3 is a Crowd!

mysterywoman10

I've been giving this some thought today, after going back to inspect the scene and the discussion in one of the threads on someone actually facing court action.

In the end we agreed that the landowner was at the heart of defending any Court action that a Private Parking Company unless they owned the land/leased it could not claim loss in the Court.

When I spoke to the Manager about my ticket last week, he said they had no direct contact with the PCN issuer they had to go through a 3rd party and I know my retailer owns the land, well the main part of it anyway and I know who owns the other new bit which is leased to them for parking.

So on reading the signs they clearly state in very very small print a disclaimer that the company attempting to police the car park albeit on the store's behalf are a "maximisation company" and are in no way responsible for surfaces, lighting etc.

This leads me to think that they are one step more removed from the landowner in other words they have a contract with a third party who is responsible for other aspects of managing the car park.

We know this happens with Management companies like Savills which is one of the reasons I suspect if contacted they back down because they are clever enough to realise the Maximisation Company does not have a loss and therefore cannot collect in court on behalf of the landowner in their own name and that POPLA will also uphold challenges on these grounds.

This maybe also why the names of the contractor have been blocked out on recent POPLA submissions by Maximisation Companies. Because they have no direct contract whatsoever with the landowner so they are then a once removed agent, their contract is only with the Agent. In my case the land I parked on is then 3 times removed from the actual landowner!

So even Retailers who own the land, have a third party buildings/ car park management company and then they have a Maximisation Company.

So anyone revisiting the scene needs to look carefully at the sign to see if the small print I described above is there or not and whether the PPC in question is a Maximiser.

Therefore in theory as we know no Maximiser is really entitled to even issue a ticket. They probably don't even get paid at all by the Agent because they don't do anything at all but install cameras and issue tickets.

There only revenue is tickets or at best an installation fee and a small monthly fee.

So they should be renamed they are not Private Parking Companies at all.

They are MAXIMISERS which means they are out to rob you as we already know.

I wonder if there is grounds for mis representation in their advertising etc. as well?

It's also a word that is not in the dictionary!