eBook

bod1467

But there are very few car parks where car parking "management" (deliberately in quotes) is needed ... most retail car parks are rarely full.

And if the PPC is using ANPR alone, without any operatives (which is the case for many car parks), then they're not "managing" parking anyway - they're simply recording time on site.

So what you are saying is NOT "valid and common sense".

Annie1960

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.

But there are judges who have confirmed it is zero in a free car park.

Annie1960

captainhindsight wrote: »

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.

So now you are demonstrating that you don't understand the difference between a loss and a cost. They are different things.

PPCs are allowed to claim for losses (which are often zero). They are not allowed to claim costs. Also, they are not allowed to charge penalties.

Guys_Dad

I am amazed at just how little you know or understand - either about law or car park management.

See below

captainhindsight wrote: »

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, PPCs don't maintain car parks
because it is not just people staying too long it is people parking across multiple bays No cost to PPC
in disabled spots No cost to PPC
clearing rubbish trolleys Yes PPCs always do this, particularly at ANPR sites. I am always tripping over {{C guys with their sweeping brushes, tidying trolleys.
, cost of someone to patrol the car park This is a business cost of providing the service and is not attributable directly to motorists contravening the t&c
, cost of enforcing the deterrents but at the time of issuing a charge, this cost is not known ,
sending letters, taking and making phone calls, business costs
court cases, legal costs it is up to the PPC to claim costs in court if they win, so forget these as part of the ticket cost
the list goes on and on. As you seem to



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. I haven't paid a PPC a penny - so untrue

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

What I am saying is valid and common sense.

captainhindsight_2

Annie1960 wrote: »

So now you are demonstrating that you don't understand the difference between a loss and a cost. They are different things.

PPCs are allowed to claim for losses (which are often zero). They are not allowed to claim costs. Also, they are not allowed to charge penalties.

I run a business so yes I do, a loss is a cost. You clearly dont

captainhindsight_2

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I am amazed at just how little you know or understand - either about law or car park management.

See below

By your logic a landowner cannot instruct a third party to carry out work for them to redeem losses that have been made.

You are talking solely about the company issuing the charges, they are acting for the landowner who is paying for all of those things and more.

And the more people like you fight against legitimate practices, the more their legal costs go up which is passed on to the landowner
which is eventually passed onto whoever is occupying the land which is then passed on to the retailers and then to the end customer is simpple basic stuff and you are just like all those people who scam insurance companies for minor non-existent whiplash and leave the rest of us to pay for it.

Stroma

Simple I park in a supermarket car park for 2 1/2 hours whilst shopping, the limit is 2 hours, now prove a loss please?

Good luck on that!

prosnap

Stroma wrote: »

Simple I park in a supermarket car park for 2 1/2 hours whilst shopping, the limit is 2 hours, now prove a loss please?

Good luck on that!

Or when you park there at midnight for just over two hours (obviously their busy period)

captainhindsight_2

Stroma wrote: »

Simple I park in a supermarket car park for 2 1/2 hours whilst shopping, the limit is 2 hours, now prove a loss please?

Good luck on that!

which one of the parties involved do you want me to explain a loss?

The parking company, the landowner, the tenant?

Redx

or you stop in a bus layby on an airport to drop somebody off , pick somebody up , no parking occurred , no car parks were used , no loss was incurred , private parking companies cannot "police" private roads in this manner and their operatives fail to mitigate any charges by warning the driver at all.

they also try to use car parking invoices to charge drivers or keepers for doing this practice when in actual fact bylaws exist and yet are not enforced by the landowner and no contract exists for the car park operator to "police" the roads, yet they do so with impunity, yet fail to win at popla and in court so clearly have no case. they even try to use POFA 2012 on occasion to bully registered keEpers into paying when the land is not relevant under POFA 2012

you also seem to think these companies are being paid to run the car park operation, yet a lot will do it free of charge and are not paid meaning they have to entrap motorists using various rules in order to cover their costs

they also will issue tickets on land not covered in any contract , put up signs and cameras with no planning permission and not adhere to the BPA CoP or the IPC CoP nor dvla best practices and will try to circumvent the laws like proserve tried to do,

the OFT thought that a fair charge was £12 yet the companies all rejected it

if they can only claim back any loss to the landowner and a small recovery charge then £10 or so seemed reasonable PROVIDING they have valid contracts in place, adhere to BPA or IPC CoP rules and have all relevant permissions to go about their business , as over 90% of them fail to do all of this its clear they are out to entrap motorists and their business models are flawed

when you fly ryanair for £89 you are not paying for the 30 million pound boeing 737 you are a passenger on or the costs of running their HQ in eire (or its electricity bill)

when you pay BT for a telephone line you do not pay the costs of running the business , nor the cost of installing the line which can run into hundreds or thousands of pounds in rural areas , you pay a reasonable charge for the service and do not pay all their overheads for vehicles , staff , land , buildings , electricity , satellite dishes , fibre optics or other equipment costs etc which run into tens of billions of pounds and have accrued over the last 100 years of investment

as private parking is unregulated these operators cannot charge fines or penalties at all, those are legal terms and cannot be used , so these are invoices only which have to be based on the laws like POFA 2012 , THE UNFAIR TERMS AND CONTRACTS LAW 1999 and presumably the CONSUMER RIGHTS BILL 2014 , as well as laws of trespass etc too

so clearly £100 is no justification at all, even if there was a valid legal contract in place with landowners , so until it gets resolved properly then clearly these arguments will continue

but the price of chips isnt dependent on how much it cost the chip shop owner to setup or run his business , its about the price he pays for the items , the oil , etc and then trying to make a profit against all the others offering similar products

supermarkets set up with car parks so you could go there , park up and do the shopping , which is very heavy with a full trolley , and put it in the boot and leave , so its their loss leader to get you to come to their premises and shop and spend your money , as it is in my local morrissons with no charges at all , so no losses either

if car parks really want you to pay , then they should use barriers where you pay on or before exit , like at salford royal hospital , where you get the first 20 minutes free if dropping somebody off

did you even consider that maybe we should not be paying hospitals at all ? seeing that as taxpayers we pay for the hospitals in our taxes and they are not "businesses" ? same applies to clinics and health centres too (walk in centres)

why are gym centres having their paying members charged invoices for parking when they are paid up members of the club which INCLUDES free parking ?

how do YOU justify a charge like this one https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4981054 where the diabled lady simply forgot to display a permit (the BB in this case) and so no losses were incurred and the retailer was profiting by having the persons business at the same time (its a free car park too so no loss to anybody at all) - also the warden failed in his legal and moral duty to mitigate the loss by cancelling the ticket once the BB was shown

or this one ? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4967884

or this one ? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4935565

or this one ? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4822530

or this one even ? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4889645

the lists go on and on , yet as stated you clearly have no concept of these issues at all