MSE News: Government urged to tackle dodgy private parking firms

peter_the_piper

I think that I may be slightly at odds here. I do not have a problem with charging for parking and there is probably a need for someone to run the park. What I don't believe in is trying to penalise for being slight;y out of bay or a minute or two late. If the charge for overstaying your welcome was either half or a whole days fee then it would be reasonable and most of us would say "sod it" and pay up. (Mind you "pay on exit" barriers would solve this problem anyway without ppc.) So I feel that allowing the local council to run it with the appropriate and current adjudication would solve the problem and do away with the need for a private parking industry.

TwistedPsycho

I find it quite difficult to see a solution where the balance of the rights of land owners and the rights of vehicle owners will tick all the boxes.

Remove the PPC's and landowners close to town centres and transport hubs may find themselves overun with chancers; keeping it as it is now appears unworkable in the longer term.

Maybe there should be a two-pronged approach to parking. Open (IE Unbarriered) parking facilities such as supermarket car parks, etc should come under the parking enforcement of a council maintained department. Any landowner that wishes for those parking there to be penalised for overstaying, parking across bays, parking in blue badge bays, etc; must use this organisation, must pay for its service, but may also negotiate reasonable terms and conditions (IE length of stay, penalty chargable, etc) that will be enforced. The enofrcement organisation is then singly responsible for complying with legal requirements over signage etc and as it is sub-managed by the local councils would obviously then come under more transparent scrutiny.

Any PPC style company that is involved would have to place a barrier to causal entry into any premises it runs. Along with publishing fees and tariffs at the entrance would then give the unwary driver the opportunity to agree and take a ticket in order to park or find somewhere else. Go one step further and install evidential cameras to capture the face of the driver and we have closed another reasonable loophole.

If the car park does not comply with either of the above it can not charge a parking fee or "penalty" of any kind.

This what I believe would happen. PPC's that install barriers at car parks will either start losing money or start using actual evidence to actually take people to court and then would have to clean up their act; whereas the organisations run at arms length to the council will clean up the act of open access car parks and may actually stimulate some employment in their respective county/borough.

Rogue PPC's would be forced into going to court to recover penalties because of the expenditure of installing barriers and cameras and would have to clean up their act or get laughed out of court and eventually go out of business.

People who deliberately circumvent PPC's as they stand now, would be in for a very big shock when their loophole gets closed.

AlexisV

Simply ban every private parking company from any activity other than selling time to park, and have the government set up its own company for policing.

Landowners who want to regulate parking would have to use the new government agency who would issue their own 'DIY kit' which would consist of approved signage, tickets and requirements for signs and lines. Each piece of land would require its own equivalent of Off Street Parking Regulation Order.

Every ticket issued would be routed through the government's own agency and would have to be accompanied by photos from the landowner (or his agent) and a statement on a standard form. Any payment would go this agency and then the landowner would get his cut.

Any appeals would be dealt with by the government agency. All appeal results would be available on a website for transparency.

In the event of non-payment, the government agency would then send the equivalent of a Notice to Owner to the owner after 28 days (who would be liable) etc. etc.

steve1500

Like many I cannot see why this function cannot be transferred over to the public sector. It is not as though we don't already have the infrastructure in place for issuing parking tickets etc. Better the money coming to "us" than going to a bunch ..........

Re the use of barriers - The Sainsbury's in Huddersfield uses them, which seems very sensible solution, you get the card swiped at checkout to lift the barrier. The only irony to this, is, that their car park has about 4 people from Euro Car Park patrolling it. Make sense of that one

DaveF327

steve1500 wrote: »

Like many I cannot see why this function cannot be transferred over to the public sector.

100% agreed. Bring back the yellow hatted traffic wardens that used to work for police forces. They were fair, approachable and generally deterred motorists from parking badly where possible before pouncing with a ticket.

Back in the day when I got the odd ticket from a police warden, it was always a fair cop where I had pushed my luck and they were generous with their time allowances before ticketing. In many towns, there were only one or two that had to cover the whole town rather than these money-grabbing, target-driven, highly efficient multi-tasking teams of private muppets who use questionable tactics to maximise revenue.

Coblcris

DaveF327 wrote: »

If the government want to tackle a big issue about private parking restrictions and these woolly termed "contracts", there should be regulation regarding the size of lettering on signage on entering the car park. The lettering should be at least of the same legal size and type as other on-road direction signs.

This way, drivers should have the opportunity to turn around and leave a car park without penalty (yes, i use that term figuratively) if they don't agree to be bound by any contract. Those parking-eye cameras are very worrying, particularly if they snap you entering and leaving without regard to whether you parked there or not or whether you returned for a genuine reason.

Regulation should exist which allows shoppers to take a reasonable time (sometimes over 2 hours) to do their shopping at large retail parks and to leave the site on foot for a legitimate reason (cash-point, visit neighbouring shops etc.) for a reasonable amount of time, providing they're not commuters disappearing all day on a train. Regulation should provide for the unenforcability of the constraints of a contract where the defendant can show in civil proceedings that their actions were reasonable and that their visit didn't deprive the landowner of any significant income.

My apologies but I disagree utterly with this.
Contract (and tort) law aplenty already exists.

'Regulation' not only adds a veneer or purported legitimacy, it would be 'self regulation'. History tells us that self regulation always fails.
Of what use to the motorists is the BPA ? I hazard none at all.

Need one say more ?

HO87

Coblcris wrote: »

My apologies but I disagree utterly with this.
Contract (and tort) law aplenty already exists.

I couldn't agree more. Furthermore, this much vaunted need for an independant adjudicator is already met. The adjudication body is called the Small Claims Court.

Coblcris wrote: »

'Regulation' not only adds a veneer or purported legitimacy, it would be 'self regulation'. History tells us that self regulation always fails.

Precisely. The "regulation" debate is being used as a cover. The whole legality of the PPC business model needs to be discussed before we get anywhere near regulation.

Coblcris wrote: »

Of what use to the motorists is the BPA ? I hazard none at all.

Agreed. The BPA is a plain, old-fashioned, straight-up-and-down trade protection society. Dressing itself up as a touchy-feely quasi-regulator-that-isn't is never going to hide the inevitable truth that it is a body funded by its members with the sole intention of protecting and furthering its membership's interests. Anymore of the handwringing concern for the public good will induce severe nausea.

AlexisV

Nice to see Patrick of the BPA being grilled on watchdog last week. Watching him squirm whilst being asked who pays his wages was most entertaining.

wingwalker44

Info needed
If a person legitimately refuses to pay a parking "fine" (ie invoice) and then debt collectors become involved with their threatening letters, when the alleged debt is still not paid would it eventually affect that person's credit rating?

trisontana

wingwalker44 wrote: »

Info needed
If a person legitimately refuses to pay a parking "fine" (ie invoice) and then debt collectors become involved with their threatening letters, when the alleged debt is still not paid would it eventually affect that person's credit rating?

Only if it goes to court (very unlikely) you lose (very, very unlikely) and then you refuse to pay whatever the judge orders within 28 days. So such a remote possibility that it's not worth worrying about.