Is there a place for private parking enforcement?

tom9980

taffy056 wrote: »

What it does do is probably stop these people from returning to a place where a parking company infest a car park, so it actually has a detrimental effect on using the shop or site

I agree with taffy in my case Euro car parks gave my OH a ticket for overstaying in a car park. The signs say 90 minutes she spent a good 2 hours in the shops with her friend who had a baby a month before so they were catching up and eating/shopping.

I can tell you this car park has NO parking problem, while it is in the middle of the city between the town centre and a railway station there are at least 50+ empty spaces in that car park even on saturdays, i have never EVER seen it full. Its clear to me this was a money making exercise. The net result they have lost our business for good.

My old landlord owned a car park + flats + shop right in the city centre and we had a space (20 spaces), there was a very occasional parking issue. At first he used a guy with a clamp but 3 years ago he simply had a gate installed with a keypad and his issue was solved.

I feel sorry for some people who have these parking issues and do feel it would be good to have some kind of decent legislation but as far as i can see lots of these car parks would work fine without a PPC and lots more with some minor modifications can too.

TrickyWicky

taffy056 wrote: »

No tricky my shopping is mostly in my company vehicle where I use supermarkets particaurly tescos to fuel my vehicle, have food and for a call of nature, I use them all around the country. I have had tickets in my vehicle that have been ignored by my company and myself as they were plainly unfair.

So you admit to using your company motor for personal use, while taking the mick out of shopping places complaining that they have a 2 hour limit. Does that mean you're effectively SKIIVING for over 2 hours from your company time while being paid?

If you are, that hardly puts you in a position to pass moral judgement on PPCs does it!

taffy056 wrote: »

Can I ask you to provide evidence to back up what you say, I mean all this analysis must be easily provided if you have done it.

You're twisting things. I said PPCs do monitor these things I never said I have done it. I have however seen the results of such things and why on earth would I bother providing you with evidence to back up what I know is the truth when you still refuse to even acknowledge or provide evidence for what you think? I have asked you twice now to prove what you have said / suspected (even though its wrong) and you still don't even acknowledge that.

taffy056 wrote: »

In regards to shoppers they take as long as they take, if a shopping trip takes 3 hours instead of the mandated 2 hours its got nothing to do with the parking company, there is no loss as these clients are shopping and using the facilities.

I agree however thats not down to your or me is it. The PPCs set a policy of come in, spend your money and get out within 2 hours. Thats their call not ours.

taffy056 wrote: »

And I disagree that putting an invoice on a screen frees up a parking space, how will they it's there until they go back to the vehicle ?

How many times do I have to tell you that the THREAT of having a ticket is supposed to be a deterrent? Why can't you accept that?

taffy056 wrote: »

What it does do is probably stop these people from returning to a place where a parking company infest a car park, so it actually has a detrimental effect on using the shop or site

Well those people are still going to shop SOMEWHERE aren't they. The odds are the next place they move onto will also have a PPC too.

taffy056

Tricky

I am not using the vehicle for personal use, there is a tracker on it I would be liable for the taxation on it if so, but if you knew anything about running a fleet you'd know that drivers of these vehicles must have breaks, they need food, they need to go to the toilet, and they need to fuel up. This is all acceptable under vehicle use, so don't try and say that my work day is skiving it undermines your argument somewhat!

You are asking me for proof but refuse to provide any for yourself, you got something to prove well do that instead of asking for something from me. I have also seen the proof of thousands of people on here saying what these parking companies do, all you need is your eyes and a mind to read it!

The policies set out are there specifically to trip up people, they are designed to maximise profits for the parking company, there is no management involved as most of them are not even on site, how do you manage with a camera on entry/exit?

Also the fact that so many get a fake ticket shows that probably most don't realise until its to late that any kind of enforcement is in place, I mean they are to busy driving, looking after their kids, looking out for other cars and shopping to realise this. If this was such a concern to retailers though, why don't they have their signs at the end of every aisle to ensure people know that scammer is in the car park?

Yes a typical response of someone who has been involved in the parking game, they must shop somewhere! Sorry but that is no excuse, people are just getting on with their normal lives when these vermin interrupt that with their outlandish threats about ruining their credit ratings and so on, every single one of these companies need to be liquidated as there is no control over them, and there is no need of them.

Finally Tricky I will not respond any further to your ridiculous comments in this thread, post a reply if you wish but I shall not partake in any further conversation.

halibut2209

Tricky, you make me laugh. I've drunk Kalibers that are stronger than your arguments!

Guys_Dad

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/St-Ives-parking-spaces-set-sell-250-000/story-17237706-detail/story.html

Now this one would be interesting if a PPC was hired for one of these spaces and they took it to court if anyone parked there. In this case, a value/loss could be calculated and maybe if the owner set up his own PPC, he could raise enough money to pay for the wretched thing !!!!!!

