Help I've got a PCN for pulling into an access road

nobbysn*ts

Coupon-mad wrote: »

But parking penalties from private companies as a deterrent, only work when the sheep-like UK public continue to believe they have got a real 'parking ticket' and roll over and pay the stupid amount, worried about escalating costs (in fact, POFA 2012 doesn't allow it) and being stupidly thankful for the discount (the bribe).

Typically, these firms get rich based on heinous crimes such as genuine disabled people parking in disabled bays and people shopping and overstaying a time limit at a retail park or supermarket, a limit they never knew existed. It's an industry where the operators carry out a protection racket against customers of the real businesses - make no mistake, these are parasite firms leeching off legit businesses and 'farming' their car parks. This is not about parking management.

And as far as Airports are concerned, this MP understood exactly what these 'fake PCNS' are really about, this being VCS at an Airport:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436708/MP-attacks-predatory-airport-parking-patrols-fine-drivers-100-dropping-passengers-stop-just-seconds.html

It's not just predatory, it's unlawful. Not only are there bylaws at Airports which set the real penalties at a fiver:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/an-open-letter-to-simon-renshaw-smith.html

...but also VCS and APCOA and others have been known to send out PCNs which say that the registered keeper is liable. But they are not liable, because the POFA 2012 and 'keeper liability' does not apply on land such as Airports, railways, Ports and any other car parks covered by statutory control.

That's the thing though. While not all parking tickets are fair, it doesn't follow they're all unfair. If the problem is an objection to private contractors, on private land, I would be just as happy to see it enforced under byelaws, or by the police. But the scheme would be self funding, and employing police doesn't come cheap, so I still reckon the fines would be a lot more than a fiver.

nobbysn*ts

bazster wrote: »

........Luton Airport claims that it's a security risk to have unattended vehicles in the drop-off-area, whilst failing to explain the fact that the drop-off area is separated from the short-term car park by just a chain-link fence.....................

Hmm, you have to ask, which is easier? To drive in to a totally insecure area, park, walk away, and then detonate your car bomb from a safe distance, or pre pay on your credit card for short term parking, put in your car reg, assume there is no basic electronic nose on the car park entrance to detect explosives, enter the car park with the big camera, drive around looking for a convenient parking space, park (maybe) in the desired spot, then walk away, and detonate the car. I'll let you figure why security at the drop off is extended to not having unattended cars. You can argue what level 'unattended' is, then you will get more backing You'll get none for a carte blanche 'dump it for as long as you need to' If you have a proposal to make it work fine, lobby for that. Oh, and I really doubt they'll ever tell a pro parking lobbyist what security measures they have for counter terrorism, kind of defeat the object wouldn't it?

nobbysn*ts

Oh, and before you have a go at me, I am talking specifically about airports here, although it would be worth looking at ports, and some major train and bus stations to. London have it very well sown up, so maybe see why Heathrow has never appeared on this forum, and take it from there? Does what they do work?

nobbysn*ts

Hey, we're 'stupid' as well. - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65892769#Comment_65892769

Hot_Bring

AdrianC wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, my sole comment on the legalities has been to say that whilst it is easier for public-sector penalties to be enforced than private ones, they can still be successfully enforced via courts. Which, afaia, is absolutely true and which has not so far been questioned. The rest of what I've said is not related to the legalities.

Court can be a lottery but a properly defended case will normally win ( and has on numerous occasions ).

Contract law only allows for loses to be claimed for the 'infringement' - that makes nearly all these types of tickets unlawful. I still have two outstanding invoices from G24 who kindly rang me 4 months ago to tell me that unless I paid immediately that I would be taken to court ( oh and those two £50 tickets are morphed to a massive £400 - £400 in loses ? Really ? Pull the other one ! ). I pointed out that G24 had NEVER taken anyone to court and the response was "I couldn't give a s**t". Despite numerous reminders from me that I still haven't received my court papers G24 still haven't taken me to court. Ask yourself why ?

