Persisent offenders may be charged up to £150 per day

HO87

Car Parking Partnership have not - on their own account - ever done court. However, the business - which is an offshoot of specialist printers Liberty Printers of S. London - offer a back-office service to many other PPC's via a PO Box in Northampton (IIRC) and also what is described as an end-to-end service for RMA's and the like. This may well be the case at Notts Uni. The physical, onsite patrolling and identification of so-called "offenders" is probably done by the Uni's security staff who supply details into CCP's process.

This serves two purposes. Firstly, it builds in what appears to be a complete separation, a cut-off, from the Uni itself and, secondly, reduces the Uni's outlay (probably to nil) as CPP's costs will be covered by a sizeable cut from paid invoices.

This adds a complication into the way in which unpaid invoices may be handled. The VCS v HMRC case is unlikely to apply as the enforcement is almost certainly done by the Uni who will have sufficient interest in the land and, as I have said, CPP simply provide the back-office service. With this in mind were, however unlikely, matters to progress to court the Uni would have better claim - presumably - in breach of contract than the average PPC. Interestingly, I have not seen proceedings initiated by a Uni who seem to rely almost exclusively on their internal disciplinary procedures (threatening students that their degrees will be withheld) to enforce non-payment.

I continue to research this type of glorified self-ticketing arrangement as there may well be a case that PPC's acting in this capacity should be registered as debt collection agencies.

mikey72

HO87 wrote: »

Car Parking Partnership have not - on their own account - ever done court. However, the business - which is an offshoot of specialist printers Liberty Printers of S. London - offer a back-office service to many other PPC's via a PO Box in Northampton (IIRC) and also what is described as an end-to-end service for RMA's and the like. This may well be the case at Notts Uni. The physical, onsite patrolling and identification of so-called "offenders" is probably done by the Uni's security staff who supply details into CCP's process.

This serves two purposes. Firstly, it builds in what appears to be a complete separation, a cut-off, from the Uni itself and, secondly, reduces the Uni's outlay (probably to nil) as CPP's costs will be covered by a sizeable cut from paid invoices.

This adds a complication into the way in which unpaid invoices may be handled. The VCS v HMRC case is unlikely to apply as the enforcement is almost certainly done by the Uni who will have sufficient interest in the land and, as I have said, CPP simply provide the back-office service. With this in mind were, however unlikely, matters to progress to court the Uni would have better claim - presumably - in breach of contract than the average PPC. Interestingly, I have not seen proceedings initiated by a Uni who seem to rely almost exclusively on their internal disciplinary procedures (threatening students that their degrees will be withheld) to enforce non-payment.

I continue to research this type of glorified self-ticketing arrangement as there may well be a case that PPC's acting in this capacity should be registered as debt collection agencies.

As you mentioned breach of contract, as most unis having the parking t&c's in the handbook with all the other regs student sign up to when they agree to enter the uni, does that give them the written contract they need? As the uni agree to also collect the payments, along with all the other payments they may become laible for, and the student also agrees to pay?

taffy056

HO87 how do they then get registered keeper details when they are not part of the BPAs AOS scheme, surely the only way they can get keeper details is through that. If a third party deals with this they are not allowed to pass on keeper details to a third party.

Or am I missing something here ?

mikey72

Anyone can. I could if you parked on my ground. V888 and a couple of quid. As said https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4026843

Coupon-mad

mikey72 wrote: »

You'll be fine. I've been to quite a few open days recently, all the signs where clearly visible, and Nottingham Uni was no exception.

Oh I know I will be fine - not only because a fake PCN would just make me laugh - but because I am fairly sure from my experience last time that they give the PPCs the day off on Open Days even if the signs are still there.

mikey72

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Oh I know I will be fine - not only because a fake PCN would just make me laugh - but because I am fairly sure from my experience last time that they give the PPCs the day off on Open Days even if the signs are still there.

You'll be fine to get a collection of photos of all the signs. I've never seen any covered, As to parking, the uni's organise overflow parking on open days, and get enough students in to manage the car park, and stop anyone abandoning cars where they want to, even if it does mean a couple of minute walk from the overflow parks on the playing fields. As to giving the PPC's a day off, I can't think of any I've been to that weren't done by the own security, and they're certainly out in force to keep things sensible on open days.

Coupon-mad

See you at a Uni Open day then mikey72!

mikey72

Coupon-mad wrote: »

See you at a Uni Open day then mikey72!

Done it already, but back again soon. I can't really see why it's a problem to some, I've even parked the motorhome overnight visiting my kids, and slept in it. No poblems, no tickets. I wonder how badly behaved you have to be to get a repeat offenders ticket made for you.

HO87

taffy056 wrote: »

HO87 how do they then get registered keeper details when they are not part of the BPAs AOS scheme, surely the only way they can get keeper details is through that. If a third party deals with this they are not allowed to pass on keeper details to a third party.

Or am I missing something here ?

CPP are members of the AOS courtesy of their parent company - Liberty Printers (AR & RF Reddin) Ltd also t/a Liberty Services Ltd and Car Parking Partnership Ltd. If CPP are simply passed the registration numbers of vehicles alleged to be involved in a breach of contract/trespass by the Uni's security and CPP deal with everything from there would there be any need for the Uni to be passed the RK details?

On a side note I see that the BPA continue to list Liberty Services Ltd as a trading title of Liberty Printers even though there is and never has been any connection between the two companies and Liberty Services Ltd (a former Scottish computer company) was dissolved 18 months ago and no longer exists. I drew this (together with several other examples) to the BPA's attention in 2011 on at least two occasions - that is before they stopped replying to my emails! They don't seem to understand that companies that do not legally exist cannot therefore be members of anything least of all the AOS.