Maybe promoted from a PPC to a CEO?

ppc_guy

27col wrote: »

I don't think it's the spelling that is particularly bad, but the typing is atrocious. He appears to have pride in his company and its methods, but absolutely none in his typing. But at least he had the guts to stand up for what he is doing for a living.
There is definitely something needing to be done about commuters who park all day, but I am not sure what it could be. I think that these people have a damn cheek expecting someone to subsidise their commuting costs.

Most of what i do is also Deterant. For example if i arrive somewhere and see someone leaving a car i ALWAYS ask do they have permission to be there and i explain i am the PEO. If they do have permission i say thanks and let them get on with it. If not i suggest they move as i will be issuign tickets if they dont. I think this is fair.

Also i normally take pride in my typing but some of the posts on here are VERY long and a few of my replies have been typed in haste or in the dark so as not to wake/disturb my partner whislt she sleeps. Our 1 year old son can be a pain at night.

bromsgrovebarry

I still think that the PPC should receive their revenue soley from the landowner who is then able to charge rogue parkers based on information supplied by the PPC. Its is the landowner not the PPC who makes a loss through rogue parking and should be able to seek compensation based on actual losses incurred. The PPC should be able to do the job of reporting rogue parkers and not becoming a bounty hunter. Yes, landowners will not like paying PPCs when they have had their services for free but they will resume control of their car parks and will not lose customer goodwill by the issue of unenforceable 'fines'. In the grand scheme of superstores and other retailers, car park management charges would be minsicule in comparison with refits and other corporate costs.

ppc_guy

bromsgrovebarry wrote: »

I still think that the PPC should receive their revenue soley from the landowner who is then able to charge rogue parkers based on information supplied by the PPC. Its is the landowner not the PPC who makes a loss through rogue parking and should be able to seek compensation based on actual losses incurred. The PPC should be able to do the job of reporting rogue parkers and not becoming a bounty hunter. Yes, landowners will not like paying PPCs when they have had their services for free but they will resume control of their car parks and will not lose customer goodwill by the issue of unenforeceable 'fines'. In the grand scheme of superstores and other retailers, car park management charges would be minsicule in comparison with refits and other corporate costs.

As i have said i operate in the manner where the landowner is totally in charge. Infact i cancelled a ticket today because the person in concern parked in a no parking area with no permit. he claimed to be allowed to park there. We knocked the pub door to ask but the landlord was out. I said if he has permission to park there i will just cancel the ticket. I went today off my own back (not after getting any contact from the driver or landlord) but of my own back to see if the man was correct. he was and has now been given a permit and his ticket has been cancelled by me.
(and i think no typos :P)

anewman

Say if I have a sign on my dashboard. It says "any materials placed on this windscreen will incur a removal charge of £90, by placing any materials on this windscreen you hereby agree to these contractual conditions". Why is your sign "legal" and enforceable and mine on the dashboard not? I'd say my sign on the dashboard is probably more enforceable, not that I'd bring a court case about it as I doubt it would win.

ppc_guy

anewman wrote: »

Say if I have a sign on my dashboard. It says "any materials placed on this windscreen will incur a removal charge of £90, by placing any materials on this windscreen you hereby agree to these contractual conditions". Why is your sign "legal" and enforceable and mine on the dashboard not? I'd say my sign on the dashboard is probably more enforceable, not that I'd bring a court case about it as I doubt it would win.

I'd place it on the drivers side window

bromsgrovebarry

Yes but like it or not, you are operating as a bounty hunter. I appreciate that you have a sense of ethics but you are not the party incurring the cost. Soon it will become common knowledge that PPC charges are unenforceable and your business model will cease to be viable. You work for the landowner, they pay you and rogue parkers reimburse the landowners for losses incurred. That would be an honest system. Oh and my typos will beat yours any day!

ppc_guy

bromsgrovebarry wrote: »

Yes but like it or not, you are operating as a bounty hunter. I appreciate that you have a sense of ethics but you are not the party incurring the cost. Soon it will become common knowledge that PPC charges are unenforceable and your business model will cease to be viable. You work for the landowner, they pay you and rogue parkers reimburse the landowners for losses incurred. That would be an honest system. Oh and my typos will beat yours any day!

Haha ! my typos have been mentioned several times but as you can see i get peak periods on here.. Normally about now just after the soaps :P

The method you outline would put more work on the already busy publican/manager/insert position here

I am not a bounty hunter as i have said where possible i will ask the vehicle to move and inform them they are on private proeprty. This gives them fair chance to move. I have also said i tend to "oversign" areas i control if i was in it sheerly for the profits then i would put barely any signs up.In one site near a uni I have 26 signs on a 200yd access road and around the front and back of a building i could get away with less than half that number but i want people to KNOW not to park there

bromsgrovebarry

I use the term bounty hunter because you make your profit from catching people allegedly breaking rules. You and other PPCs have a vested interest in catching as many people as possible. This does nothing to deal with rogue parkers who already know that your threats are meaningless. As mentioned before, you are running out of time and I suspect you know it. I respect you for coming on here to have a mature discussion on car parking but we must face the facts. I do not want to subsidise rogue parkers who hog car park spaces for free but making up bogus 'fines' is not the solution either.

ppc_guy

bromsgrovebarry wrote: »

I use the term bounty hunter because you make your profit from catching people allegedly breaking rules. You and other PPCs have a vested interest in catching as many people as possible. This does nothing to deal with rogue parkers who already know that your threats are meaningless. As mentioned before, you are running out of time and I suspect you know it. I respect you for coming on here to have a mature discussion on car parking but we must face the facts. I do not want to subsidise rogue parkers who hog car park spaces for free but making up bogus 'fines' is not the solution either.

If i have a vested interest in making profit (which overall i must do its a business) then why would i warn people on the land i control and ask them to move on? I do this becuase i feel everyone deserves a chance if i see a car 3/4/5/6 times in the same site doing the same thing i know they are just taking the pi** and they deserve a ticket.
i am also in the process of undergoing police accreditation in order to be seen to operate better. this is a £3k+ porcess paid for by me on my own choice.

bromsgrovebarry

I too run a business and am aware of the need to make an operating profit. I also see the need be aware of changes in consumer behaviour and legislation. You can keep issuing tickets, we can keep advising people to ignore them and we could agree to disagree. Anyway, tax asessment to complete so I wish you luck.