Anybody Heard of these?

robredz

This Manchester based ppc were adverising on the Independent site today, anyone heard of them?

http://www.parkingpatrol.co.uk/

trisontana

Yes. If you look at the top of this sub-forum you can see their letter chain. Yet another PPC with a name that supposed to look official.

robredz

trisontana wrote: »

Yes. If you look at the top of this sub-forum you can see their letter chain. Yet another PPC with a name that supposed to look official.

Some more of the usual bottom feeders then.

Kite2010

I wonder if those companies listed as "clients" are actually clients?

"By parking and ignoring the warning signs, the motorist has entered into a contract to pay a parking charge."
O Really, I thought to form a contract a driver has to see the signs they are supposed to be agreeing to.

" If a charge is not paid within 14 days the charge will increase to £90. If payment is not received within a further 14 days the charge becomes £120 and legal proceedings to retrieve the monies commence."
Oh my god, they will do legal proceeding to retrieve the monies not owed to them? What's that sending more letters from debt collectors?

"Each motorist that receives a parking charge ticket will find clear instructions of how to appeal."
In a Spanish/French Hybrid language

" the land owner/ manager has 21 days in which to cancel the ticket."
How kind of them, I bet they charge a "cancellation" fee of £60

"Each paid Parking Charge Ticket issued by YOU will result in a compensatory payment of £10 back to you."
Shame they will only give £10 back and not the full amount that try to claim, or give it back straight away without waiting for the non-payment

"
- What methods do you use to collect the parking charges?
At all times the collection of parking charges is carried out totally within the law and is processed through the small claims court."
Should say, "at all times the collection of parking invoices is carried out totally within the law and is processed through a series of threating letters saying lies like how we're going to steal everything you own to pay for you breaking the law by parking 1mm over the white line"

"After a site evaluation, we will erect our “Warning To Driver” signs at suitable locations as to allow each driver entering the site a clear view of the terms that the particular site has in force."
One of those signs with tiny writing which if you try and stop to read from the car on entering the car-park is impossible?

Oh they also issue "warning" notices on the 1st "offence", how very kind of them.

Overall, that website has given me the best laughs I've had for a while.

trisontana

If you look at their parking ticket its got that "It is an offence for an unauthorised person to remove or interfere with this notice" nonsense. What "offence" would that be then?

Kite2010

The offence of "removing a rubbish piece of paper from a windscreen act" 2001, issued in the country of lala land. Max penalty is a slap with a wet fish

old_school_bobby

trisontana wrote: »

If you look at their parking ticket its got that "It is an offence for an authorised person to remove or interfere with this notice" nonsense. What "offence" would that be then?

I'm a long-time serving police officer and I don't post on these forums because in the past it's led to a stream of requests for "free advice" and it's hard to say no. Please, don't take this post as an advert to provide legal services, but I've seen this question asked before and it amazes me nobody realises what offences they may be committing by removing one of these parking tickets.

Firstly, there is basic theft (section 1 of the Theft Act 1968):

"(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit."

To clarify in case it is needed; the ticket and pouch are property, they can belong only to the body issuing the ticket or the person to whom they are directed. In the case of private parking tickets I believe it is always issued to the driver, although if someone other than the driver is removing the vehicle, they may have some lawful reason to remove the ticket (i.e. removed by the registered keeper and because they intend to give it to the driver). So, at any point in time it belongs to either of the above parties and arguably it belongs to the issuing company right up until the point the driver appropriates it as his own and the company would therefore be the complainant in the case of a crime report of theft where the driver "never got the ticket".

"Appropriation" is VERY broad, and it includes assuming ANY of the rights of the owner so it's best to keep fingers off. Even reading the contents is a right of the owner (not to mention being private) so saying "I was going to put it back" is potentially irrelevant.

Theft carries a punishment of up to seven years in prison.

Then there is also section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971:

"A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence."

This is potentially easier to prove. It would require a fairly low level of intelligence not to realise that peeling a flimsy plastic pouch from a windscreen would damage it in some way. It does not matter that the pouch will be destroyed by the driver/owner of it during the course of them collecting it themselves, it is their sole right to do this.

Any complaint of theft or criminal damage in these cases would be legitimate and an arrest would be virtually certain. It would be up to the CPS to prosecute of course, but if the person taking the ticket or damaging it was not either the issuer or the driver then there's likely a good case to prosecute (and it'll be an easy crime detected for the stats, of course) so I would advise anyone not to even think of it - the chances are you'll be caught on a camera somewhere, especially in a car park.

Criminal Damage carries a punishment of up to ten years imprisonment.

trisontana

So by the above logic any piece of paper left on a car, even a flyer from a pizza restaurant, would be classed as "property" and subject to the same laws. Surely that can't be right.

esmerobbo

The law can be swayed to serve any purpose and as you state the act of theft is as you quoted but it could then be challenged by this section could it not?


(1) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as
dishonest-
(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to
deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s
consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
(c) (except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the
property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps

[a] If it is left on my car then I have the belief I have a right to it,

I would have the others consent as they left it for me!

[c] If I wished to return it to the issuer, and made attempts to find them and could not!

old_school_bobby

trisontana wrote: »

So by the above logic any piece of paper left on a car, even a flyer from a pizza restaurant, would be classed as "property" and subject to the same laws. Surely that can't be right.

Yes, it's right.

The person issuing the flyers owns them, and I'm fairly certain if asked that they'd tell you they put them on cars with the main intention that the driver would read them, therefore if they wanted to they could complain of theft.

There have been cases of theft where items left for the purposes of another's benefit (such as newspapers or milk) and have been taken, EVEN though the person taking them leaves money, it is still theft.

However, the analogy of flyers on windscreens is not at all valid as a comparator on account they are distributed to everyone and it's unlikely that the distributor would complain if it were removed from a windscreen as long as "someone" reads it.

A ticket is undeniably for nobody other than the driver or someone else connected with the driver. Advice is to leave them alone.

trisontana

But can you seriously beleive that the police or the CPS would actually get involved in such a case, especially as many of these notices are breaking the law by pretending, by their markings or wording, to be tickets issued by councils or the police?