parking eye charging at 2 am in morningh

Jamie_Carter

HappyMJ wrote: »

What for? All I look for now is if the car park is a council car park or not which I avoid parking in and instead park across the street in the private car park operated by a supermarket and then cross the road to do my shopping. It's free to park and supposed to be for customers only and cost £2 which is refunded by the supermarket and any parking charges I get if ever, which is rare, go in the bin.

So thanks to people like you, they will probably have to put up parking charges for everyone else.

Stroma

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Because it is a business, and businesses exist to make money. So it is up to them when they charge.

But it's not the business making money on this at all, it's parking eye with an illegal penalty charge. And as they don't have any legal right to even offer parking this so called parking charge should be ignored completely.

atilla

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Because it is a business, and businesses exist to make money. So it is up to them when they charge.

Wrong business, wrong reason and most certainly, wrong ethics.

Jamie_Carter

Stroma wrote: »

But it's not the business making money on this at all, it's parking eye with an illegal penalty charge. And as they don't have any legal right to even offer parking this so called parking charge should be ignored completely.

Parking Eye will be contracted by the land owner. If you don't pay the fee you are supposed to pay to park, then it is the land owner's business that suffers.

If people deliberatly don't pay for parking, because they can get away with it, then car parks will close so that the land can be used for other purposes. And I bet the same people who are sug about not paying for parking, will be the same people who will be moaning about there not being enough car parks.

Personally I think it would solve a lot of problems if all car parks had barriers, so that you had to pay to leave.

Jamie_Carter

atilla wrote: »

Wrong business, wrong reason and most certainly, wrong ethics.

You obviously don't understand business.

Do you think that land owners should just provide their land free for you to park on?

The_Slithy_Tove

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Do you think that land owners should just provide their land free for you to park on?

The point is, they do! Then a parasitic PPC comes in an scams money by issuing tickets for non-offences like parking 1cm over the line, or parking at 2am. The owner of the car park gets none of the money that mugs pay to the likes of PE. So the effect on their business is zero.

We don't advocate not paying the hourly charge. We do advocate telling PPCs where to go with their unenforceable penalties.

atilla

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You obviously don't understand business.

Do you think that land owners should just provide their land free for you to park on?

You presume too much - without paying attention to the details.

Stroma

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Parking Eye will be contracted by the land owner. If you don't pay the fee you are supposed to pay to park, then it is the land owner's business that suffers.

If people deliberatly don't pay for parking, because they can get away with it, then car parks will close so that the land can be used for other purposes. And I bet the same people who are sug about not paying for parking, will be the same people who will be moaning about there not being enough car parks.

Personally I think it would solve a lot of problems if all car parks had barriers, so that you had to pay to leave.

You obviously haven't read hmrc v vcs where the judge said parking companies without propriety interest in the car park cannot offer parking ! This was a binding decision on lower courts that is why hardly any parking companies go to court as they cannot do that also!

And nobody here condones abusing car parks whether private or public, but if the business is closed why aren't the barriers down ? Also paying on exit would negate parking companies so they are hardly going to cut their own throats are they ?

Parking management companies are only in it for the money, they are supposed to manage a car park, companies like parking eye do this with a camera on entry/exit only, now how is that management ? They are supposed to only recover losses, yet they charge circa £100 in almost all instances. So how in this instance the loss is anywhere near what they are trying to claim ? Remember legally only the landowner can claim a loss not the parasitical parking company.

Stroma

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You obviously don't understand business.

Do you think that land owners should just provide their land free for you to park on?

Most do, they are called supermarkets/retail parks/fast food joints and so on! You don't appear to know the basic principles of this issue, I would suggest reading and studying for a few hours so you can gain those principles

ManxRed

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Parking Eye will be contracted by the land owner. If you don't pay the fee you are supposed to pay to park, then it is the land owner's business that suffers.

At 2am in the morning?

No one on here condones any actions that would genuinely deprive a landowner any rightful fees for parking, but do you understand the general concept of seeking to recover losses, and not punitive penalties in respect of private parking?

If you don't, then I suggest maybe you go and read up about it.

Your argument about car parks being closed if people don't pay up (presumably you're referring to fake fines - as I said no one on here condones not paying the proper parking fees in the first place) is ludicrous. You seriously believe a supermarket would rather close its car park and deprive customers of the opportunity to shop all because people objected to being fleeced by fake and unlawful fines?

Really???