Class action against parking companies?

Bantex_2

Umkomaas wrote: »

NO!

'Seems to run from' £30! Very selective quotation, old boy/girl!

You fail to make any analysis or explanation of Croydon's two tier system of charges or make a true 'compare and contrast' with PPC charges (and don't forget councils have statutory backing, totally unlike any backing PPCs have!).

Out of your depth on here, I'm afraid. Is there not an X-Factor or Strictly forum on MSE for you?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5094728
Recent post

gertysingh

Bantex - Although I disagree with your thoughts, think they are useful to see what paranoia the PPCs spread when they become "agents" to the landowner.

Coupon-mad

gertysingh wrote: »

Bantex - Although I disagree with your thoughts, think they are useful to see what paranoia the PPCs spread when they become "agents" to the landowner.

Exactly.

The PPCs approach the landowner and spread all sorts of lies about disabled bays and horror stories about the car park being clogged up with commuters dumping their cars, and oily promises to 'increase the footfall'! Absolutely transparent and ludicrous sound-bites; so obvious that I would have literally laughed in their faces if they'd tried this with me when I was in charge of various company sites in the past!

What gets me is that most of these thieving gits have simply undertaken a City & Guilds NVQ in 'private parking enforcement' and quite literally have no clue about the Equality Act 2010 yet contract to 'Police' disabled bays and 'inspect' Blue Badges.

I once looked at the study points summary within the NVQ that's offered to idiots who join this industry and it was shockingly bad, look:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/skills/quals/1950%2002%20L2A%20Parking%20Enforcement%20Officers%20QHB%20v1.0.pdf

They merely have to pass unit 201 and 204 and if anyone here has ever 'studied' for an NVQ (as I did as part of a job) I expect you will agree, it was laughable as a qualification and the only people who fail are those who refuse to engage in a bit of discussion!

To achieve the [FONT=CongressSans,CongressSans][FONT=CongressSans,CongressSans]Level 2 Award for Parking Enforcement Officers – Private Land[/FONT][/FONT], learners must achieve [FONT=CongressSans,CongressSans][FONT=CongressSans,CongressSans]5 [/FONT][/FONT]credits from the mandatory units.
[FONT=CongressSans,CongressSans][FONT=CongressSans,CongressSans]Mandatory [/FONT][/FONT]
T/503/4116
201 - Manage conflict in the enforcement of parking control and management
2
L/503/4395
204 - Roles and responsibilities of parking enforcement officers carrying out parking control and enforcement on private land

Look:

''3 .2 Describe the Disabled Persons Blue Badge Scheme and its implications for private car parks including landowner’s discretion to grant concessions''

Umkomaas

Michael Green will be appearing on ITV's 'Good Morning News' between 6am and 7am tomorrow (Monday 3 Nov).

Should create another surge of registrations to his 'Challenge The Fine' campaign.

The_Deep

Why am I not surprised that those who support the lowlife scum PPC's also have a turn of mind that thinks everyone will abuse the facilities

Because many will. I have a flat in the middle of town, a few yards walk from a multi-story car park, yet there are many who think that, in order to save themselves a couple of qui, they will use my space. We have now, at considerable cost, had to install a raising bollard.

If a landowner has space near a station you can bet your boots that, unless he protects himself, the facility will be abused by commuters.

The_Deep

This will not stop me contacting writer: CHRIS PLEASANCE FOR MAILONLINE
tomorrow to insist both uses of the f--- word are removed/replaced.

I am afraid that you are wrong. The public understand the word "fine", they have no understanding of the words "unsolicited invoice" . If you borrow a book from a library and keep it too long, they do not send you an unsolicited invoice, they fine you.

Just as not all vacuum cleaners are made by Hoover, and not all rainwear by Mackintosh, some words are so well entrenched in the language that they have become eponymous.

Let us call it a fine because that is what most people perceive it to be.

Half_way

Let us call it a fine because that is what most people perceive it to be.

Although adding Unlawful, or Illegitimate before the F word is far more acurate and far more emotive .

mikerobertgreen

The_Deep wrote: »

This will not stop me contacting writer: CHRIS PLEASANCE FOR MAILONLINE
tomorrow to insist both uses of the f--- word are removed/replaced.

I am afraid that you are wrong. The public understand the word "fine", they have no understanding of the words "unsolicited invoice" . If you borrow a book from a library and keep it too long, they do not send you an unsolicited invoice, they fine you.

Just as not all vacuum cleaners are made by Hoover, and not all rainwear by Mackintosh, some words are so well entrenched in the language that they have become eponymous.

Let us call it a fine because that is what most people perceive it to be.

This is what I've been trying to say all along! Totally agree.

It is a tension between being legally correct and about getting the message out there. But I'll try to use the word 'illegitimate' or something before the 'F' word when I appear on ITV tomorrow.

Ivor_Pecheque

Ha ha, think this is fab.

I worry that the NHS will have to spend patients money refunding motorists, and I hope that the highly paid NHS Commissioners are held to account.

Culceth

Those defending PPCs by referring to local authorities are missing a very important point. Local authorities try to keep roads clear, PPCs are trying to make money. If nobody contravened the "rules" put up by a PPC they would go out of business. They want you to break their "rules" so they can make money, that is why the signs are usually hidden, not easily accessible, written in a verbose manner or not there. If the current laws regarding what they can and cannot do were tightened and rigorously enforced, then the problem would be diminished greatly.

If and I hope when Michael Green wins his case, there maybe a need for some legislation to help those who have paid for a parking space or need to ensure spaces for their customers are available. The PPC approach is not about keeping spaces free for those who need them, it's about exhorting money from people, something that borders on demanding money with menaces on occasions.