eBook

captainhindsight_2

bod1467 wrote: »

£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.

So private companies (or contractors on their behalf) cannot inforce rules for allowing people onto their own land and inforce charges for breaches of those rules ?

There must be some kind of legal rights for private landowners to enforce restrictions and penalties on there own land, is there no sort of implied contract by reading the signs and accepting those terms by still parking there and then issuing an invoice /charge for the time used in that car park? It seems perfectly fair and reasonable.

And if they have issued an invoice for the amount clearly stated they would do for using the car park longer than allowed surely this is fair ?

ppc_guy

4CR - You said you had missed the post so i sent you a copy. You didnt address the other issues i raised though. I suppose some people are blind to the truth whereas others are scared of it.

Annie1960

captainhindsight wrote: »

There must be some kind of legal rights for private landowners to enforce restrictions and penalties on there own land, is there no sort of implied contract by reading the signs and accepting those terms by still parking there and then issuing an invoice /charge for the time used in that car park? It seems perfectly fair and reasonable.

POPLA and the courts would not agree with you here. They are allowed to recover their losses, they are not permitted to charge a penalty.

And if they have issued an invoice for the amount clearly stated they would do for using the car park longer than allowed surely this is fair ?

No, your opinion is not supported by well-argued appeals at either POPLA or the courts.

Now I need to add at least 10 characters, as the system won't let me post!

Coupon-mad

ppc_guy wrote: »

4CR - You said you had missed the post so i sent you a copy. You didnt address the other issues i raised though. I suppose some people are blind to the truth whereas others are scared of it.

No-one wanted to read your defamatory rubbish and if you personally are sad enough to believe everything you read from a random amateur webpage with PORKIES on it then you are confirming yourself to be exactly the sort of person I always thought you were, when you used to pm me random unsolicited stuff about Perky.

captainhindsight_2

Annie1960 wrote: »

POPLA and the courts would not agree with you here. They are allowed to recover their losses, they are not permitted to charge a penalty.

lol. Thats like saying how long is a piece of string.

Whos losses,the business, the tenant, the landlord or all of theres?

If people were blocking up a carpark stopping customers from accessing the car park taking away good will etc you could argue a huge amount as they could argue huge losses due to longterm loss of business due to irresponsible people parking beyond the time allowed leading the business to close.

I am amazed at this loophole to take away control from landowners of there own land.

Coupon-mad

captainhindsight wrote: »

If people were blocking up a carpark stopping customers from accessing the car park taking away good will etc you could argue a huge amount as they could argue huge losses due to longterm loss of business due to irresponsible people parking beyond the time allowed leading the business to close.

Oh yes and we all see that happen all the time in retail car parks where there is no PPC scumbag on site...oh wait, no we don't!

halibut2209

It's not complicated. Actual provable losses as a direct result of any "transgression". In other words, nothing in a free car park, or the cost of parking if you overstay. Anything else is nonsense, including your example of loss of business. That is not provable.

captainhindsight_2

but you cant honestly believe there is no loss from enforcing parking restrictions on a free car park?

I know what I said above is an exaggeration leading to a shop to close but that is what i am trying to say, it is impossible to say an exact figure but it is definitely not zero.

Guys_Dad

captainhindsight wrote: »

but you cant honestly believe there is no loss from enforcing parking restrictions on a free car park?

I know what I said above is an exaggeration leading to a shop to close but that is what i am trying to say, it is impossible to say an exact figure but it is definitely not zero.

Nor is it £100 and that is the sum they claim and we try to advise how to defend against this rip off.

captainhindsight_2

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Nor is it £100 and that is the sum they claim and we try to advise how to defend against this rip off.

what do you believe there losses would be?

I believe £100 is fair to pay for all there losses and cost of maintaining the carpark, because it is not just people staying too long it is people parking across multiple bays in disabled spots clearing rubbish trolleys, cost of someone to patrol the car park, cost of enforcing the deterrents, sending letters, taking and making phone calls, court cases, legal costs the list goes on and on.

And the more people fight the more they will fight and the higher the costs go up, just like with insurance scammers everyone pays for the few who want to scam the system.

And i believe everyone else pays in the long run for those who dont want to take responsibility for there mistakes.

What I am saying is valid and common sense.