We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Interesting reading (for some?)
fivegoldstars
Posts: 127 Forumite
Hi all. Since becoming embroiled in the whole issue of private parking fines, I've done a lot of reading up on the subject - I get a bit obsessive like that!
In answer to a question that was posted earlier - why won't people listen? - I'd just like to give my two-penneth. When you receive your first invoice, the advice is ignore it, it will go away - completely contradictory to the advice that most of us use to keep fiscally sound, don't bury your head in the sand, things won't sort themselves out.
Anyhoo, I was having a look into the whole 'Graham White Solicitors', and found an FOI to the courts service, asking for the number of cases brought to small claims by them for unpaid parking invoices. Unfortunately, it was declined as it was deemed to exceed the cost limit of an FOI request (would take more than 3.5 days to collate). However, I also found a completed FOI request re Parking Eye's services to the Lake District Parks Service here :
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cctv_put_in_car_parks_to_catch_n#outgoing-172819
The most interesting part, to my mind - and you probably all know this - is that the parking charge DOES NOT GO TO THE LANDOWNER! Of any paid parking charges, the only element which the landowner receives is the unpaid parking fee. So, really, any 'full and final settlement offers' would probably be best sent to the PPC, but for added insult, made payable to the landowner!
The thing that really struck me though, is that this really shows what kind of business model is at work here. It reminds me of a well known card insurance company who have recently had their wings clipped. Basically, they provide call centre work for banks (new card registration etc), and then sell insurance services as an add on. Instead of being paid by the banks, THEY actually pay THEM, because they hope to upsell useless products to make their money. I wouldn't be suprised if that isn't how these PPCs work - not being paid to manage sites, but actually paying to do it, so that they can perpetuate this money tree. Whatever the case, I think it adds a new level of confusion to working out 'damages' or 'losses' under contract law - surely the 'loss' resulting from an unpaid charge is only that suffered by the landowner, and any fees, administration, running costs of the car park claimed by the PPC are a different beast entirely?
In answer to a question that was posted earlier - why won't people listen? - I'd just like to give my two-penneth. When you receive your first invoice, the advice is ignore it, it will go away - completely contradictory to the advice that most of us use to keep fiscally sound, don't bury your head in the sand, things won't sort themselves out.
Anyhoo, I was having a look into the whole 'Graham White Solicitors', and found an FOI to the courts service, asking for the number of cases brought to small claims by them for unpaid parking invoices. Unfortunately, it was declined as it was deemed to exceed the cost limit of an FOI request (would take more than 3.5 days to collate). However, I also found a completed FOI request re Parking Eye's services to the Lake District Parks Service here :
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cctv_put_in_car_parks_to_catch_n#outgoing-172819
The most interesting part, to my mind - and you probably all know this - is that the parking charge DOES NOT GO TO THE LANDOWNER! Of any paid parking charges, the only element which the landowner receives is the unpaid parking fee. So, really, any 'full and final settlement offers' would probably be best sent to the PPC, but for added insult, made payable to the landowner!
The thing that really struck me though, is that this really shows what kind of business model is at work here. It reminds me of a well known card insurance company who have recently had their wings clipped. Basically, they provide call centre work for banks (new card registration etc), and then sell insurance services as an add on. Instead of being paid by the banks, THEY actually pay THEM, because they hope to upsell useless products to make their money. I wouldn't be suprised if that isn't how these PPCs work - not being paid to manage sites, but actually paying to do it, so that they can perpetuate this money tree. Whatever the case, I think it adds a new level of confusion to working out 'damages' or 'losses' under contract law - surely the 'loss' resulting from an unpaid charge is only that suffered by the landowner, and any fees, administration, running costs of the car park claimed by the PPC are a different beast entirely?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards