Parking - The great debate

taffy056

ppc_guy wrote: »

No becuase the conversation totaly deteriorated

I for one am glad you have posted this here, I don't agree with you on a lot of points, but that is what a discussion forum is for , to discuss, you give us a different perspective on things, and its food for thought, its a shame that the other ppc's don't follow your example.

Still I think you are the problem in a lot of cases, and by you I mean the whole PPC industry, not you personally

Driver8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAIcdi9niHA

That say's what we all need to know.

ppc_guy

Yes PPC'S do cause most of the issues by being overzealous. If they operated in a better fairer way there would be less uproar. We should have a association that actually does anything unlike the BPA who take money from PPC's but dont have power to do anything else.

muckybutt

ppc_guy wrote: »

A better option to defeat commuters would be a maximum stay of say 6 hours a normal person working 9-5 would be gone for at least 8 hours. i know i would be bored of shopping after 6 hours.

A common sence approach, but what would the penalty be for overstaying ?

muckybutt

ppc_guy wrote: »

Yes PPC'S do cause most of the issues by being overzealous. If they operated in a better fairer way there would be less uproar. We should have a association that actually does anything unlike the BPA who take money from PPC's but dont have power to do anything else.

A completely independant non profit tribunal service for starters.

BTW good point again :T

Harry_Flashman

This isn't a personal attack so please don't take it that way.

All the way through this, you talk of 'issuing a ticket'. Surely 'tickets' are a law enforcement tool and a parking company has no place in the law enforcement system. I've never had a ticket, but if I did, can you tell me why I should pay any penalty charge?

ppc_guy

The amount for overstaying would have to be suitably high enough to put people off doing it again. But also not to a level where people will not pay. Another diea would also be a strikes system where all vehicles spotted in contravention are stored on a central DB. After the 1st offence the RK details should be requested and a polite letter stating the vehicles was parked in a regulated area and that if the same were to happen in the futurue a £50 ticket would be issued. This would then do two things it would inform the RK that the site is controlled so they could not say they were unaware. It would also inform them in writing that the consequence is a £50 ticket. and thirdly it would in theory let them off the first time.
The second time they should be applied with the ticket as agreed or a second warning notice stuck to the vehicle. The third time would reuslt int he ticket and there is no way on earth peple could argue this system would be unfair.

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.

ppc_guy

muckybutt wrote: »

A completely independant non profit tribunal service for starters.

BTW good point again :T

Who would finance such an operation ?

peter_the_piper

Councils pay for each arbitration so take a guess. lol.

ppc_guy

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

This isn't a personal attack so please don't take it that way.

All the way through this, you talk of 'issuing a ticket'. Surely 'tickets' are a law enforcement tool and a parking company has no place in the law enforcement system. I've never had a ticket, but if I did, can you tell me why I should pay any penalty charge?

Tickets are pieces of paper/card with detials on them. at tesco/asda/insetsuprermakertname you get a ticket for the fish counter.
Its just a common term to describe the item.
Any tickets i issue are tickets that i feel are fairly issued for contravention of the terms and conditions of a site.
This includes ensuring people are made awar eof the contract (or making reasonable eofforts to inform people)