Is there a place for private parking enforcement?

s555

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'.

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

Good luck.

Again. Missing the point, and I am not called Mike.

I did not say the cases here were fair. However, I bet in many a case the "charge" was a fair cop. Some even admit they overstayed for example.

There should be a proper fine in these cases. But a FAIR one administered in a FAIR way. I am in no way saying that is what we have now.

This is not a conspiracy, I am not the head of some cowboy parking company. I am simply someone with a balanced view of the world.

taffy056

Tricky with respects there is not a lot to parking beyond having a bays, and keeping a percentage as disabled and that is it, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to have staff doing what they are doing now, remove trollies sweep up and help customers. How do you think car parks without parasites cope ? I went to Neath & Port Talbot hospital the other day and there was a very helpful chap marshalling vehicles, so it can be done.

TrickyWicky

s555 wrote: »

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.

The problem there is that they don't need to have charges. These car parks operate by charging for the amount of time you stay. Thats the very point, they don't need enforcement.

TrickyWicky

taffy056 wrote: »

Tricky with respects there is not a lot to parking beyond having a bays, and keeping a percentage as disabled and that is it, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to have staff doing what they are doing now, remove trollies sweep up and help customers. How do you think car parks without parasites cope ? I went to Neath & Port Talbot hospital the other day and there was a very helpful chap marshalling vehicles, so it can be done.

*Sigh*

I never said it was rocket science. What I did say is that many companies don't want to get involved and don't know the legal aspects of it. Why should 30 odd different chain stores all setup their own parking departments when they can get a company that specialises in it to take the hassle?

THAT is the point. If it was done your way, Debenhams, Tesco, Sainsburys, ASDA, LIDL, ALDI, Morrisons, M&S, The Post Office, BHS, Argos, HMV, Natwest, RBS, Next, Primark, Matalan, WH Smith, Dorothy Perkins, New Look, H&M, Clarks, River Island, Clintons, Accesorize, Zara, Wilkinsons would have their own parking enforcement departments and effectively operate as PPCs themselves.

Why would they all want that hassle? Why would you want them all operating as PPCs? It's more efficient to let a 3rd party deal with it. If it was done your way all of the big chains would be running PPC scams alongside the other PPCs. What you're effectively asking for is MORE PPCs.

What happens if two companies share one car park? One could operate it and then kill off the other stores custom. You could go to Tesco and find and extra £70 on your receipt because the trolley man couldn't get his trolley between your car and the neighbouring one (even though they parked after you) etc.

As I said, there IS a need for PPCs but they must change their way of working.

edward123

s555 wrote: »

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?

Then that would not be enforceable as it amounts to a penalty and hence not lawful. Why limit it at £150? Why not ask for £1500? Why not £5000? None can be enforced of course whether you ask for it or not. But this not mean a barrier for a fair charge is not as enforceable than a letter after the event. It is.

You think we would happily pay?

Nope and the man at the barrier would have a whole lot of people very angry and the police in attendance and so forth and so forth.....nope, this never occurs in real life nor could so never will so what point are you making? I did not say that a barrier can enforce a penalty but it can be used to properly manage a car park with fair tariffs. Hence more enfoceable than a letter after the event by far.

It would be easier for them to make you pay that's for sure.

But only for a fair tariff not a penalty charge. But not so a letter after the event.

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

Landowners taking responsibilty for their car parks and not employing PPC's to fleece drivers would be a start.

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.

So, a barrier you now agree is more enforceable than a letter after the event.

taffy056

That's the problem tricky, these companies should have these departments, these are part of the parcel of having retail areas, their responsibility doesn't start and end at the door. Perhaps they should stop having a health and safety department or customer service areas ? It's about these companies took responsibility for all their store areas not just the part they want to. Also I would think they already have something called estates that handle or should handle this section. You are never going to convince me that ppcs are needed in their current format, marshalling etc I can see, scamming customers I can't it that simple!

ManxRed

s555 wrote: »

There should be a proper fine in these cases. But a FAIR one administered in a FAIR way. I am in no way saying that is what we have now.

Go and find an example on here, or Pepipoo or CAG, or anywhere else you like.

You just accused us of being clever dicks with Google looking for a way to dodge charges. Show us where we've done that using the example above of a fair charge administered in a fair way.

If you are saying that that scenario doesn't exist now, why are you having a pop at the advice we give out on here?

And not all car parks have PPCs in them, as has already been pointed out in this very thread. Does anarchy ensue?

No, it doesn't.

Guys_Dad

taffy056 wrote: »

In answer to your post

1) buy more than 1 post
2) put a friendly note on the windscreen asking them politely not to park there
3) no idea what you mean, parking in most supermarket and retail areas are free. So if you think this should be chargeable speak your mind

I said that geographically the hypothetical flat dweller may not be able to safeguard his parking space by 1 post. He could not erect 3 further posts on his neighbour's parking spaces as these is not his land. It would require their co-operation.

As I said, you will need to take my word for it that posts are not a viable solution in the block of flats I am basing this on.

The original thread asked a question about circumstances in which some form of PPC would be applicable. I certainly have no sympathy with car parks where overstaying is penalised with charges of £40 or more - in fact any charge at an otherwise "free" car park seems far too open to vampires who need to feed on motorists to survive.

On the other hand, most of us are aware of those motorists who don't give a fig about others, who will happily park in front of garages, driveways and in other people's parking spaces genuinely inconveniencing individuals. I would have no sympathy whatsoever in the latter lot facing a financial penalty.

Regrettably, the parking enforcers attracted a criminal element with heavy handed bully boy tactics and unrealistic charges. With clamping and towing now restricted, I can't see that there is much in it for them any more, particularly with the publicity now being given as to the fact that these tickets are not fines and that people don't need to pay.

But, in order to answer the question, I am certainly in favour of there being some sort of penalty for parking in a way that causes real inconvenience to ordinary members of the public.

Coupon-mad

s555 wrote: »

Why should he have to buy a parking post? It's his land and people parking on it without authority are in the wrong.

Same reason you'd buy a front door...:p

s555 wrote: »

If there was a penalty for this, they likely wouldn't do it.

No company or individual can issue penalties. Never have been able to.

s555 wrote: »

I don't have to buy a front door lock in order for someone stealing from my house to be breaking the law. I buy a front door lock as a condition of my insurance.

Now you are being silly! Of course you lock your front door to stop burglars!

:rotfl:

Coupon-mad

TrickyWicky wrote: »

There is definitely a need for PPC enforcement...

I beg to differ, I cannot see any place for it at all.

TrickyWicky wrote: »

What I am saying is that there IS a gap that the PPCs can fill and work in harmony with the motorist.

I know what you are saying - a situation where the retailer pays the PPC - but it would NEVER, NEVER 'work in harmony with the motorist'!

TrickyWicky wrote: »

The problem is that these companies don't generally know anything about parking, their rights, responsibilities etc when it comes to parking.

You can say the same about ANY PPC. Tell me about ANY of them whose employees haven't been told they are issuing 'fines' and given some old rubbish to convince them they are doing a real job? Tell me about ANY of them who understand the Equality Act 2010, the simple fact that a disabled person can use a disabled bay (and who those disabled people might be)?

Part of the problem is that PPC staff are either untrained or have done an 'NVQ in Private Parking' or some such rubbish. I looked into the subjects covered by one of those 'Private Land Parking' NVQs and it included 'the Blue Badge scheme'! Yes I did email the training provider and point out the problem with that - got a response too. They were going to check out what I told them, but I don't know or care if they ever did adjust their training...in some ways it's good that PPCs get it so wrong!