Add in that many of these companies are bullies - I've been physically threatened by one PPC employee and threatened over email by other PPCs. That's because they don't like the scam being highlighted.

So we have companies issuing unlawful invoices and then using unlawful tactics ( i.e. threats and lies ) to try and scare people into paying yet people like you defend these invoices - amazing ! :eek:

nobbysn*ts

Hot_Bring wrote: »

Court can be a lottery but a properly defended case will normally win ( and has on numerous occasions )

Figures from the very well respected bargepole show 59.8% won by Parking Eye, so I wouldn't quite say a properly defended case win normally win, but more a 2 out 5 chance. But the real scary figure was that was only out of 376 cases that made it to hearing, out of 13-14,000 claims in that period. So 97% paid up/lost by default, or some other action.

atilla

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Figures from the very well respected bargepole show 59.8% won by Parking Eye, so I wouldn't quite say a properly defended case win normally win, but more a 2 out 5 chance. But the real scary figure was that was only out of 376 cases that made it to hearing, out of 13-14,000 claims in that period. So 97% paid up/lost by default, or some other action.

Bargepole's figures showed PE success rate to be dropping.
Also showed PE to be liars.
The figure of 13k plus of people paying up shows just how aggressive these companies are in their zeal to rake it in. Remember, the court cases won by the defendants show the argument/tactics the scammers use is non compliant the the relevant Law.

Its also worth remembering the comment PE made in their last published accounts.

nobbysn*ts

atilla wrote: »

Bargepole's figures showed PE success rate to be dropping.
Also showed PE to be liars.
The figure of 13k plus of people paying up shows just how aggressive these companies are in their zeal to rake it in. Remember, the court cases won by the defendants show the argument/tactics the scammers use is non compliant the the relevant Law.

Its also worth remembering the comment PE made in their last published accounts.

They're bargepoles figures, not PE's. So PE can't be liars here. The figures show they normally win, in 3 out of 5, maybe these aren't properly defended, but then again, I doubt mine would be, I'm just the average man in the street. Court's a lottery, the same argument/tactics may well have been used in the cases that lost. They certainly had a good defence in the Cambridge case, but that was won by the PPC, so it's wrong to claim it's clear cut. As to aggressive, they may be, but it means you can safely predict the same will be repeated. 2% lost, 98% won/default/withdrawn before hearing. Not a pleasant fact, but it's fair to let people know what they're dealing with. - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5002764

atilla

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

They're bargepoles figures, not PE's. So PE can't be liars here. The figures show they normally win, in 3 out of 5, maybe these aren't properly defended, but then again, I doubt mine would be, I'm just the average man in the street. Court's a lottery, the same argument/tactics may well have been used in the cases that lost. They certainly had a good defence in the Cambridge case, but that was won by the PPC, so it's wrong to claim it's clear cut. As to aggressive, they may be, but it means you can safely predict the same will be repeated. 2% lost, 98% won/default/withdrawn before hearing. Not a pleasant fact, but it's fair to let people know what they're dealing with. - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5002764

Yes they do show PE to be liars - assuming PE are responsible for their website.

Jim_AFCB

AdrianC wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, my sole comment on the legalities has been to say that whilst it is easier for public-sector penalties to be enforced than private ones, they can still be successfully enforced via courts. Which, afaia, is absolutely true and which has not so far been questioned. The rest of what I've said is not related to the legalities.

WE need to make a distintion beween public-sector-enforced and private sector-enforced here, in that the private companies rely totally on income from "transgressions".

It is in the private companies' interests to ticket as many people as possible in order to maximise their income. If no-one broke their "rules" then they would have no income. Their whole business model RELIES on this, resulting in the myriad of cases where people get ticketed for the tiniest of percieved transgressions.

If the public sector enforced the rules around the airports, the profit motive would not be there (at least, to such an extreme extent anyway) so someone stopping to check their whereabouts and get their bearings, or stopping to read the notices (yes people have even been ticketed for the latter!!) would be OK.