Parking eye won cambridge case

skitler

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

It'll certainly be interesting, as the concept of private "fines" as opposed to genuine losses is widespread, from the simple library fine, travel lodges smoking fine, and other similar schemes. Hope we get judges that can look at the whole penalty issue, and not just in parking.

lets hope there a lot stricter than you seem to think, and youre the first one, so they can set the example.

arcon5

Computersaysno wrote: »

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

I'm guessing you've never owned or been the leaseholder of a bit of land you've been unable to use or staff use for parking do due arrogant shoppers/motorists who ignore signage and show disrespect for other peoples land.

The usual responses being get barriers - which I fail to see why somebody should have to pay out money for installation and maintenance off.

Bring on the rights for land owners.

The judge isn't an advocate for the consumer, despite some thinking they should be.

Most (but not all ofcourse) tickets are the result of arrogance or ignorance.

I'd welcome a proper, regulated industry to combat this.

atilla

arcon5 wrote: »

Most (but not all ofcourse) tickets are the result of arrogance or ignorance.

Yes, on the part of the scammers.

trisontana

arcon5 wrote: »

The usual responses being get barriers - which I fail to see why somebody should have to pay out money for installation and maintenance off.

No different to having doors to stop people wandering into your building. It's just part of the expense of securing your property.

nobbysn*ts

trisontana wrote: »

No different to having doors to stop people wandering into your building. It's just part of the expense of securing your property.

Not wishing to sound like I agree with any parking enforcement by the scammers, I think it is. Here in summer, we quite often leave the doors open, simply as it's warm. tbh, I wouldn't expect anyone to walk in, and so far no one has. If they did though, I might consider throwing them out myself.

Folkiedave

I believe most people pay the library "fines" since they are seen as reasonable. We have people stopped for seconds "fined" £100.00.

No one would argue (as far as I am aware) that they are not entitled to their charge - 0.40p or whatever.

What they are not entitled to is to FINE people and of course they don't pretend they can. They send a speculative invoice.

nobbysn*ts

Folkiedave wrote: »

I believe most people pay the library "fines" since they are seen as reasonable. We have people stopped for seconds "fined" £100.00.

No one would argue (as far as I am aware) that they are not entitled to their charge - 0.40p or whatever.

What they are not entitled to is to FINE people and of course they don't pretend they can. They send a speculative invoice.

Maybe the decision will take account of the charge being "reasonable", but then we're back were we started, so I would say it has to be clear, and an all or nothing decision.

salmosalaris

arcon5 wrote: »

I'm guessing you've never owned or been the leaseholder of a bit of land you've been unable to use or staff use for parking do due arrogant shoppers/motorists who ignore signage and show disrespect for other peoples land.

The usual responses being get barriers - which I fail to see why somebody should have to pay out money for installation and maintenance off.

Bring on the rights for land owners.

The judge isn't an advocate for the consumer, despite some thinking they should be.

Most (but not all ofcourse) tickets are the result of arrogance or ignorance.

I'd welcome a proper, regulated industry to combat this.

As a landowner the law is quite adequate for you to bring a claim for trespass for your actual losses . If you don't want the public parking on your land then block it off .
The current set up has nothing to do with the rights of landowners but rather the generation of fat profits for PPC's .

andy_foster

The fact that you feel comfortable leaving your doors open does not negate the analogy. There are many car parks which seem to be comfortable not having any physical or sanction based system for preventing random parking. However, many people would not feel comfortable leaving their doors open, or their cars or bikes unlocked etc.

Hot_Bring

arcon5 wrote: »

The usual responses being get barriers - which I fail to see why somebody should have to pay out money for installation and maintenance off.

I somewhat object to having to maintain my locks, burglar alarm and pay the extra premium on my house insurance because some scum might break in ...... I still do though.