Catoninetails in da house!

TDA

esmerobbo wrote: »

These PPC's offer to manage these car parks, yet don't they simply penalise people. I would guess that 70/80% of tickets issued are to legitimate customers/guests/contractors using the site.

Problem is this is all just guesswork. I have no doubt that PPCs do actually deter car park abuse in the mid to long-term, though the result is so often that genuine people get caught in the crossfire (residents forgetting to display permits, shoppers staying over the time limit, patients with late appointments going over their p&d time).

I would love to see what the actual percentage of charges issued to those that abuse the facilities is. You can argue that the people that come to the forums suggest it is a low number but that is hardly a representative sample and those that feel their ticket is unjust are more likely to seek help here in the first place.

Fight_the_good_fight

I would hope the comment from the Cat re this site being unhelpful was tongue in cheek and was to rile the regulars.

May I suggest s/he looks at the successes reported on here and PPP where the uninitiated like myself have utilised the FREE assistance offered by others who are far more knowledgeable .

Where people have utilised this site in these events and stick to the advice they invariably win in the vast majority of cases.

If the Cat and the company they work for believe such sites are laughing stocks I challenge them to in their NtK letters to promote such sites as places for advice!!!

Johno100

Herzlos wrote: »

Ah well, it seems to be having some impact anyway.

But what service? What do you do to justify the contract renewal?

Paying the landowner £1,000 a week to be allowed to infest the car park would be good enough justification don't you think?

mpython

The_Deep wrote: »

check there other posts

Freddie, it is "their" You are destroying your credibility by refusing to take advice from your betters.

The_Deep wrote: »

you lot have just been "trolled" and wasted 54 posting on nothing

Well, I for one do not feel that I have wasted my time. I too was once accused of being a PPC troll on here, because I was own some flats which are subject to anti-social parking, and can see the problem from the landowners side.

Frankly, Cat, PPCs may be getting away with murder at the moment, just as clampers did before POFA, make hay while the sun shines, or mend the roof, it is up to you.

Rather than continually picking on Freddy's, take time to double check your own posts.

Umkomaas

TDA wrote: »

Problem is this is all just guesswork. I have no doubt that PPCs do actually deter car park abuse in the mid to long-term, though the result is so often that genuine people get caught in the crossfire (residents forgetting to display permits, shoppers staying over the time limit, patients with late appointments going over their p&d time).

I would love to see what the actual percentage of charges issued to those that abuse the facilities is. You can argue that the people that come to the forums suggest it is a low number but that is hardly a representative sample and those that feel their ticket is unjust are more likely to seek help here in the first place.

In some respects I can understand landowners (in particular supermarkets) wanting to deter parkers from staying all day while they catch the train to work.

However, there are so many supermarket car parks that are never ever full, the other side of me says, 'Why not let them park there'? It actually could be very good for business if signs said, to the effect, 'OK, park here, but please recognise this facility and support us with your business afterwards'. Far better than PPC signs - and much more likely to generate business than a £100 PCN which is likely to not only clear the rogue parker from the car park, but guarantee they will never shop there ever again!

But of course, the rogue parkers are soon cleared off, but that only leaves the genuine shoppers (those we see most of on here) to be penalised, and they too are never likely to return - why should they? Economics of the lunatic asylum - just to chase off a relatively small few!

There will of course be exceptions, but with some clever thinking/marketing, not only could a store clear a customer-threatening entity from their property, but start a process of actually improving bottom-line income, and with improving customer loyalty!

Hot_Bring

catoninetails wrote: »

This forum is often a laughing stock in the industry. Not because you help people with tickets or do all and sundry, but due to the fact you make everything appear so much more important than what it really is.

If we're a laughing stock of your industry why have I been physically threatening by two PPCs ? Or indeed threatened with court action by a couple of others for giving out facts ?

Quite frankly you are scum and you should be classed as criminals. I'll do everything in my power to highlight bullying chancers such as Adrian King of G24. It might be small in the big scheme of things but given you and your ilk are nothing more worthwhile than what I might tread in on the street I really couldn't care less what you think of me.

Oh, if we're so worthless on here, why are you here spilling your bile ?

Grimble

Coupon Mad you asked how they could sleep at night? I could ask you the same question, all these poor PPC owners being stopped conning members of the public who have found this and other sites, having to trade down from a Porsche to a second hand Mondeo, Trev having nightmares that you will visit him, IPC having to order in extra toilet paper due to the appeals you are putting to them, keep up the good work :T :T :T :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :beer:

BlackSpangle

The_Deep wrote: »

Does anyone see a remarkable similarity between the behaviour of Mr Pantsonfire as PPCs?

Is not such conduct unbecoming to a Right Honourable Gentleman? Should he still enjoy the confidence of the Prime Minister?

What is unbecoming is the notion that one can use one's wealth to create your own truth, via the coercive power of the law.

To that extent, there is remarkable similarity between the cases. Yet I would say that some of the antics of the PPCs resemble more the ducking and diving of Arthur Daley than the blustering of Mr Shapps's legal advisors.

And for all the back and forth which has occurred on this thread: I'm still no further forward as to the service which PPCs actually do provide to landowners/tenants. Co9T states that it is obvious, and yet I cannot quite see it.

If the answer is "parking management", then I would normally expect that to mean maintenance of parking facilities - which I have yet to see happen. I would expect to see an honest business model which attracted its profit from customers legitimate activity and not the pursuit of those who offend, in arbitrary ways, some poorly worded contract. Yet, I have not seen such a model in reality.

If a company was actually doing parking management, its staff patrolling car parks (that dwindling crew, since cameras seem to be the preferred staffing now) would approach motorists with a view to help them avoid breaches of parking rules, rather than waiting for chances to write out tickets and pursue tenuous charges against those motorists.

If there is any service provided, it seems to be at best coincidental. That, by mimicking the parking accoutrements set up for council parking management, the PPC cloaks itself in some of the veneer of a statutory regime, and thus deters abuse by little more than bluff.

So, I remain in the dark. What is the actual service to land owners that PPCs provide? Co9T, if you haven't disappeared totally, I really want to know.

The_Deep

Mr Python, there is a vast difference between the occasional typo and the wilful abuse of the punctuation and grammar of one's mother tongue. Freddie has been told of the correct form, a sensible person would take it on board.

trisontana

You've got it all wrong Black Spangle, according to Mr Trouserfire, it's just a massive coincidence that PPC paperwork resembles that issued by councils. Furthermore (according to hilarious interview of his on Watchdog) councils may have copied PPCs, not the other way around.