Shouldn't We Call A Spade A Spade?

HO87

I understand that we have all got into the habit of calling the likes of the membership of the BPA private parking companies - PPC's but how many of them actually operate car parks? How many of them actually own or rent a car park? I refer particularly to those companies that we deal with on this forum day after day.

A few days ago someone here, I believe, (I can't now find the post) used the term in a thread and it got me thinking. The truth of it is that these companies have far less to do with parking and far more to do with ticketing so shouldn't we be more honest and precise about what they do? We don't after all describe football clubs as pitch owners or fish and chip shops as waste newspaper disposal operators do we?

I therefore respectfully propose that from hereon in we call these companies "private ticketing companies" - PTC's. And there is a precedent. This is exactly the term that the Home Office used to describe these self-same companies when supplying its report to Parliament about the report stage of the then Protection of Freedoms Bill.

Let's not beat around the bush any longer - they are simply private ticketing companies, plain and simple.

peter_the_piper

I take your point but does that not admit that they are acting as agents and that we accept they are collecting money for the landowner and therefore undermining the VCS v HMRC argument?

bazster

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I take your point but does that not admit that they are acting as agents and that we accept they are collecting money for the landowner and therefore undermining the VCS v HMRC argument?

But they are acting as agent, that was exactly what VCS vs HMRC stated.

But if they are acting as agent, they can't bring claims in their own name, they are not party to the contract. And to bring claims on the landowner's behalf they need the landowner's authorisation, and the claim will be in the name of the landowner, not the name of the PTC. What landowner is going to want to get involved in that can of worms? The whole reason they engage PTC's is precisely to insulate them from the mess.

Imagine the court case: it's going to be the landowner in front of the judge, and the landowner getting his backside kicked, and the landowner being warned to bring a toothbrush. All because of the behaviour of his cowboy PTC.

So the long-and-the-short of it is: PTC continues to bring claims in its own name, gets laughed out of court because it has no contract. OR PTC asks landowner for authorisation to bring claims in landowner's name: not gonna happen.

peter_the_piper

Doh! Can't tell my agents from my owners.

ripped_off_driver

Ticketing suggests legitimacy. Invoicing would be more appropriate. Also they are not all companies - some are sole traders. So I would suggest Private Invoicing Groups instead. The acronym is far more accurate.

HO87

By the same token Invoicing conveys the same level of legitimacy. Bearing in mind that these guys should now be charging VAT how many of them provide a VAT invoice?

SodG24

I agree we should call them what they really are ........









..... con artists !

Coupon-mad

Protection Racketeers?

Parking parasites?

AltheHibby

Oxygen thieves?

A waste of rations?

Jasper1970

" Parasite Parking Con-artists "

Coupon-mad

Car park squatters?