care less if they lose a pursuit, the objective is public awareness that their client wants to make good use of his/her carpark by making things difficult for inconsiderate users. A court action now and again keeps up the profile.
8) fiction often presents as fact, if enough people are willing to go along with it
9) a stoich and defiant defence after defeat is the oil that lubricates discussion boards.

Is that a go at me for leaving information in windscreens? Wat's an article clerk by the way?

If it is a go at me all well and good, for that i'm going to do another car park in your honour. You obviously do not like the truth getting out. Tough.

If this and other forums were not having an effect you would not be on here and you know it. But because the truth is getting out there and hurting your tills, again, tough.

anewman

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

7) PPC's couldn't care less if they lose a pursuit, the objective is public awareness that their client wants to make good use of his/her carpark by making things difficult for inconsiderate users. A court action now and again keeps up the profile.

Exactly the reason it is believed Perky likes to bring sham cases where the case is so poorly defended that the judgement could only possibly go in the PPC's favour. In the 3 PDF's recently posted, 2 appeared poorly defended, relying solely on visibility of signs. The first discussed whether the charge represented a penalty, but the judge seems to come up with some peculiar ideas on the subject.

We're brought again to the "no properly defended case can lose" statement. Sometimes judges need directing on points of law, and miss some points on improperly defended cases like those in the PDF's. If you do not ask the judge to consider the charge an unenforceable contractual penalty and refer to previous caselaw, how can you expect the judge to make a judgement based on that?!

Stigy

Driver8 wrote: »

Is that a go at me for leaving information in windscreens? Wat's an article clerk by the way?

If it is a go at me all well and good, for that i'm going to do another car park in your honour. You obviously do not like the truth getting out. Tough.

If this and other forums were not having an effect you would not be on here and you know it. But because the truth is getting out there and hurting your tills, again, tough.

Unfortunately, I fear that most people will see a silly piece of A4 paper under their wiper blades (that's more than likely not even a laminated sheet) and simply chose to litter the car park with it. I suppose if nothing else it serves to make a private car park messy and uninviting. On the plus side, it's only your own time you're wasting I suppose....Well, maybe a litter picker's, too.

Stigy

Driver8 wrote: »

Is that a go at me for leaving information in windscreens? Wat's an article clerk by the way?

If it is a go at me all well and good, for that i'm going to do another car park in your honour. You obviously do not like the truth getting out. Tough.

If this and other forums were not having an effect you would not be on here and you know it. But because the truth is getting out there and hurting your tills, again, tough.

Unfortunately, I fear that most people will see a silly piece of A4 paper under their wiper blades (that's more than likely not even a laminated sheet) and simply chose to litter the car park with it. I suppose if nothing else it serves to make a private car park messy and uninviting. On the plus side, it's only your own time you're wasting I suppose....Well, maybe a litter picker's, too.

News Flash for those of you who stick silly sheets of unlaminated A4 paper to windscreens - People don't even read them, as they see them as flyers, like the ones you get through your letter boxes at home, usually advertising takaways or the latest offer at Lidl.

Driver8

Stigy wrote: »

Unfortunately, I fear that most people will see a silly piece of A4 paper under their wiper blades (that's more than likely not even a laminated sheet) and simply chose to litter the car park with it. I suppose if nothing else it serves to make a private car park messy and uninviting. On the plus side, it's only your own time you're wasting I suppose....Well, maybe a litter picker's, too.

Do be quiet you silly little boy.

I do it because i am sick to the pits of my stomach of people being ripped off by the likes of you and your ilk. Let's face facts, you do not like me doing it because you do not want the word to get out of the scam what is going on, period.

The amount of people i have spoken to and passed on what the scam is is unbelievable. One woman told me in Morley how she had paid two and will never pay another one again.

When people of your ilk post such ridiculous comment's like you do, it just makes me print more off and get the word out more, and do you know what you don't like? It is the fact you can do absolutely sod all about it. Tough.

As for wasting my time, you wish i did.

Stigy

Driver8 wrote: »

Do be quiet you silly little boy.

I do it because i am sick to the pits of my stomach of people being ripped off by the likes of you and your ilk. Let's face facts, you do not like me doing it because you do not want the word to get out of the scam what is going on, period.

The amount of people i have spoken to and passed on what the scam is is unbelievable. One woman told me in Morley how she had paid two and will never pay another one again.

When people of your ilk post such ridiculous comment's like you do, it just makes me print more off and get the word out more, and do you know what you don't like? It is the fact you can do absolutely sod all about it. Tough.

As for wasting my time, you wish i did.

Relax, I'm just humouring the likes of you. I've got far bigger fish to fry than some low-life leaflet distributor. I honestly couldn't care less about you wasting your time, you obviously have nothing better to do...You're obviously very important, as you pay £600 tax and NI a month. I wouldn't care if private parking enforcement was all made illegal tomorrow, as I would still have a job.

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry

Driver8 wrote: »

Is that a go at me for leaving information in windscreens? Wat's an article clerk by the way?

If it is a go at me all well and good, for that i'm going to do another car park in your honour. You obviously do not like the truth getting out. Tough.

If this and other forums were not having an effect you would not be on here and you know it. But because the truth is getting out there and hurting your tills, again, tough.

Well no actually, but if it's spurred you on then that's a good thing. If people actually do read the flyer they might actually take the time to read the signs and feel some pang of responibility to other users by not hogging two parking bays, obstructing a disabled bay, using a parking lot as a convenience while they takeoff for an all dayer at some other establishment, while frustrated legitimate users drive around swearing under their breaths at not being able to find a park.

It matters not to me what your truths are and how tough they are. It doesn't affect my tills one iota.

