MSE News: Wheel clamping ban moves closer

taffy056

Altarf wrote: »

Provided the charge the PPC makes is not excessive, I doubt the courts will trouble themselves too much with this.

The problem is , over 750k invoices a year are ignored at the moment even if they took 10% of them to court, the whole small claims track would collapse under the weight of it all, also can the PPCs really afford to take so many there, lots and lots and lots of money tied up in the court process with no guarantee of winning cases.

Flyboy152

taffy056 wrote: »

Flyboy,

It's funny you saying about adult debate, you have yet to do that yourself, we have offered advice about your situation but you shout them all down and dismiss everything out of hand, then demand that the users of this forum come out with a solution to your needs, despite the fact that we don't know the lay of the land, whether you have applied for planning, whether you have asked the landlord, and so on.

On here you have offered nothing at all to this thread, only to show that you don't want to debate, you only want to shout your abuse on here accusing people of endorsing abuse of land and encouraging people to do that, you are obviously not worthy of debate as you are acting the troll on here, needless to say this will my last response to you on here !

You can pretend all you want, but you haven't demonstrated anything close to being able to converse in an honourable way. You spurious claims about others and when challenged you deny it, your care little for those whose rights are violated and have even less regard for those who try to remedy it.

Me, I don't give a hoot about your pointless crusade, all I care about is how to discourage the twits who prevent me form carrying out my business and who are too tight, lazy or stupid to pay for the parking that the vast majority of other drivers do.

I have told all you all you need to know, but you insist on ignoring that. I can only assume that you and your little friends are too consumed with themselves to bother about the other side of the coin. I can only assume that your dislike for being punished for trespassing on someones property, stems from your propensity to park where you are not wanted.

Hadeon

Altarf - I would be interested to learn how you interpret the proposals be applied in relation to owners/occupiers of allocated parking spaces who are currently clamped and/or ticketed for the heinous 'offence' of parking their own vehicles on their own land without displaying a 'permit'. (Or allowing others to do so with their permission).

trisontana

If PPCs are going to be given semi-official status then they need to be properly regulated, and not by the BPA. This official regulator, "Ofpark", would be given the powers to oversee all aspects of the private parking industry. This includes laying down rules over things such as the signage in a car-parks, the wording of the tickets left on cars, and the contents of the various letters sent out by the PPCs, their debt collectors, and solicitors.

If this was done then this should see the end of the various "threatograms", full of pseudo-legal mumbo-jumbo which are so beloved of the private parking industry

Altarf

taffy056 wrote: »

The problem is , over 750k invoices a year are ignored at the moment even if they took 10% of them to court, the whole small claims track would collapse under the weight of it all, also can the PPCs really afford to take so many there, lots and lots and lots of money tied up in the court process with no guarantee of winning cases.

According to the proposed bill's impact document, it is expected that £33.8 million of fees will be levied at an average of £75. The document suggests that 25% are currently not paid (but this is expected to fall to 10%). So at 25% failure that would mean 112k invoices not paid, not 750k.

And once the courts have decided whether, for example a £75 fee is acceptable, then are many people going to bother taking it to court. I doubt it.

Hadeon wrote: »

Altarf - I would be interested to learn how you interpret the proposals be applied in relation to owners/occupiers of allocated parking spaces who are currently clamped and/or ticketed for the heinous 'offence' of parking their own vehicles on their own land without displaying a 'permit'. (Or allowing others to do so with their permission).

The way I read the proposed legislation, it would come down simply to what the conditions and associated charges for parking were. If the parking charges were set at "free parking if you are displaying a permit, £75 if you are not", then the proposed legislation would allow the £75 parking fee if no permit was displayed to be collected from the driver or registered keeper.

trisontana

Altarf wrote: »

The way I read the proposed legislation, it would come down simply to what the conditions and associated charges for parking were. If the parking charges were set at "free parking if you are displaying a permit, £75 if you are not", then the proposed legislation would allow the £75 parking fee if no permit was displayed to be collected from the driver or registered keeper.

Would that also include such infringements of the "rules" as paying but overstaying a few minutes or having one wheel touching a white line? And what about parking on their yellow lines, which don't have have legal status?

Hadeon

Altarf wrote: »

The way I read the proposed legislation, it would come down simply to what the conditions and associated charges for parking were. If the parking charges were set at "free parking if you are displaying a permit, £75 if you are not", then the proposed legislation would allow the £75 parking fee if no permit was displayed to be collected from the driver or registered keeper.

