Good News for all

Nimeth

Schedule4Rules wrote: »

I really dont see the point in your post (in so much as changing my original message), was it some attempt at being funny ? If so you failed.

I posted as an independant appeals process will be good for the consumer and I am sure this is what everyone wants and after all this site is all about the consumer.

My point was to be cynical.

And as another poster pointed out, you didn't mention independent appeals processes in your original post.

Rodger, if that online dating site comment was directed at me, well I'm married. Don't hang out at greasy spoons either.

funkycoldribena

The trouble is, you the PPCs went about it all the wrong way to begin with, your greed,sneeky signage and lack of appeals process whatsoever has caused such vitriol against you,you will never be able to mend it.If from the beginning you had "charged" more reasonably and had an appeals process that was fairer you might have flown more under the radar so to speak.

Sir_Roger_deLodger

Nimeth wrote: »

Rodger, if that online dating site comment was directed at me, well I'm married. Don't hang out at greasy spoons either.

No, it was aimed at the West Midlands babe magnet.

trisontana

He also fails to mention that the PPC will only be able claim if the parking ticket is affixed to the car before it moves off site. So no more just using CCTV or ANPR evidence on it's own if no ticket was left on the car.

Tilt

The fact of the matter here that we are talking about private companies and as we all know, cannot issue fines or penalties. As such, they can only recover 'losses or damages' as a result of someone parking on 'their' car park. If it is free to park then what 'losses' have been incurred? The 'parking charge' would have to be proportinate to the loss so surely any judge will believe it to be a penalty if the charge is in the region of what the PPC will demand. If it is pay and display, then any invoice issued (parking charge) would have to be proportinate to the tarriff otherwise again, it would be considered to be a penalty or fine, neither would be recoverable under English law.

Personally, I do not see that this will make any difference to those who choose to excersise their rights. The only way round this (for a PPC) would be to install 'pay as you leave' barriers and be satisfied with the income from that.

peter_the_piper

Schedule4Rules wrote: »

An appeal will only be upheld if the ticket was found to be incorrectly issued.

Argh but who decides what is correct. Is it to a set of rules made up by individual companies, a set of rules made up by the BPA or a set of rules(complete with provisions for De Minimis) based on the sets of rules given by councils. Don't forget that council rules (AKA Parking Place Orders) are set to prevent bad parking and not to capitalise on minimal errors.

Fergie76

What I can't understand is, how can the RK be liable for a contract that s/he know's nothing about?

taffy056

Fergie76 wrote: »

What I can't understand is, how can the RK be liable for a contract that s/he know's nothing about?

And another thing, what happens if the registered keeper refuses to name the driver, this is quite possible as a pool vehicle could be driven by a number of people?

mcjordi

funkycoldribena wrote: »

mcjordi is still waiting for his link.....

its bull plop thats why :D

Perky-- you wont get any joy outta us lot oh and yeah i saved 3 people from paying town and !!!!!! parking "invoices" today :T my ppc dude wasnt happy :rotfl:

taffy056

Care to comment perky?

http://i52.tinypic.com/25z40si.jpg