Parking - The great debate

robredz

muckybutt wrote: »

Why is validation required when its not a legally enforceable bay ? its upto you the ppc to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person is disabled, we dont have to prove anything !

Sorry surely it should read that the ppc must prove on the balance of probabilities (civil test here) the person IS NOT disabled not the other way round

ppc_guy

lucylucky wrote: »

As anyone can park in these spaces as they have no legal standing why do you even bother to ticket them?

We ticket them out of courtesy to the disabled people who are entitled to use them

muckybutt

ppc_guy wrote: »

If this was put to me in an apeal and we could be shown this was the case then the appeal would be accepted. Why should I appeal ? I have disabled people in my car that are using the services.


Point 3 nulls point 2. Not IMO
We dont aggrivate anyone we simply apply a ticket an then go on our way. If we got an appeal letter then we would cancel the ticket. OK, I choose to ignore the ticket, what do you do then ?


and when the barriers are damaged every week because people dont want to pay? Having worked in a place of employment where barriers have been installed - once in 12 months was I called upon to replace a broken arm, certainly not weekly.

Skirted around a few of the points I raised, why try to enforce something which is not enforceable ?

lucylucky

ppc_guy wrote: »

Will you go away ? you have nothing of any weight to add to this conversation and all comments add have been stupid and personal atacks on me.

I think the attacks are intended for the company as opposed to the person. however as you are representing the company they may appear personal.

lucylucky

ppc_guy wrote: »

We ticket them out of courtesy to the disabled people who are entitled to use them

Everyone and anyone is entitled to use these spaces.

There is no "entitlement" required.

Driver8

ppc_guy wrote: »

Will you go away ? you have nothing of any weight to add to this conversation and all comments add have been stupid and personal atacks on me.

If you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen.

You have an affront to come on here to try and justify your existing money making scam. It doesn't wash with me.

You whole business is built around lie's and and more or less demanding money with menace's, therefore, i will get the word out about money making scam operation's like your's.

Company's like your's send scam invoice's out to people who do not have the knowledge and unfortunately pay them. I aim to make sure more and more people are aware of the scam going on. It's as simple as that.

Just give the real reason you are on here. It won't be for some "ethical" reason either.

robredz

esmerobbo wrote: »

The only person who should ever receive a valid invoice for car parking is the car park abuser! Anybody who has a legitimate reason for being on the site should not receive an invoice. Can we go in a store and state they have to serve us within a given time. Are we not allowed to return goods which are faulty or do not fit because if we do we run foul of the no return clause.

The only reason any company or landlord would wish to give a PPC control over their car park would be to avoid abuse, the PPC's have taken it on themselves to penalise for very trivial matters and charge ridiculous amounts for doing so.

The PPC's have shot themselves in the foot and I believe any acceptance of them will be hard won. There is a better way to deal with commuter abuse and it would probably be easier to enforce if done correctly. The PPC system was set up not to alleviate a problem but to gain revenue, that's why we see so many ridiculous contraventions.

Well put esmerobbo, if I am on a site with no charge for parking, that has a cinema, a Maccy D, a Pizza Hut, other retail establishments and a ppc puts an arbitrary 2 hour limit, for parking which means I have to leave the cinema before a 2 hour film ends or not take the kids for a Maccy D or pizza after the movie because of this, how can they argue it is not purely for maximisation of "THEIR" revenue, and actually to the detriment of the other outlets on the site?

ppc_guy

robredz wrote: »

Sorry surely it should read that the ppc mustl prove on the balance of probabilities (civil test here) the person IS NOT disabled not the other way round

As i have explaine my sites are done on terms of failing to display a valid permit. Valid is defined by me. Therefore i choose to accept valid UK blue badges as proof of disability.
the ticket is issued for failing to display a valid permit not for disability or otherwise

ppc_guy

lucylucky wrote: »

I think the attacks are intended for the company as opposed to the person. however as you are representing the company they may appear personal.

No he refers to ME being a cop and ME being a uk citizen. not a company or anything similar.

peter_the_piper

That is the problem, shops are legally obliged to provide them but they are they obliged to make them available.