A PPC specific thread and invite them to make their case?

ppc_guy

The BPA cant even tell us the right thing and there is less than 300 of us. They have no chance with over a thousand people asking them!

edward123

ppc_guy wrote: »

The BPA cant even tell us the right thing and there is less than 300 of us. They have no chance with over a thousand people asking them!

Thats why the suggestion was a one-to-one discussion/debate on here with a PPC. What comes of it if it happened is itself debatable. But I think it might help in the PPC eventual ,if not death, a demise of sorts. Who knows. Give some one enough rope they could hang themselves.

TrickyWicky

ppc_guy wrote: »

The BPA cant even tell us the right thing and there is less than 300 of us. They have no chance with over a thousand people asking them!

That doesn't surprise me. I met the CEO once many moons ago.. a right arrogant pr*** in person when he thinks he's got a bit of power over little people. He didn't get far with me Snotty **** thought he was going to push me around.. he was sent packing with his tail between his legs :cool:

JagDriver

If the intention (which has been declared publicly) is to add some 'professionalism' to the 'industry', then the recent losses by 2 of the big players has to:
a. look bad for HMG
b. send a warning shot over these practices.

If you own a car park and you want to make money from it that's all well and good, if however you get greedy and 'bend' the rules then expect to get shot down.

It would be good to see some transparency in the 'industry'. How much of the revenue generated is directly from 'parking', and how much from 'extracurricular' activity?

BASFORDLAD

edward123 wrote: »

Thats why the suggestion was a one-to-one discussion/debate on here with a PPC. What comes of it if it happened is itself debatable. But I think it might help in the PPC eventual ,if not death, a demise of sorts. Who knows. Give some one enough rope they could hang themselves.

To be fair we often have debates on here with perky!

edward123

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

To be fair we often have debates on here with perky!

Yeh, seen them. Fun to read. But he's here incognito.

edward123

TrickyWicky wrote: »

In favour of PPCs and their PCNs.

I would challenge this. If clamping had not been made unlawful on Oct 1st 2012 prevalent clamping would have continued. PPC were restricted then. Fact. If PCNs are more lucrative than clamping then clamping would not have been so prevalent. After all, clamping was immediate action only reversible by paying up quickly. You could not ignore clamping!!! PCN v Clamping? Clamping was easier money. The banning of clamping(and blocking) then by PPCs was not in their favour at all. This is not to say however that PCNs do not favour PPCs. There is a difference between this and what you have above alleged.
I saw a report on the banning of clamping on TV and the ex-clamper said he would then instead simply slap a PCN on cars. This means that he would have preferred clamping to continue lawful than something he could have done prior to Oct 1st.
I'd know what I would prefer. A PCN from a PPC than clamping. Sure you would too. So, the banning of clamping was against not for PPC.
Now, if all avenues are used to shine light upon the fakeness(to coin a word?) of the PPC's PCNs then why not if a possible outcome is to further restrict the PPCs.

TrickyWicky

edward you're still missing the point and I'm getting fed up of you not listening.

Clamping wasn't a huge revenue earner for the government. They didn't get 2 per car for a DVLA address lookup as the customer always had a huge sign put on the car saying "Do not move this vehicle it has been clamped - call this number" etc.

Secondly people hated clampers and their extortionate fees. It was seen as a grubby industry. If you sued a clamper and won the case they would never pay you back your money and the bailiffs would rarely have any luck as the clampers only have the tools of their trade and nothing else. That is what is meant by assets. They have no assets that can be seized as bailiffs can not take the tools of your trade. If they only have a truck and a collection of wheel clamps the bailiffs won't be getting anything.

Turning to PPC PCNs puts a different spin on things. Not only does it make the industry look relatively 'genuine' (like hell it is) it also earns the government £2 everytime an ex clamper does a DVLA lookup. Then there is the fact that they'll have to have an office to work from.. meaning they'll be careful about court cases in case the bailiff takes the coffee machine..

PCNs are going to become legitimate. I said this when the clamping ban was first announced two years ago. Everyone jumped up and down celebrating and I was telling people it would mean everything goes down the PCN / paperwork route instead (though not on this forum - I wasn't here then). No-one believed me then and look what happened on the 1st of October - the government tried to give the PPCs RK responsibility.

You still seem to think you have some sort of master plan that is smarter than the industry. I've made my points to you yesterday and you thanked me for it (yeah I noticed that pretty quickly). It's taken you over 12 hours to come back and try to argue it out again yet I can respond to you the moment I read your points. If I can do that how do you think the parking industry operates?

I stand by my original statement, clamping was outlawed in favour of PPCs and their PCNs. It doesn't matter how much you think about it and try to argue it to justify it to yourself, the industry operates the way it does and you can't change that.

BASFORDLAD

edward123 wrote: »

Yeh, seen them. Fun to read. But he's here incognito.

Hardly

You spot the trottered one miles off

edward123

Another thought was to get this matter of the scam/fake/unenforceable PPC's PCNs on the Jeremy Vine show, Radio 2. Big audience, educate many many people....dent the number/percentage of those who pay the scam/fake tickets when they get one????