Is there a place for private parking enforcement?

s555

TrickyWicky wrote: »

There is definitely a need for PPC enforcement however the current problem is that PPCs as they are now, simply use it as a way of trying to get rich quick. They don't actually care about solving the problem or managing it reasonably because all they care about is the money.

The problem is that land owners will not pay for enforcement. This puts PPCs in the position of trying to raise revenue through parking charge notices - pretty much their only source of income unless they run a P&D car park.

I don't like the way PPCs currently operate. It stinks. The 'fine' amounts are too high, too extortionate and they'll try to pretend that they can do anything they want legally and that there is nothing you can do to stop them (as NCP did taking someones car for the previous owner refusing to pay their 'invoices' - and they've just lost a case in court over it).

The way they need to operate is with a genuine desire to solve a problem. Realistic 'fine' amounts that are inline with local authorities and to accept that they provide a service instead of trying to get rich quick.

I quite like FlashPark if I'm honest. They don't hand out PCNs or inspect vehicle permits etc. They let their clients do it themselves. The client uploads the photos and the registration etc and then FlashPark will send the PCN and handle it from there. That puts FlashPark in the position of being unable to hold the motorist to ransom for any trivial thing like most PPCs. I've got to admit.. if I got a PCN from them I'd probably pay it (or some of it) just because I prefer their way of working over other PPCs.

Thank you. I agree. If I am in the wrong and the charge is fair, why should I think it is my right not to pay, simply because I think I can get away with it.

ManxRed

I'm talking about an employee of the retail store, not the PPC. Presumably the supermarket or retail outlet already has an HR dept, plus a H&S person. We're not talking skilled staff here, and they have enough 'cover' for trolley pushers. If the store closes overnight then close the car park, if it takes deliveries then there is someone staffing the store anyway who can have a key.

But anyway, we're getting bogged down in it here, the underlying principles are that if the car park owner values the spaces so much, why is he allowing the drivers (many of whom transpire to be actual customers when all's said and done, I'm willing to bet only a small proportion of them are actual interlopers) to fund the car park management AND the PPC's yachts and horses? They ought to be chipping in themselves I would have thought.

And as for the other poster's analogy of buying a lock for his house to stop people coming in, surely he's not in the position where he's trying to encourage people into his house to buy stuff, so that's another stupid analogy.

edward123

s555 wrote: »

I do not see a barrier being any more enforceable than a letter in the post. What happens when you get to the barrier and you do not agree with the charge? Force your way through or claim false imprisonment, I'm sure the law will back you up in either and soon as the googlers find that out, it stops working.

When you enter knowing that you have a barrier on exit it is not illegal "blocking" if it is not raised until you pay for parking your car and so in fact it is far more enforceable than a piece of paper through the door after the event.
And if you damage a barrier that would be a criminal offence. Ripping up, damaging, a letter through your letter box is not. Nope, a barrier is far and away more 'enforceable' than a letter!

TrickyWicky

s555 wrote: »

Thank you. I agree. If I am in the wrong and the charge is fair, why should I think it is my right not to pay, simply because I think I can get away with it.

I'm not saying I agree with you, there is no legal requirement for the motorist to pay a PPC invoice.

What I am saying is that there IS a gap that the PPCs can fill and work in harmony with the motorist. They simply choose not to in pursuit of vast profits in the shortest possible time.

ManxRed

s555 wrote: »

Thank you. I agree. If I am in the wrong and the charge is fair, why should I think it is my right not to pay, simply because I think I can get away with it.

You're good at twisting words aren't you Mike? No one on here advocates dodging a fair charge - I certainly never have. Mind you, I've not seen that many. The ones we see on here are of the order of £40 - £150 for parking slightly over a white line (or similar), so don't come the old 'my right not to pay because I think I can get away with it' crap when you've prefixed it with the patently non-existent scenario of 'the charge is fair'.

Show me an example on ANY thread on this forum where we advised not to pay AND the charge was fair.

Good luck.

TrickyWicky

edward123 wrote: »

When you enter knowing that you have a barrier on exit it is not illegal "blocking" if it is not raised until you pay so in fact it is far more enforceable than a piece of paper through the door after the event.

No because you enter being made fully aware that you must pay to be able to exit. If you choose to accept those terms knowing that there is a physical barrier there to stop you leaving then that is your choice. Invoices are different because they can't force you to pay money and you can challenge it.

edward123

TrickyWicky wrote: »

No because you enter being made fully aware that you must pay to be able to exit. If you choose to accept those terms knowing that there is a physical barrier there to stop you leaving then that is your choice. Invoices are different because they can't force you to pay money and you can challenge it.

So a barrier is far and away more enforceable than a letter. Thats what I wrote too.

TrickyWicky

ManxRed wrote: »

I'm talking about an employee of the retail store, not the PPC. Presumably the supermarket or retail outlet already has an HR dept, plus a H&S person. We're not talking skilled staff here, and they have enough 'cover' for trolley pushers. If the store closes overnight then close the car park, if it takes deliveries then there is someone staffing the store anyway who can have a key.

The problem is that these companies don't generally know anything about parking, their rights, responsibilities etc when it comes to parking. How do they train their staff without knowing themselves?

The store may close overnight with vehicles still in the car park. What happens then? Would you know where you stand legally? I know these are only simple basic things but thats the kind of stuff many companies can't be bothered to deal with so they decide to let someone else take care of it for them.

ManxRed wrote: »

But anyway, we're getting bogged down in it here, the underlying principles are that if the car park owner values the spaces so much, why is he allowing the drivers (many of whom transpire to be actual customers when all's said and done, I'm willing to bet only a small proportion of them are actual interlopers) to fund the car park management AND the PPC's yachts and horses? They ought to be chipping in themselves I would have thought.

Many of them don't want the hassle of abandoned vehicles etc. You wouldn't know it but it does happen. I've seen cars sit in car parks for months in the same place without moving. Many businesses just don't know how to deal with that and are usually too busy trying to sell stuff to stay afloat to worry about it.

ManxRed wrote: »

You're good at twisting words aren't you Mike? No one on here advocates dodging a fair charge - I certainly never have. Mind you, I've not seen that many. The ones we see on here are of the order of £40 - £150 for parking slightly over a white line (or similar), so don't come the old 'my right not to pay because I think I can get away with it' crap when you've prefixed it with the patently non-existent scenario of 'the charge is fair'.

I couldn't agree more. There are very few PPCs that use a reasonable 'charge'. Most of them inflate it massively and its absoutely sick (and yes I also thought it sounded like Perky).

s555

edward123 wrote: »

When you enter knowing that you have a barrier on exit it is not illegal "blocking" if it is not raised until you pay for parking your car and so in fact it is far more enforceable than a piece of paper through the door after the event.
And if you damage a barrier that would be a criminal offence. Ripping up, damaging, a letter through your letter box is not. Nope, a barrier is far and away more 'enforceable' than a letter!

Right. So what if the "charge" for opening the barrier was 150 quid if you stay a moment after the time limit for the car park? You think we would happily pay? It would be easier for them to make you pay that's for sure.

As I said further back. Careful what you wish for.

The problem here is not how it is controlled, be it gate, ANPR or menacing guys with shaved heads, it is the way they collect the money, and mostly the amount they request.

TrickyWicky

edward123 wrote: »

So a barrier is far and away more enforceable than a letter. Thats what I wrote too.

Sorry, I meant no it's not illegal.