TrickyWicky

taffy056 wrote: »

I am not using the vehicle for personal use, there is a tracker on it I would be liable for the taxation on it if so, but if you knew anything about running a fleet you'd know that drivers of these vehicles must have breaks, they need food, they need to go to the toilet, and they need to fuel up. This is all acceptable under vehicle use, so don't try and say that my work day is skiving it undermines your argument somewhat!

So if its a break you shouldn't be moaning about a 2 hour limit should you.

taffy056 wrote: »

You are asking me for proof

Yes I am but you haven't provided it despite knowing you are right having never worked in parking or dealt with the issues that arise in it.

taffy056 wrote: »

but refuse to provide any for yourself,

Now you are being unreasonable. You expect me to provide proof when:
1) You won't and you were asked first
2) I no longer work for either company so do not have access to that data and yet despite having previously seen it with my own eyes you refuse to believe it

How do you think shops work and plan their staff resources? - They look at their busiest times / sales periods and work out how to roster their staff accordingly. PPCs also do the same not just for staffing reasons but so they know when to refill ticket machines, do patrols, inspect tickets etc. If you honestly think that they just sit around twiddling their thumbs then you need to think again about how the world of business works.

taffy056 wrote: »

you got something to prove well do that instead of asking for something from me.

I no longer have physical access to that information. I do not work there. You however claim to know everything about why PPCs are not needed not even having worked in parking yet alone running a car park yet you are unable to provide any proof at all.

taffy056 wrote: »

I have also seen the proof of thousands of people on here saying what these parking companies do, all you need is your eyes and a mind to read it!

I do not dispute that. I have never disputed the arrogance of PPCs but I do dispute you saying that they are not needed at all.

taffy056 wrote: »

The policies set out are there specifically to trip up people

How many people would actually come on here and tell you about a PPC doing a good deed? None. You will only ever hear bad stuff about them on this forum and that just backs up your understanding of them. It's pointless me trying to suggest that they have other uses as you've already decided that you're not going to accept anything else anyway.

taffy056 wrote: »

Finally Tricky I will not respond any further to your ridiculous comments in this thread, post a reply if you wish but I shall not partake in any further conversation.

You call my replies ridiculous yet you claim to know more about car park management with no experience or proof of what you say. Would you stand up in court and say all those things with no proof? Seriously you call my comments ridiculous?

edward123

Guys_Dad wrote: »

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/St-Ives-parking-spaces-set-sell-250-000/story-17237706-detail/story.html

Now this one would be interesting if a PPC was hired for one of these spaces and they took it to court if anyone parked there. In this case, a value/loss could be calculated and maybe if the owner set up his own PPC, he could raise enough money to pay for the wretched thing !!!!!!

....dare I say it.......did you note the parking posts? lol(sorry)

Guys_Dad

Sometimes parking posts will work, I concede. And sensible precaution in this case.

Coupon-mad

TrickyWicky wrote: »

The last I knew, the actual course work wasn't made available to the public. Other than that I can't comment because you're not stating what facts they have got wrong. You're just declaring they are wrong and that is that!

From my job a few years ago, I have an NVQ in driving passengers (particularly those with disabilities) so I have nowt in particular against NVQs except to say that my whole course was utter drivel IMHO and was only imposed on drivers for the sake of it, so the employer could say we'd all passed something!

But the Private Parking City & Guilds NVQ course certainly is in the public domain, why would it not be. Pretty much all qualifications have a QAN code, the details are published and can be found easily online with a simple search of the name of the NVQ.

Page 29 of this document (which is the section about PRIVATE parking only) says that after completing the NVQ the learner can:

3.2 Describe the Disabled Person's Blue Badge scheme and its implications for private car parks including landowner's discretion to grant concessions.

and yet on page 31 the learners are apparently able to 'explain the principles of equality and diversity'.

NO, THEY REALLY CAN'T, NOT IF THEY THINK THE BB SCHEME APPLIES AND THAT A LANDOWNER WHOSE CAR PARK IS OPEN FOR THE PUBLIC OR FOR EMPLOYEES, HAS 'DISCRETION' TO GRANT CONCESSIONS!

:rotfl:

s555

ManxRed wrote: »

Will the money go to:

1. Local Council Highways dept for reinvestment in the roads?

2. The furniture on Simon Renshaw Smith's yacht?

Answers on a postcard. I don't think many would object to 1, of course that would also mean the end of PPCs. 2 is the current scenario, and loathed by most on here with the exception of one or.... well, just one.

Who cares. It's a fine, not a tax. If you have concern about how the money would be spent, obey the rules so you don't have to pay it.

Why do people think the government, local or central, take all of their income and put it in to pigeon holes based on where it came from. They do not. They put it all in one bucket, top it up with some loans, and spend it on whatever it needs spending on. Which, if we take this to its natural conclusion is going to be a whole load of judges when these parking clowns work out that if they make the fine reasonable or can prove financial loss and only go after blatant cases, they will start winning in court.