Parking - The great debate

ppc_guy

peter_the_piper wrote: »

What my neighbour did, hooked it to his tractor and towed it to a lane nearby.

Which is classed as criminal damage and would be illegal and deemed so in a UK Court of law.

Also is this what you suggest PPC's start doing

(this isnt meant as an attack or arguement but i trying to get people to see both sides of the story as i read it)

peter_the_piper

Sorry. forgot the laughing smilies.

taffy056

Ok if you were to go down the route of sending polite notices before an invoice, you would still need the RK details so would pay £2.50 for those details so would be out of pocket, so you would swallow that charge without hope of getting anything back ?

On that, what happens if the vehicle is sold in between ? Do you again swallow that charge? And if you follow all this together with an appeals process, wouldn't you be driving yourself out of business? Really the only management that works is one of total management that requires a few people working at each site imo

Fergie76

ppc_guy wrote: »

The amount for overstaying would have to be suitably high enough to put people off doing it again.

But a private company can't penalise a private citizen. Why not just sue through the courts for any loss the land owner has occurred. No one could argue with that.

ppc_guy wrote: »

Another option is to write to the RK and inform them that their vehicle is not welcome onto the site and then they would be awarenot to come onto the site if they were rpeat offenders.

I'm sure a Retailer would be happy with scaring off their customers.

esmerobbo

ppc_guy wrote: »

Again some people with morals (and providing the charge was reasonable) might still pay.

This whole issue is caused by people flouting the situation.
What would YOU (abiguous not defined) do if someone parked on your front drive way without your permission?

Then they would be an abuser and not a user so I would wish to penalise them.

However I would thank them for the drive they must have built to park on as I didn't have one before they parked!:rotfl:

ppc_guy

taffy056 wrote: »

Ok if you were to go down the route of sending polite notices before an invoice, you would still need the RK details so would pay £2.50 for those details so would be out of pocket, so you would swallow that charge without hope of getting anything back ?

On that, what happens if the vehicle is sold in between ? Do you again swallow that charge? And if you follow all this together with an appeals process, wouldn't you be driving yourself out of business? Really the only management that works is one of total management that requires a few people working at each site imo

Yes is the simple answer. If this option was adopted it would be provided as a charged for service (either fee per month or fee per infraction) and the land owner would pay.

the appeals thing i think the ONLY fair way to go is start a "civil Parking Notice aribtration" service.
I think that is a truely good idea but god knows how you start one with any value in terms of contracts and so forth.

Many people at one site would be more costly than having noone and taking a hit.

With the RK sale issue if there was a mutual appeals system then it would go to them with the ticketed person knowing that there is a fair appeals system the appeals service would then check us to see what details are stored on file. If they differ then the appeal would be accepted on terms that to appeal you have to privde your name and address os this would not cost the PPC the extra £2.50

ppc_guy

Fergie76 wrote: »

But a private company can't penalise a private citizen. Why not just sue through the courts for any loss the land owner has occurred. No one could argue with that.



I'm sure a Retailer would be happy with scaring off their customers.

Courts take time and extra cost and would overwirte the benefits.

A penalty is a unjust high fee for an action. If the signs were better organised and layed out unlike the rules the BPA put unto us then there would be no reasons to say it was unfair but at the same time if i charge £10 then who is goign to be bothered about that being realisitc and honest.

Fergie76

ppc_guy wrote: »

Courts take time and extra cost and would overwirte the benefits.

So your business model fails.

ppc_guy wrote: »

A penalty is a unjust high fee for an action.

Correct and I would argue anything over and above what the Land Owner has lost, is an unjust high fee.

Harry_Flashman

Talking of high fees - I've just been chatting with a mate on Facebook and he's a travelling parking attendant. He gives out £100 tickets apparently

ppc_guy

Fergie76 wrote: »

So your business model fails.



Correct and I would argue anything over and above what the Land Owner has lost, is an unjust high fee.

Ok so the landowners loss would be construed of my hourly fee of £10 for the preperation and appropriation of a solicor, Legal documents and my time for the attendance of court. This would then be more than the ticket was worth and is exactly how PPC's would avert to if they were made to charge just for losses