Retailers must be mugs!

Half_way

Northlakes wrote: »

This thread has gone in allsorts of directions but it might be helpful to explain how my parking management gripe came from.
I have a fuels business and I use a pickup and trailer for my work. I often called in at my local Morrisons later in the day to buy a few odds and ends and have meal. My pick-up and trailer fills two spaces but at that time of day there are usually plenty of spaces so no obstruction occurs. However Parking Eye management was introduced and as they are very well known for their litigious stance on T&C's, danger bells started ringing. Since then I have boycotted my local Morrisons as I don't want to go through the hassle which some of you have endured. Life is too short!

Almost all parking eye sites do their car park management via a camera on a pole, while it may be good at revenue generation, its not much use when it comes to managing the car park

Northlakes

Half-way,
That's a good point. PE are installing these ANPR cameras not as parking management tool but must as a speculative investment in order to catch the errant motorist. If the approach to the retailer to manage the car park came from the parking management company that will prove the point. That's why parking management costs should not be included in assessment of loss by the issuer of the PCN.

waamo

Umkomaas wrote: »

If all those jumping in on this thread to criticise, delivered even a minute percentage of help that bargepole provides to random, unknown posters with their parking problems (including highly technical and complex legal cases, with personal appearances at court on their behalf) then their contributions would be better focused on the issues we are all working on in this forum.

So come on you guys who are quick to pile in on second order P&C issues, put your money where your mouth is and help in advising newbies how to deal with, appeal, and defeat their PCNs.

Any takers? Or are you just content to sit there and criticise and to leave it to the few regulars to deal with all the Groundhog Day issues, with the likes of bargepole to handle the really serious side of things at court level?

If you can't positively contribute to this particular forum, then please find another one more suitable to your level of expertise and provide assistance there.

Don't forget this is a Money Savings forum

Frankly anybody who does half the work bargepole does to combat the ppc's deserves to park where they like.

Northlakes

I think the anti-PCN experts have done a marvellous job! I have fought and won contract issues, but when reading through the various posts it's clear to me that the PM companies are trying to shift the ground due to the success of the MSE experts. If any contract exists at all it exists between the landowner and the trespasser and any payment due is for genuine loss or damage. If it is a free car park and spare spaces are clearly available there is no loss to the landowner. PMC's are trying to claim management costs which don't exist if they themselves (not the landowner) installed the equipment. If the landowner fitted the monitoring equipment any costs would be aggregated between all the users of the car park not any trespasser.
Do the experts out there agree?

bazster

Umkomaas wrote: »

If all those jumping in on this thread to criticise, delivered even a minute percentage of help that bargepole provides to random, unknown posters with their parking problems (including highly technical and complex legal cases, with personal appearances at court on their behalf) then their contributions would be better focused on the issues we are all working on in this forum.

So come on you guys who are quick to pile in on second order P&C issues, put your money where your mouth is and help in advising newbies how to deal with, appeal, and defeat their PCNs.

Any takers? Or are you just content to sit there and criticise and to leave it to the few regulars to deal with all the Groundhog Day issues, with the likes of bargepole to handle the really serious side of things at court level?

If you can't positively contribute to this particular forum, then please find another one more suitable to your level of expertise and provide assistance there.

Don't forget this is a Money Savings forum

I'm afraid this is what inevitably happens when someone challenges the ever-growing sense of entitlement among the child-encumbered. It's not sufficient that the rest of society pays for their offsprings' education and healthcare and dishes out other peoples' money to them in countless ways, they now demand all manner of privileges in kind, whether it be cycling on pavements en famille or getting the cream of the parking spaces at supermarkets. Even the last advantage remaining to the child-free, paying less for holidays, is under attack from foot-stamping, tantrum-throwing parents crying "it's so unfair" and demanding that something be done.

Dee140157

I don't usually enter into debates such as these, sticking to helping where I can and leaving the difficult ones I don't understand for those such as bargepole. Maybe in a few years time I will be able to help court cases, but certainly not yet. To be honest I feel that you need a "belligerent" (may not be the best word, but closest I can think of at the moment) type of person to be able to stand up to these bullies in court. I tend to be mild mannered and generally might crumble in politeness.

However on the issue of parent and child spaces, (which I know is not what this thread is about but riles me). I understand the need for wider spaces if you have to manoeuvre a child out of a car seat and possibly get car seat out too. However this need does not mean that the parent nor in many cases the child are unable to walk a sensible distance to the shop. Yes the spaces are needed, but no they do not need to be placed adjacent to the shop in the way that disabled spaces need to be. I can see no reason why you cannot have a row of parent and child spaces in a further away part of the car park. My children were taught to use their legs and walk, sometimes fair distances, having never driven them to school. As a consequence I have 2 slim, healthy, active adult children now.

PS Bargepole, I am not calling you belligerent , honest!

Guys_Dad

Northlakes wrote: »

I think the anti-PCN experts have done a marvellous job! I have fought and won contract issues, but when reading through the various posts it's clear to me that the PM companies are trying to shift the ground due to the success of the MSE experts. If any contract exists at all it exists between the landowner and the trespasser and any payment due is for genuine loss or damage. If it is a free car park and spare spaces are clearly available there is no loss to the landowner. PMC's are trying to claim management costs which don't exist if they themselves (not the landowner) installed the equipment. If the landowner fitted the monitoring equipment any costs would be aggregated between all the users of the car park not any trespasser.
Do the experts out there agree?

The essential course for all PPCs includes watching the 1962 film "the Music Man". I am surprised that the annual PPC convention doesn't have a Harold Hill award.

The_Deep

When push comes to shove, the best way to get these pests out of the car parks is to stand in the middle of the store and cause an almighty row. OK, you may get yourself escorted out, or even banned, but the store manager will get the message.

I realise that such behaviour is total anathema to the majority, but I would refer you to Pastor Neimoller's poem.

trisontana

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The essential course for all PPCs includes watching the 1962 film "the Music Man". I am surprised that the annual PPC convention doesn't have a Harold Hill award.

One of my favourite films!