The Other Side Of The Coin.

The_Deep

wiltsguy wrote: »

i don't see an issue, if it is not private land and no double yellows etc then why can't anybody park there?. If someone wants their own space then it's down to them to get a property with a drive.

The issue is with blocks of flats with communal parking.

neil.net

The_Deep wrote: »

I raised this some time ago

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4819453=

The main problem is landlords letting their properties to riff raff.

Bollards are not always the answer. In two of my properties they are not allowed by the head leaseholder.

Interesting thread, I had wondered if self-ticketing may have been a better option. But I doubt my management company and the PPC appointed (they do offer self ticketing) would be prepared to accommodate some practicalities of better operation. Also doesn't make them any nicer!

Umkomaas

neil.net wrote: »

Interesting thread, I had wondered if self-ticketing may have been a better option. But I doubt my management company and the PPC appointed (they do offer self ticketing) would be prepared to accommodate some practicalities of better operation. Also doesn't make them any nicer!

........ nor the local Norris Cole self-ticketer any more popular.

Cornucopia

There are always practical solutions to parking problems, without needing a PPC.

We managed fine without them for nearly a century of driving, and Scotland and plenty of other countries manage fine without them now.

It's a lazy argument (sorry) to suggest that just because PPCs are problematic for many people, that it's valid to suggest one or more problem areas where they are the "ideal" solution.

They aren't the only solution, and they probably aren't the best solution in many instances.

If an area of land needs protection from unauthorised parking, then it needs bollards or a barrier. Simple, and cost-effective.

The notion that illegal parkers should pay for the costs of their illegal parking is not unreasonable, but that ship sailed a long while ago, and it was the PPCs that were responsible for its demise.

The ultimate problem is that illegal and inconsiderate parking causes a nuisance well beyond the financial costs that could conceivably be reclaimed under the law as (we think) it now stands. So there is, ultimately, no solution with PPCs - the model is unsustainable without a change to the law which would in itself be very unpopular. The solution is physical restrictions on parking - why complicate it?

TDA

Barriers don't solve every problem though.

They don't keep disabled bays free for the use of the genuinely disabled (not saying necessarily that the PPCs do either - the merits or otherwise of the blue badge scheme is an entirely different discussion) nor does it stop people taking up two bays because of their selfish concern for the safety of their new Range Rover.

I agree with the OP that solutions are needed but I don't think either barriers or the current PPC model are satisfactory ones.

Cornucopia

I'm inclined to the view that inconsiderate parking isn't the worst thing in the World, in fact it's not even close.

I just don't think it justifies releasing the hounds of corporate avarice upon us all.

neil.net

Umkomaas wrote: »

........ nor the local Norris Cole self-ticketer any more popular.

That would be one of the issues of practicalities. I thought that it might work if common areas (drives, verges, in front of entrances/exists etc.) were patrolled/self-ticket by all, but parking spaces could only be self ticketed by the resident it's allocated to.


Signs would still act as a deterrent, warnings could be given for the first "offence" (of course this would require co-ordination of VRNs by the PPC), residents letting visitors park wouldn't have to worry above moving the permit around nor would they have to worry about moving the permit to hire/courtesy cars and (without wanting to devil's advocate) it could cheaper for the PPC! However, this does preclude the fact there might be residents who actually want a full PPC operation!

jemgee

The Japanese have cracked it. You are not allowed to buy a car unless you have a parking space or garage.

nigelbb

Cornucopia wrote: »

There are always practical solutions to parking problems, without needing a PPC.

We managed fine without them for nearly a century of driving, and Scotland and plenty of other countries manage fine without them now.

It's a lazy argument (sorry) to suggest that just because PPCs are problematic for many people, that it's valid to suggest one or more problem areas where they are the "ideal" solution.

They aren't the only solution, and they probably aren't the best solution in many instances.

If an area of land needs protection from unauthorised parking, then it needs bollards or a barrier. Simple, and cost-effective.

The notion that illegal parkers should pay for the costs of their illegal parking is not unreasonable, but that ship sailed a long while ago, and it was the PPCs that were responsible for its demise.

The ultimate problem is that illegal and inconsiderate parking causes a nuisance well beyond the financial costs that could conceivably be reclaimed under the law as (we think) it now stands. So there is, ultimately, no solution with PPCs - the model is unsustainable without a change to the law which would in itself be very unpopular. The solution is physical restrictions on parking - why complicate it?

100% agree. It is simply not appropriate to attempt to apply contract law to offers of free parking. If supermarkets want to lure customers in with an offer of free parking in competition with other supermarkets then they just have to live with the consequences of !!!!!!!!!!s parking there or use an exit barrier & token system or the old system they used before PPCs of a man at the exit checking the till receipt.

nigelbb

TDA wrote: »

Barriers don't solve every problem though.

They don't keep disabled bays free for the use of the genuinely disabled (not saying necessarily that the PPCs do either - the merits or otherwise of the blue badge scheme is an entirely different discussion) nor does it stop people taking up two bays because of their selfish concern for the safety of their new Range Rover.

I agree with the OP that solutions are needed but I don't think either barriers or the current PPC model are satisfactory ones.

Barriers ARE the solution for keeping disabled bays free. They just need a variant of the scheme that provides nationwide access to locked disabled toilets in public conveniences,

https://crm.disabilityrightsuk.org/radar-nks-key

As for straddling two bays is that really such a big problem? Perhaps if the parking bays were bigger there would be fewer offenders? If it's a free car park then the supermarket offering the free parking should just suck it up as part of the price of doing business if they want to offer free parking to lure in customers just like they accept some shrinkage from shoplifters as the price of doing business if they want to allow shoppers to fill their own trolley.