Parking stories in the press

taffy056

So if it goes to the appeal service, it's refused and you tell the ppc to get stuffed I'm not paying you unless you take me to court, can they then go back to the lease company with demands ?

Also I work for a company and drive a leased vehicle, if the lease company says my company are the ones responsible for the vehicle, but they are obviously not driving, are the company breaking the dpa be revealing I'm the driver with my address details and so on ? If I inform my company that they are not to release my personal details to a third party company, who then is responsible for the invoice ?

bazster

taffy056 wrote: »

So if it goes to the appeal service, it's refused and you tell the ppc to get stuffed I'm not paying you unless you take me to court, can they then go back to the lease company with demands ?

No. The Act says they can hold the RK liable if they don't know the identity of the driver. If they do know who was driving they can't hold the RK liable, regardless of whether the driver pays.

patman99

So long as the dept. hat deal with fines and infringements are well-trained, then they will know to ignore the invoices from PPCs.

What we really need is a prominent person in the industry to write a definitive article on the way to deal with PPC invoices.

I have been proactive in removing the printed signage stuck to the doors of my local church informing car owners to 'input their reg number in the terminal'. I even fold-up and hide the big A-board they put out as well.

Next step. Put up my own notice made to look like the one from the PPC, but informing Church-goers to ignore the PPC signage.

mikey72

patman99 wrote: »

So long as the dept. hat deal with fines and infringements are well-trained, then they will know to ignore the invoices from PPCs.

What we really need is a prominent person in the industry to write a definitive article on the way to deal with PPC invoices.

I have been proactive in removing the printed signage stuck to the doors of my local church informing car owners to 'input their reg number in the terminal'. I even fold-up and hide the big A-board they put out as well.

Next step. Put up my own notice made to look like the one from the PPC, but informing Church-goers to ignore the PPC signage.

Probably cost the churchgoers a fortune, when they haven't put their numbers in, then just paid up and been too embarressed to tell anyone about it.

ric3vic

Here's another one: http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Fury-clamping-cars-outside-Baddeley-Green-chip/story-16746090-detail/story.html A last root in the trough for some clampers before October 1st puts them out of business.

pie_face_2

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/9488178/Clamping-down-on-parking-fines.html#

peter_the_piper

1) ""putting an end to intimidation and excessive charges once and for all.”
2)""If the car park has a barrier, it will still be perfectly legal for a landowner to clamp vehicles parked in them. "

1 will carry as before
2 don't believe that is what the legislation says does it?

Coupon-mad

peter_the_piper wrote: »

1) ""putting an end to intimidation and excessive charges once and for all.”
2)""If the car park has a barrier, it will still be perfectly legal for a landowner to clamp vehicles parked in them. "

1 will carry as before
2 don't believe that is what the legislation says does it?

Nope, either Barrie Segal is mistaken or they have used an old quote from him, from way back when the Bill was being discussed a few months ago in the Commons. This bit in the Bill about gates/barriers being OK was identified as misleading. It was clarified that no private clamping/towing/blocking in with a vehicle will be legal, even behind a barrier/gate.

ManxRed

Patrick Troy, chief executive of the BPA, says: “We have long lobbied for better regulation of the private parking sector. We want to see higher operator standards and a fairer deal for motorists. Banning clamping removes any incentive to follow the rules. The Government’s plans are a charter for the selfish parker.”

I did a little bit of a sick in my mouth when I read that.

The hypocrite.

peter_the_piper

Coupon-mad wrote: »

This bit in the Bill about gates/barriers being OK was identified as misleading. It was clarified that no private clamping/towing/blocking in with a vehicle will be legal, even behind a barrier/gate.

That's how I read it but legalese is confusing to say the least. Thanks.