I believe you've totally missed the point here, the owner of the land himself is being penalised & he has not set any conditions or charges for parking on his own land.
I use the term 'he' in the legally accepted sense.

taffy056

It's far higher than 25% not currently paid, it's closer to 70% of invoices are not paid, the source of this is the BPA and various PPCs over the last few months, this legislation if passed as is will not help them at all, they will not be able to take tens of thousands of people to court, win and force payment

Altarf

trisontana wrote:

Would that also include such infringements of the "rules" as paying but overstaying a few minutes or having one wheel touching a white line. And what about parking on their yellow lines, which don't have have legal status.

I think this is where it will come down to how the PPC's implement the proposed legislation and charges. To quote from the impact assessment - "If the motorist contends that a term is unfair, then the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 may be relevant. These Regulations provide that unfair terms are not binding on the consumer. Further, the Office of Fair Trading and local authority trading standards services could require the unfair term to be changed or ultimately bring enforcement action by way of injunction to prevent continued use of the unfair term."

Overstaying a few minutes. Would you expect to pay a higher fee in a council car park if you did this? Probably. How much, £60 or £30 if paid promptly.

Parking on a 'yellow line'. Depends why it is there. If it is to ensure there is access to the car park is that unreasonable? And again if you did this in a council car park what would you expect to pay?

Straying over a white line by an inch. I agree with you. But parked so far over that the next space is unusable? Again if you did this in a council car park what would you expect to pay?

If I was one of the PPCs (which I am not, and for the avoidance of doubt have nothing to with them or the operation of any car park), I would simply base my charges on what the nearby council car parks did in respect of infractions. And then if the charges were challenged in court, point to the charges levied by the democratically elected council operating identical facilities.

Hadeon wrote: »

I believe you've totally missed the point here, the owner of the land himself is being penalised & he has not set any conditions or charges for parking on his own land.
I use the term 'he' in the legally accepted sense.

Fair enough if you own the land, and have not appointed a management company to operate a set of rules regarding parking on the land. But most allocated parking is usually in connection with leased property, where the land is not owned. In which case, the rules will depend on what the lease says.

taffy056 wrote: »

It's far higher than 25% not currently paid, it's closer to 70% of invoices are not paid, the source of this is the BPA and various PPCs over the last few months, this legislation if passed as is will not help them at all, they will not be able to take tens of thousands of people to court, win and force payment

I would be interested in your source of your 75% figure. I am sure that if the BPA and various PPCs were only being paid 30% that they would have made that clear in their representations to the legislators, as it would have strengthened their argument that the proposed legislation is necessary.

And once a few cases have been through the courts, and assuming the PPCs have been sensible in their charges, and the driver or RK has lost, do you think that many people will be bothered to take the trouble.

mikey72

taffy056 wrote: »

Who condones abuse of a private owners land on here ? Really you are putting words in people's mouths, everyone of the people who contributes to this section on regular basis says the same thing, pay in legitimate charges to park a vehicle, but don't pay a ppc their invoices as they are unforceable .

Your problem is that you shout abuse in your posts on regular basis on here, if you wish I will link them , and that quote you mention is not abuse!

Don't think all the anti-clamping posters would say abuse wasn't condoned on here. Anything seems fair game here.

pgl0897 wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, anyone who parks their car anywhere apart from their own driveway is parking on "someone else's land".

The reason I have zero time for PPC's, clampers, and even "legal" traffic wardens etc, is the simple fact that YOU HAVE TO PARK SOMEWHERE. You can't disappear your car into your pocket and take it with you unfortunately.

The simple fact of the matter is that we have a situation in many parts of this country where there is just far too much volume of traffic on the roads, not enough decent, cheap and suitable parking for it, and not enough adequate public transport alternatives.

Therefore, imo, anyone who owns lands has to accept that either you take measures to gate off the property (if parking is that much of an issue for you) and only allow access to those you wish, or just stop moaning about it. This is quite clearly the simplest, best and fairest solution for everyone.

I also think that, if people were honest, it is not really a huge problem to have cars parking on your land in many cases. Especially where it's commercial premises. It's just a nuiscance, and the 'principle' of having someone who hasn't asked permission needing to leave their car there for a short time that gets you uppity. Get over it or put a gate up basically.