How To Avoid Getting A "Parking Fine"

ManxRed

No one's forcing the PPC to do anything. They could uphold all the appeals if they wanted, or not ticket in the first place.

Castle

ManxRed wrote: »

No one's forcing the PPC to do anything. They could uphold all the appeals if they wanted, or not ticket in the first place.

+1
All BPA members must offer an appeal system and can you just imagine all 1 million Parking eye PCN's being appealed; certainly be a great job creation scheme!

neil.net

Castle wrote: »

+1
All BPA members must offer an appeal system and can you just imagine all 1 million Parking eye PCN's being appealed; certainly be a great job creation scheme!

Yeah, but then they'd put some spin on it about being good for the economy and how many jobs would be lost if the Government cracked down!

Umkomaas

I sometimes place myself in the position of the plaintiff and then in the position of the judge (hypothetically speaking of course) and come to the realisation that my seemingly innocent action is going to cause inconvenience to someone else.

And wearing your Judge's wig Dr Shoe, which one of these would you deem 'worthy' of a legitimate and justified parking charge of £100?

1. The driver of a car, parked horizontally across 3 parking bays, leaving the car park to shop elsewhere, never patronising the retailer in whose car park he has left his car, driving away after 89 minutes of the maximum 90 minute time limit, or

2. Someone, at the same car park, who parks their car perfectly between the white lines, does a monthly shop at the store, spending £200, uses the retailer's restaurant for a leisurely lunch, has to remove shopping from the trolley, pack the boot, return the trolley for the £1 back, queues for 10 minutes to get out of the car park because of roadworks outside, finally exiting 101 minutes after entry.

Let's have your learned view on this, the latter example being a fairly common occurrence, especially at Christmas.

bod1467

Umkomaas wrote: »

Let's have your learned view on this, the latter example being a fairly common occurrence, especially at Christmas.

And results from all that "parking management" enabled via ANPR cameras.

Half_way

The OP asked

How To Avoid Getting A "Parking Fine"

Here are two possible solutions:
You need:
A ladder
a High vis jacket
a White builders hard hat
a plastic refuse sack ( bin bag)
Tape or string to tie the bag down
Optional signage/health and safety rubbish ( ie Caution overhead maintenance taking place)

What to do: put on high vis jacket and hard hat so that it looks like your there to work, place ladder against pole with camera(s) and carefully place bag over cameras so as not to damage them or yourself.
This will not only prevent you form getting a so called parking fine ( to use the OPs wording) but it will also help all the other people who visit that site as well

Method 2: place tape over your reg plate or remove registration plate when in the car park, if the car park is camera infested this will have to be done before you enter - note remove your tax disc and anything else that may identify you.

Dr._Shoe

Umkomaas wrote: »

And wearing your Judge's wig Dr Shoe, which one of these would you deem 'worthy' of a legitimate and justified parking charge of £100?

1. The driver of a car, parked horizontally across 3 parking bays, leaving the car park to shop elsewhere, never patronising the retailer in whose car park he has left his car, driving away after 89 minutes of the maximum 90 minute time limit, or

2. Someone, at the same car park, who parks their car perfectly between the white lines, does a monthly shop at the store, spending £200, uses the retailer's restaurant for a leisurely lunch, has to remove shopping from the trolley, pack the boot, return the trolley for the £1 back, queues for 10 minutes to get out of the car park because of roadworks outside, finally exiting 101 minutes after entry.

Let's have your learned view on this, the latter example being a fairly common occurrence, especially at Christmas.

If I was the person, who for some reason or another, had to park in that carpark but was unable to do so then I would want the example in 1 strung up from a lampost. In example no 2 the person has complied with the regulation so should not even be ticketed. This is the main reason why ANPR should not be used for carpark enforcement. However, the second example is precisely why there is an appeals process, it isn't there to be abused by persistent infringements.

Let's say that they ban ANPR for parking enforcement and place a cap on charges, what then?

Herzlos

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

However, the second example is precisely why there is an appeals process, it isn't there to be abused by persistent infringements.

Let's say that they ban ANPR for parking enforcement and place a cap on charges, what then?

I agree. If only the appeals process was in some way impartial. Parker number 2 could appeal, but would have it declined because they "Went over time. You agreed to the rules by parking, pay up".

The appeals system is abused more by the companies than persistent parkers.

I'd be all for a review of ANPR and a cap on charges. Even the cap on charges will kill the PPC industry overnight as they can't generate a profit on reasonable charges.

bod1467

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

However, the second example is precisely why there is an appeals process,

And in the vast majority of cases, such appeals are rejected - even when copies of receipts are provided with the appeal. (There are some consistent exceptions to this - PE for example will usually cancel when presented with receipts for £30+).

Most PPCs don't care - all they want is the money.

nigelbb

Herzlos wrote: »

I'd be all for a review of ANPR and a cap on charges. Even the cap on charges will kill the PPC industry overnight as they can't generate a profit on reasonable charges.

They could generate a profit just not the obscene profits they generate now. However I don't think that abusing contract law even with smaller penalties is the correct way to manage car parks.