The simple solution is for users to play by the rules. It seems to work very well for the vast majority, but the few who cry foul because they can't be fagged doing the right thing in the first place.

It amuses me how quickly wrong doers can get support from discussion forums, simply because they present as the "enemy of my
enemy" and therefore must be friends. The fact we don't know anything about our 'friend' doesn't matter, for all we know he could be a recidivist trouble maker, a liar, a troll, etc, but that doesn't stop us freely giving spurious advice.

Go over to that other site that presents as the white knight and look at how many threads quickly peter out when some victim finds himself actually going to court. The rush is on to refer them anywhere else but in the forum where bad news is never good news.

Driver8

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

Well no actually, but if it's spurred you on then that's a good thing. If people actually do read the flyer they might actually take the time to read the signs and feel some pang of responibility to other users by not hogging two parking bays, obstructing a disabled bay, using a parking lot as a convenience while they takeoff for an all dayer at some other establishment, while frustrated legitimate users drive around swearing under their breaths at not being able to find a park.

It matters not to me what your truths are and how tough they are. It doesn't affect my tills one iota.

The simple solution is for users to play by the rules. It seems to work very well for the vast majority, but the few who cry foul because they can't be fagged doing the right thing in the first place.

It amuses me how quickly wrong doers can get support from discussion forums, simply because they present as the "enemy of my
enemy" and therefore must be friends. The fact we don't know anything about our 'friend' doesn't matter, for all we know he could be a recidivist trouble maker, a liar, a troll, etc, but that doesn't stop us freely giving spurious advice.

Go over to that other site that presents as the white knight and look at how many threads quickly peter out when some victim finds himself actually going to court. The rush is on to refer them anywhere else but in the forum where bad news is never good news.

What court room, what forum? You're losing it. You're getting desperate now, you are aren't you?

Do you lick window's?

esmerobbo

Messrs_Arthur_and_Terry wrote: »

.The simple solution is for users to play by the rules. It seems to work very well for the vast majority, .

So we play by the rules!

1 We park in Asda, Morrisons, Aldi, Lidl or wherever we have a legitimate reason to be there, as we are spending at these shops. However we overstay by a few minutes we then receive a charge of £60. Please explain the rule that penalises somebody for actually using the facilities the car park is there to provide.

2 We enter a car park which may be well marked or may not; we park slightly over the lines, or indeed block two bays. This is inconsiderate parking but as most car parks are free then it is not depriving the owners of payment. So can a £60 charge be justified?

3 The PPCs take great care in pointing out that blue badge concessions do not apply in their car parks. Yet how many here have had charges levied against them for parking in a disabled bay and not displaying their badge, or placing their badge upside down. The blue badge is a scheme to allow parking in areas where it is normally not allowed, or concessionary parking in pay and displays. If the blue badge carries no authority with the PPCs then why do they use it to their end? If a disabled driver has been charged and then appeals sending proof of their disability, the charge is almost always upheld.

4 The PPC make rules regarding the use of the car parks that entrap people into breaking them. Setting times to catch people out. Too short a staying period, we have one here local with a 3 hour limit it has 31 shops? Setting return times to trap people. If we buy something from B&Q at this site which is faulty, we return to the car park to return it within the disallowed time a charge of £60 is levied. So once again we have a legitimate reason to be at this site yet we are penalised.

I understand that abuse of these car parks does indeed go on. It is these abusers who should carry the burden of being charged. Somebody who parks all day who has no legitimate reason for being on the car park indeed should be liable. However most of these car park regulations are set to trap the majority of people who have a legitimate reason to be parked. The operators are looking out for the slightest opportunity to place these charges on people.

It is the way these companies have operated that has brought so much resentment towards them. From the initial contact which is often a charge notice placed on the screen, which for no other reason than to intimidate is made to look like an official penalty charge notice! Then there are the letters sent by these companies, which quote nonsensical statements. We are often accused of being barrack room lawyers. Yet it seems most of the misinformed law quoting comes from these companies. Quotes such as “it is the registered keeper’s responsibility for these charges”. The quoting of “pre-action protocols” and the quoting of sections of the RTA to try and enforce their authority.

The use of intimidating tactics used to scare people, passing the invoice to the next desk which is now a debt collection agency. Or even passing it to a debt collection agency. Who then go on to make more threats to send debt collectors and or bailiffs to seize goods, and the threat of placing a marker on a person’s credit reference file.

If what you think is a just and ethical business why does it need to breach so many regulations and make outlandish statements to try and force people in to paying these charges? Surely if your business was so soundly ethical we would see a whole lot more of these CCJ you so like to quote. The whole backlash against these companies has been brought about by themselves. If the system was set to stop abuse in the first instance it was soon consumed by the greed that charging for every little indiscretion soon brought that has increased the resistance to these charges.

We are beginning to see some companies now dispensing with the PPCs as they become aware that there use is damaging their company image. I would like to see who made the initial contact between some of these companies. Was it the companies themselves who thought they had a car park problem? Or was it the PPC who suggested they had a problem and offered their services to fix it.
So yes let’s play by the rules, but first let’s set them. Let’s be fair and objective if there is a problem then let’s have a fair resolution to it. Let’s stop the threats, the lies, and let’s not make it up as we go along!

trisontana

Stigy wrote: »

Unfortunately, I fear that most people will see a silly piece of A4 paper under their wiper blades (that's more than likely not even a laminated sheet) and simply chose to litter the car park with it. I suppose if nothing else it serves to make a private car park messy and uninviting. On the plus side, it's only your own time you're wasting I suppose....Well, maybe a litter picker's, too.

He could include the words "warning, it is an offence for unauthorised persons to remove this notice". I know it's meaningless, but that doesn't stop various PPCs using this very same wording on their bits of toilet paper.