The Other Side Of The Coin.

Cornucopia

You seem to be suggesting that in the absence of PPCs, there could/should be only one solution.

Not sure why you would think that, because it's not logical or practical at all.

Different sites and different areas have different parking issues (and some have no issues at all).

What is needed is common sense in identifying appropriate solutions for each site. The profit motive of the PPCs works directly against that.

In terms of on-street and on-estate parking, I suspect that the majority of streets and estates have no real parking restrictions that are proactively enforced. There is no point in introducing enforcement where none is required, because someone would have to pay for it.

neil.net

Cornucopia wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting that in the absence of PPCs, there could/should be only one solution.

Absolutely, and whilst hard and fast rules might look good on the surface (potential clarity etc.), PPCs seem unwilling (profit!) to be flexible/reasonable, despite the fact they could actually save themselves some money from POPLA/IAS costs if they were.


The overall stance ethos of the PPCs is part of the problem, POPLA constantly allow appeals due to GPEOL issues but the PPCs just keep plugging away knowing some people can be goaded to pay.

The_Deep

I own a flat in the centre of the (noy a) city. The council have just as approved the conversion of rooms above an adjacent shop into three maisonettes, which have a pedestrian right of way over our land.

For some reason the Council have approved the application with the proviso that the residents will not be issued with Residents, parking Permits, there is no parking for the maisonettes, and, and, apart from 2 hour only on street parking, these people will have nowhere to park. The temptation to park on private land will be enormous.

We used to have a clamping firm but sacked them because they were causing us too much hassle, and a PPC will probably be the same. We have recently installed a rising bollard, and hope that that keeps the rogues away.

neil.net

Maybe going of at a tangent from the thread, but I find it questionable that an entire industry has sprung up from one very specific (and in principle reasonable) practice.

Cornucopia

I don't have a problem with there being an industry, as such.

The problem comes if the money to be made is corrupting the objectives, the methodology and the results created by that industry... which it is.

neil.net

Cornucopia wrote: »

I don't have a problem with there being an industry, as such.

The problem comes if the money to be made is corrupting the objectives, the methodology and the results created by that industry... which it is.

I tend to agree, maybe I should have said it's questionable how an entire industry can profit and be sustainable from such practices. But it's doesn't take a PhD to work that one out...

Herzlos

neil.net wrote: »

Maybe going of at a tangent from the thread, but I find it questionable that an entire industry has sprung up from one very specific (and in principle reasonable) practice.

It's easy money. Just the the PPI-reclaiming companies and ambulance chasers that have appeared out of nowhere en masse.

Cornucopia

The answer (from the perspective of the Establishment) is possibly not as straightforward as we might hope.

I have experience of a number of these niche issues, and in all cases I have found the Powers That Be to be all too willing to see the situation and the issues with the rosiest tinted glasses you could possibly imagine.

The fundamental issue seems to be that they need businesses to exist to support the economy. They don't want to take a moral view, and anything that is legal is acceptable, whether that be arms trading or parking "management".

When things break down, they will always try to interpret them as "bad apples" or "isolated operational issues" rather than the fundamental flaws that a rational independent person might observe them to be.

jemgee

http://www.reinventingparking.org/2014/06/japans-proof-of-parking-rule-has.html

Cornucopia

jemgee wrote: »

http://www.reinventingparking.org/2014/06/japans-proof-of-parking-rule-has.html

Interesting, but unnecessary for almost all of the UK. The few areas in major cities where it might prove useful are a tiny fraction of the overall population.

If parking restrictions in London or other similar areas are that much of a problem, people should go and live elsewhere.

As someone who used to live in London, my parking was all very civilised. In fact, there was a main road running through the area with no restrictions, and yet no one seemed to need to park on it as a general rule.

I know from living in different Council areas that the attitude of the Local Council accounts for a lot. Southwark (certainly in the Rotherhithe area) exercised common sense, and even though the area is Zone 2, with tube stations and bus routes into central London, they didn't feel the need to impose a CPZ - on-street parking remains free even now (though I accept that it may well be the only place in Zone 2 that is).