Parking eye won cambridge case

carandbike

nicechap wrote: »

I've probably got the wrong end of the stick here.

According to the BPA code of practice, PPCs are supposed to charge their Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss (though the BPA think it includes running costs as do PPCs). However, in this case Parking Eye have argued their fee is also a commercially justifiable charge.

I was thinking about that last night. It goes against the BPA code of (mal) practice. It clearly says it has to be a gpeol. If so, then should PE have access to the dvla in such cases? Maybe we are on each end of the wrong stick! :beer:

Bantex_2

ColliesCarer wrote: »

The other judge gets my support because one thing that is very bizarre IMO is: -

In the ruling 7.14.b it states [the charge] ... has a dual function to finance a profitable business and to deter overstaying.

But this totally fails to take into account that these supposed "dual functions" are mutually exclusive.

If the business is profitable it is failing to deter overstaying.
If it's successful in deterring overstaying then it goes bankrupt!!

What definition of trailblazing was being used?
The urban dictionary?

That is not true. Detering overstaying is not the same as eradicating it.

carandbike

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

I've seen this reported on here, but what where the pcn's originally issued for. Was it overstaying in a free car park?

I believe so. About half hour to fifty mins, off the top of my head. There is nothing else you can be "done" for there. Just a couple of cameras on sticks, no personnel. I asked the council if planning permission was granted for the cameras. I was told they don't know and anyway it doesn't need to be for security cctv. They fail to understand these cameras aren't cctv in the true sense nor do they aid security, unless PE has a dedicated monitoring team with PNC access.

ffacoffipawb

carandbike wrote: »

I believe so. About half hour to fifty mins, off the top of my head. There is nothing else you can be "done" for there. Just a couple of cameras on sticks, no personnel. I asked the council if planning permission was granted for the cameras. I was told they don't know and anyway it doesn't need to be for security cctv. They fail to understand these cameras aren't cctv in the true sense nor do they aid security, unless PE has a dedicated monitoring team with PNC access.

Best way of avoiding this hassle due to an overstay is to hide your number plate on exit, then remove said covering once on public highway away from scum PPC cameras.

nigelbb

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

I've seen this reported on here, but what where the pcn's originally issued for. Was it overstaying in a free car park?

On overstay of 42 minutes & 56 minutes.

The car park is busy. It's the only free car park within walking distance of the town centre of Chelmsford. Across the road is a council run pay car park. The retailers are in a bit of a cleft stick as they obviously want to offer free parking as an incentive for shoppers to visit their stores but they don't want motorists parking there all day & walking into the town centre. The planning permission must have a condition that motorists are allowed to leave the site otherwise you can be sure that would be forbidden (not that PE's cameras could enforce it anyway).

A fairer method of management would be barriers on entry & exit with parking fees in line with the council car park across the road & a reimbursement of the cost of parking by the retailers for genuine shoppers. This type of scheme is very successful elsewhere & ensures that money isn't syphoned out of shoppers pockets to PE rather than being spent in the stores.

Goodness only knows how many thousands a year PE are screwing out of motorists on this car park but they think it worthwhile to pay £1000 per week for their fishing licence so the sum must be very substantial. I'm surprised that they are not required to account to the landowner for exactly how much they are extracting from motorists.

Bantex_2

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

Best way of avoiding this hassle due to an overstay is to hide your number plate on exit, then remove said covering once on public highway away from scum PPC cameras.

Or just not overstay?
Only a suggestion.

carandbike

Obviously!
Unavoidable circumstances and just good old forgetfulness don't ever play a part in your life then?

carandbike

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

Best way of avoiding this hassle due to an overstay is to hide your number plate on exit, then remove said covering once on public highway away from scum PPC cameras.

You can do this easily at Riverside as the access road is quite long and the scameras are a good way from the road. However, if you get unlucky and have a knock or get spotted by plod, you may find that even though it's private land, because there is public access, you may be done for other offences. Mind you a fixed penalty for a number plate offence is probably about a third of a pcn!

Bantex_2

carandbike wrote: »

Obviously!
Unavoidable circumstances and just good old forgetfulness don't ever play a part in your life then?

Never have so far as far a parking goes. I park, I know what time I have to be back by and will leave whatever shopping I am doing to get back. Never really found it a problem.

carandbike

nigelbb wrote: »

The car park is busy. It's the only free car park within walking distance of the town centre of Chelmsford. Across the road is a council run pay car park. The retailers are in a bit of a cleft stick as they obviously want to offer free parking as an incentive for shoppers to visit their stores but they don't want motorists parking there all day & walking into the town centre.

It is busy, but even on a Saturday, there are lots of empty spaces. I have never not been able to park. I can think of only one occasion where I could not park very near to a particular shop I wanted to be close to. This could point to a successful management of the car park, or equally that 3 hours would be a more useful time limit, as I believe it used to be. It could be that people are scarpering back to their cars and not spending in some of the shops. It was quoted as 7 retailers in the court case, I believe? I counted 11 that week, would have been 12 but the garden centre has gone. Many of the shops aren't quick browses, they are full on aisles of items. Would I be cynical in thinking that the 3 hours limit I was told was there, reduced to 2 hours after PE got involved?