parking ticket today, wirral council, cherry tree centre

arcon5

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Maybe learn about the scam that is PPC fake PCNs. No laws or regs have been broken here.

Funny how many regular MSEers actually think you can avoid the fake PCN scam so easily (not possible as it's a con and they issue their flyers for anything).

I know all about the "scam".

Except whether they are unenforcable or not doesn't change the fact:

- it's not your land, your just using it for a price and should abide by the terms
- parking on it is a service, not a "right"

Most of the ridiculous issues on this board are people that have either a) parked in places they know they shouldn't have or b) not bothered to read the rules e.g. time limits.


And moreover, why shouldn't the landover be able to set rules for the use of their property?
So long as the rules are clear you can vote with your feet and go elsewhere.


Here's a simple solution:

- note what time you have paid until and get back to move your vehicle before that time
or
- pay for extra time 'just in case' (probably the wiser option)


You CAN avoid 99% of these situations


I actually think these companies should be regulated, monitored and legalised! If managed correctly, land owners can finally stop being bent over by motorists with the 'do what they like' mentality because they know there is no consequence.

Especially in office blocks, private carparks ect where it affects staff member ability to park, simply because shoppers feel its their right to access private property.

Coupon-mad

Yep...you CAN...or you can choose to collect PPC tickets deliberately which is what some on here do!

Not me BTW - I don't think it's a good idea to create a problem that PPCs can say they are there to 'solve'.

But I do just ignore any signs if I am parking as a customer, except for clamping signs. I stay as long as I need if I am shopping and so should everyone.

These parasites do not need anyone to defend them or for anyone here to suggest that we should all pu$syfoot around 'abiding' by PPC made-up con-merchant t&cs. Those terms are designed purely to make them money, not to help with any parking problems, and often the t&cs themselves can breach the law.

So, for example, do you think that if a PPC says that disabled people have to show a blue badge to park in a disabled bay at a retail car park, that they have to? That someone who meets the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 (but has no Blue Badge) should NOT use the bay?

If so, you are wrong - the law is clear.

happycamper3

Thank you, I was late getting back by 10 mins as my son badly needed the toilet....
will ignore, am a pretty strong person so can add their letters to the bin.

Thanks again.

arcon5

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep...you CAN...or you can choose to collect PPC tickets deliberately which is what some on here do!

Not me BTW - I don't think it's a good idea to create a problem that PPCs can say they are there to 'solve'.

But I do just ignore any signs if I am parking as a customer, except for clamping signs. I stay as long as I need if I am shopping and so should everyone.
.

I wonder how you would feel if you was a land owner who allowed your property to be used in a certain way -- to then be abused by selfish motorists who feel they have a right to do anything.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So, for example, do you think that if a PPC says that disabled people have to show a blue badge to park in a disabled bay at a retail car park, that they have to? That someone who meets the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 (but has no Blue Badge) should NOT use the bay?

If so, you are wrong - the law is clear.

I see know problem with this either. If the law states otherwise this should obviously be abided by -- however, how is it in anyway unfair to disabled people to do this? If anything it benefits them by ensuring people are not abusing special spaces designed for those more in need.

arcon5

I'll make one thing clear here........

i'm not defending the company issuing the so called "fines", i'm defending land owners who people around this board feel it is their right to use others property as they see fit.

Coupon-mad

arcon5 wrote: »

I wonder how you would feel if you was a land owner who allowed your property to be used in a certain way -- to then be abused by selfish motorists who feel they have a right to do anything.

I would like to see an example of this...it's not the scenario we see on here. We hear about people 'penalised' by a third party for daring to park in a car park they are invited to park in, to shop as a customer.

arcon5 wrote: »

I see no problem with this either. If the law states otherwise this should obviously be abided by -- however, how is it in anyway unfair to disabled people to do this? If anything it benefits them by ensuring people are not abusing special spaces designed for those more in need.

You don't get it do you? Not all disabled people have a Blue Badge.

Sirdan

arcon5 wrote: »

I'll make one thing clear here........

i'm not defending the company issuing the so called "fines", i'm defending land owners who people around this board feel it is their right to use others property as they see fit.

Er, no we don't where has anyone said that ?

How exactly is spending too long in a retailer's car park because you were shopping for an extended time in their store an abuse of the land ?

Parking Eye/UKPC/Town and country/G24/Vinci etc etc etc exist mostly in exactly those sorts of car parks and seem content to penalise legitimate customers !

molerat

arcon5 wrote: »

maybe abide by the terms next time.

Funny how these issues can be resolved so easily

Yes they can, it is called "pay on exit". Job done.

Coupon-mad

molerat wrote: »

Yes they can, it is called "pay on exit". Job done.

Now that's a novel idea - shame the retailers think that letting loose thugs with their lies and threatograms instead is better, 'cos it's free.

HO87

arcon5 wrote: »

I'll make one thing clear here........

i'm not defending the company issuing the so called "fines", i'm defending land owners who people around this board feel it is their right to use others property as they see fit.

No regular here supports the idea that landowners should not be able to defend their interests but if one is to assert that landowners have rights one must also acknowledge that motorists do too.

Spouting "contract law" nonsense will win few arguments here because the reality is that the level and consistency of charges levied by PPC's/landowners agents is such that they can only be interpreted as penalties. Some landowners admit as much. Others equivocate. No private individual or company has the right to penalise anyone else - regardless of what it might say on a sign.

A recent case at Stockport County Court brought by a PPC against a so-called errant motorist resulted in a resounding defeat for the PPC (who were refused leave to appeal) because it was impossible for a contract to have been formed with anyone. During the course of the case it was disclosed that an amount somewhere between £600,000 and £1.1M had been collected by the PPC at that car park in just 3 years.

That this breaching of so-called contracts was seemingly so widespread brings into question the effectiveness of the PPC's strategy - or rather its purported strategy - to defend the interests of the landowner. With the sum of money involved one has to ask why the car park was not reorganised and pay-on-exit barriers installed. After all, no pay - no get out and I, for one, have no issue with that.

The truth is that the all too common PPC strategy is simply to farm car parks for revenue and their sales approach - based on no cost to the landowner - amply demonstrates that this is the real deal.

PPC's are no different than the publicani tax-farmers of the Roman era. If, as a landowner, you believe that PPC's are the cure-all for the ills of the misuse/abuse of land then I recommend researching the situation a little more thoroughly. PPC's are as great a scourge to landowners than the ignorant or lazy driver and are making vast profits through what can only be characterised as naked exploitation.

The problem is that being British we tend not to believe that such exploitation could be taking place right under our noses without some branch of authority intervening. That presupposes, of course, that such authorities are able and willing to recognise the situation for what it is.

Getting back to the original subject, its nice to see are old friend Trevor Whitehouse diversifying and acknowledging that clamping will soon be outlawed and finally taking the PPC ticket shilling. My goodness. He might soon be able to buy another villa in Spain or perhaps a marina so he can invite Simon from Excel/VCS to moor his boat in it.