chat with ukpc warden

TrickyWicky

peter_the_piper wrote: »

The only time a council is the least bit interested is when you take any scrap paper on the windscreen (including the bit in the plastic sleeve) and throw it on the ground, littering.

Rubbish! Both councils I worked for didn't give a damn if you ripped the ticket off and threw it on the ground - we had served it and thats the end of it.

TrickyWicky

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Is that why all the signs say that you take no responsibilty for any damage etc to a car or contents whilst parked there?

Thats just a blag - we all know it. The fact is if your car gets damaged in the operators car park they ARE liable. They'll try to put up disclaimers saying they're not but they can't actually wriggle out of it.

My local LIDL car park has disclaimers all over the place. Didn't stop their insurers offering to settle after the car sunk into an uncovered drain causing damage to it.

TrickyWicky

Trebor16 wrote: »

But you said that it was unlawful interference.

Ok, maybe I used the wrong words. Either way if they don't have consent to go around someones car park plastering cars with spam then they're inviting trouble. I worked for one council that was very militant with this kind of thing and they'd always have their legal dept contact the company involved to fire a warning shot.

Trebor16 wrote: »

Why is it a requirement to have worked in parking to be able to "get picky"?

Because you can't understand it from both sides unless you've been on both sides of the fence. I've worked for two councils and two PPCs (PPC work was marshalling and working in a barrier controlled car park - no PCNs in either job - just to keep Driver8 happy we actually provided a 'service' rather than a scam at those sites though I don't deny the companies did scam on other sites).

Trebor16 wrote: »

All I have done here is to point out that your claim of councils dealing with those who place leaflets on cars by means of prosecuting them for unlawful interference is incorrect and if councils were behaving in such a way then they were acting unlawfully.

Well I've simply repeated what went around in circles. Whether or not the bosses used the correct terminology is none of my concern, I've given you an insight into their world. There is a saying, don't shoot the messenger but apparently thats not valid here.

I wonder why I bother to share my time with you lot sometimes.

SodG24

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Thats just a blag - we all know it. The fact is if your car gets damaged in the operators car park they ARE liable. They'll try to put up disclaimers saying they're not but they can't actually wriggle out of it.

My local LIDL car park has disclaimers all over the place. Didn't stop their insurers offering to settle after the car sunk into an uncovered drain causing damage to it.

The example you give is somewhat extreme. The car park owners still have a duty of care and an uncovered drain is clearly negligence. Damage by third parties such as PPC goons wouldn't be covered by the duty of care - the PPC would be liable not the car park owner.

TrickyWicky

I remember moons ago when one of our cutsomers (council job) slammed their expensive bikes into our height barrier (they were standing on one of those racks on top of the car). Owner had no idea of the height and just assumed he could drive through.

His expensive cycles were wrecks and he put in a claim against the council. To our utter shock and horror, despite the "No liability" policy they actually not only took his claim seriously for his own stupidity but they actually paid it - idiots!

When their contractors damaged the paint on my car I got the "We won't be sorting that out" attitude (then as s*ds law has it they damaged another 50 odd cars and had to take it seriously ). Pr!cks.