eBook

captainhindsight_2

ColliesCarer wrote: »

@Guys Dad

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish

Precisely, hopefully common sense will prevail.

I cant believe @guysdad is condoning stealing information from posters regardless of his opinion of this information given this is wrong.

It is the principle of it and as you say my quote below is very appropriate

captainhindsight_2

Guys_Dad wrote: »

No, I quote relevant posts and as this is a Parking forum, then your comments about parking are the important ones here.

I wouldn't want to challenge any of your posts on other subjects such as construction where you may know your subject matter, but your posts on this forum are less informed and not helpful.

I am sure that if I had construction queries I would be pleased to receive your informed help and advice. But I haven't and, on this forum, I don't.

I am talking about the principle of stealing information from posters and trying to profit from it. This principle applies regardless of the individual posts contents and your opinion on that contents, it is wrong and you shouldn't condone it.

ColliesCarer

captainhindsight wrote: »

Precisely, hopefully common sense will prevail.

I cant believe @guysdad is condoning stealing information from posters regardless of his opinion of this information given this is wrong.

It is the principle of it and as you say my quote below is very appropriate

Common sense will only prevail if you begin to show some

At no point in his posts has Guys Dad condoned stealing information and to imply that he has is misrepresenting his views.

The issue is being resolved by those concerned and didn't need your interference.

Your signature quote is very appropriate as you seem to think everyone else but you is a fool

Guys_Dad

captainhindsight wrote: »

I am talking about the principle of stealing information from posters and trying to profit from it. This principle applies regardless of the individual posts contents and your opinion on that contents, it is wrong and you shouldn't condone it.

Condone it??? I wrote "Obviously people can be miffed if they think a publication is a rehash of other people's efforts or if there are inaccuracies in it, but if that gets sorted out, then having another reference source available to the public can't be a bad thing."

And my first post in reply to your comment related to bad advice you have given. This is a forum to help motorists with the swingeing PPC charges and your contributions so far support your forum name. Advising people that they should follow the signs next time when they want help this time is truly hindsight and as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

da_rule

The argument is getting a bit off topic.

I don't propose to keep going over the same ground. Did I use the template contained in the general ParkingEye POPLA appeal thread as a base for the template in the book? Yes. Did I alter the template to an extent where I felt that it was significantly changed? Yes (although I accept that this is open to debate).

captainhindsight_2

I personally dont see how me giving advice saying make sure you read the signs about parking restrictions in another thread when you park your car in a car park is bad advice, when it would remove the need of all these disputes in the first place.

The fact is there are clear signs stating the implications of parking beyond the time allowed and if people took the time to read these signs there would be no need to dispute the charges being given because they wouldn't be given.

The whole purpose of these deterrents is to ensure there is enough parking for people to use the car park to access the store or town etc staying beyond these agreed times clogs up car parks.

This is fact and completely logical I really dont understand how any one could disagree with this.

The mind boggles :wall: :wall: :wall:

Coupon-mad

The whole purpose of these deterrents is to ensure there is enough parking for people to use the car park to access the store or town etc staying beyond these agreed times clogs up car parks.

This is fact and completely logical I really dont understand how any one could disagree with this.

Yes: from the retailer's point of view. But a deterrent of £100 = an unenforceable penalty!

No: from the PPCs' point of view - the very last thing they want to do is actually deter the 'flies' from being caught in their unexpected web.

captainhindsight_2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes: from the retailer's point of view. But a deterrent of £100 = an unenforceable penalty!

No: from the PPCs' point of view - the very last thing they want to do is actually deter the 'flies' from being caught in their unexpected web.

How much is an acceptable penalty?

captainhindsight_2

ColliesCarer wrote: »

Common sense will only prevail if you begin to show some

At no point in his posts has Guys Dad condoned stealing information and to imply that he has is misrepresenting his views.

The issue is being resolved by those concerned and didn't need your interference.

Your signature quote is very appropriate as you seem to think everyone else but you is a fool

No not everyone

bod1467

captainhindsight wrote: »

How much is an acceptable penalty?

£0, since PPCs are private companies and cannot enforce penalties. All they can do is issue invoices.

Now if they set these at, say £15 rising to £25 after 14 days then there'd probably be less of an outcry. Whilst they'd still be unenforceable, people may be more amenable to paying them just to make the hassle go away. But PPCs wouldn't want to do that - they want to fleece as much money as they can from this racket.