New Advice For Private Tickets After 1st Oct

ManxRed

If the supermarkets valued their car parks as highly as the PPCs say they do then it should work like this:

Supermarket pays PPC to patrol car park, this should be a flat regular fee with no financial incentive on number of tickets. The fee from the supermarket is the PPC's profit. The charges reflect actual losses (a few quid).

The problem you have is when you put a profit making private company in charge of ticketing when the number of tickets determine the profit.

Legislation for Council issued penalties ARE a deterrent, and (despite the fact it may not be true) the monies gleaned are supposed to be re-invested into highways. Individuals do not line their own pockets as a result.

Try to impersonate that model using profit making companies who's bosses buy yachts and horses off the back of it, and you're in trouble straight away. Its obsene if truth be told.

ManxRed

edward123 wrote: »

I once had a lodger, a German national. She stayed for 6 months studying then returned home. She drove my car twice(I was a passenger) If the dastardly crime, involving a PPC's PCN, was committed in this situation and the PPC was given this persons name and present residence(Germany), when the PPC enquired she had moved back home, what would the PPC do?
And not that I wish to promote lies but what would the PPC do if someone stated something like this though it not being true? How would they know? Just thinking on my feet! Sorry if these thoughts are sillyish. I know its simple, just to ignore the PPC, I'm just thinking things up that could occur.

We don't condone fibbing of course, but this HAS been discussed. The German scenario is fine, and they cannot come back to the RK.

The second scenario could present problems for both parties and is not recommended, but as you point out, might be difficult to police.

Coupon-mad

Jenks308win wrote: »

Forgive me if I am asking a question that has already been asked, and replied to. My head is spinning from all the posts I have read

My wife received a Parking Eye Parking charge notice stating that an alleged parking infringement occurred on 12th September 2012. Thus far we have ignored all letters from Parking Eye. We wonder if the new ruling (1st October) whereby the Registered keeper (my wife) becomes liable instead of the driver would apply to us. Where do we stand?

Thanks

Jenks

Like all the other posters on this board, you have a fake PCN. Ignore it. There are no repercussions and only mugs/naive people fall for this scam.

When dealing with "tickets" from private parking companies (PPCs) our advice is to ignore them as long as you are the registered keeper, who will be the one getting the 'threatograms'. A company or hire/lease car would be different, but clearly as PE have sent a letter to you that's not an issue. A ticket relating to an incident in E&W after 1st October would be no more enforceable than before, it would simply have given you another option of an appeal that would cost T&C £32+ at no risk to yourself.

But yours is from a September date so it's the old advice of 'ignore it all' that applies because any 'appeal procedure' on the 'ticket' is a sham.

Tick off the threatening letters together while laughing at the extortion attempt here.

Watchdog clip with expert Solicitor's opinion here.

Barrister's opinion here.

And hopefully from reading a few threads you also realise that unenforceable fake PCNs have not suddenly become enforceable now? It's just that the registered keeper cannot just say 'I wasn't driving' any more but so what? It just means that the driver AND the keeper can both ignore the scam together!

For tickets re alleged incidents before or after 1st October, you can still safely ignore - certainly NEVER PAY ONE! :eek:



HTH

trisontana

edward123 wrote: »

Got it, finally . What the PPC ought to do then is simply reduce their extortionate 'charge' to something that is legitimate and genuine? If I over stayed in a car park for 10 mins I would not mind paying something. But not a lot. Pennies. But then I suppose there would be no profit for them. This whole PPC thing stinks.

You have just discovered the whole shaky edifice on which the PPC "business model" is based. The only way they can ever make a profit is to con people out of parting with their money after receiving their threatograms.

They very rarely charge the supermarket for their services, and in some "self ticketing" schemes they even pay the landowner a £10 "bounty" for every ticket that are placed on cars.

trisontana

Regarding that AA "advice". This is straight from the horse's mouth (the BPA):-

Dear AOS Colleague

It has been drawn to our attention that there is much public concern about some operators who continue to indicate on signage, parking charge notices and similar correspondence that the keeper is liable for the payment of parking charges due as a result of a breach of contract. This is not the legal situation now nor will it be after 1 October 2012.

Jenks308win

trisontana wrote: »

Regarding that AA "advice". This is straight from the horse's mouth (the BPA):-

Dear AOS Colleague

It has been drawn to our attention that there is much public concern about some operators who continue to indicate on signage, parking charge notices and similar correspondence that the keeper is liable for the payment of parking charges due as a result of a breach of contract. This is not the legal situation now nor will it be after 1 October 2012.

Tristontana..

Thanks for that. It couldn't be more clearer.:T How on earth could the AA have got it so wrong.
As I said we have not replied to Private Eye and we have no intention of doing so. I must admit I have been tempted to have some fun with them, but glad I resisted the urge to do so.:D



Jenks

taffy056

Private Eye ? pmsl

Jenks308win

taffy056 wrote: »

Private Eye ? pmsl

OOPS! That should of course have read. Parking Eye.:o

Jenks

NotanIdiot

trisontana wrote: »

You have just discovered the whole shaky edifice on which the PPC "business model" is based. The only way they can ever make a profit is to con people out of parting with their money after receiving their threatograms.

They very rarely charge the supermarket for their services, and in some "self ticketing" schemes they even pay the landowner a £10 "bounty" for every ticket that are placed on cars.

The Achilles Heel of this is Hospitals. We can find out from FOI requests exactly what the business arrangement between the hospital trusts and the scammers. actually is, and possible get a look at the contracts.