Disabled charge in a UKPC managed shopping centre

Herzlos

aguynameddarryl wrote: »

You're guessing wildly beyond any facts.

Not really, I'm merely using deductive reasoning and basing it on the hundreds of such instances happening.

Find where I said it did. Please.

Correct, I was quoting Guys Dad.

For the umpteenth time, it hasn't yet been appealed - your ire is premature at best and wasted at worst.

True, my point was more that they try and justify issuing tickets without checking because there is an appeal process available for genuine users, but there isn't because the appeal process is rigged.

The only real solution to the problem is for the parking management companies to manage the car parks instead of acting purely in a ticket issuing capacity.

aguynameddarryl

Herzlos wrote: »

How did the windscreen ticket get there if the car park wasn't manned?

The key phrase there was "to the staffing levels most of you seem to advocate".

You want the whole car park patrolled, assistance given while parking to disabled users and then a leeway given for overstaying, parking outside of bays etc. The costs would be huge and the chances of recouping them for a genuine car park management company would be astronomical!

Herzlos

Guys_Dad wrote: »

That is a possibility but no more than that. You have absolutely no evidence for that.

Going by past behaviour, it's quite likely.

You are currently jumping the gun. In all probability the PPC will NOT act properly but you should read the more balanced comments of other equally anti-PPC contributors who will be as vociferous as you should the PPC fail to uphold the appeal, but until then, it is the motorist's mistake that has caused this.

(emphasis mine)

No it's not the motorists fault at all. They have no legal requirement to display a blue badge in a private car park. Is it also the motorists fault for not being disabled enough to quality for something they don't need in order to the assistance that is legally required?

aguynameddarryl

Thank you for being reasonable and accepting my points - it is genuinely appreciated.

Herzlos wrote: »

The only real solution to the problem is for the parking management companies to manage the car parks instead of acting purely in a ticket issuing capacity.

The issue you have here is one of cost - would you be prepared to accept a higher cost of parking to maintain a suitable staffing level? I suspect most people would say no and continue to take their chances.

Herzlos

aguynameddarryl wrote: »

The key phrase there was "to the staffing levels most of you seem to advocate".

You want the whole car park patrolled, assistance given while parking to disabled users and then a leeway given for overstaying, parking outside of bays etc. The costs would be huge and the chances of recouping them for a genuine car park management company would be astronomical!

Indeed it would cost more than having a man in a van firing out tickets like confetti, but that's not the motorists problem. It's the race to the bottom brought in by the kick-back model.

In any case, the 'ticket warden' doesn't need to do any more work to determine that someone walking out of a car is disabled enough to not get a ticket. He's standing around anyway, and can use some discretion. He won't, because he'll get £10+ for each paid up ticket.

No one expecting free valet service here, or help to the car for everyone, just that the guy observing the car park makes some effort to not ticket cars that clearly shouldn't be.

aguynameddarryl

Herzlos - I broadly agree, the system is somewhat flawed and I can't comment on kickbacks or warden bonuses, I simply don't have the info.

Legislation is required, and it seems to me, the obvious solution would be an improved BB system, updated for the post-EA world.

Herzlos

I don't think the BB scheme needs to be expanded, because the EA also covers things like pregnancy.

The easiest legislative change would be to either ban ticket bounties* or provide a penalty for POPLA upheld appeals (including automatic cancellation of any tickets at that site). That'd put an end to the dodgy tickets overnight.

*The self-ticketing PPC's offer the ticketer £10 for each PCN that gets paid. I'd imagine most PPC operatives are also working under a similar comission (or target), so are encouraged to issue as many tickets as possible, with no repercussions (beyond the £2.50 DVLA fee for those that get that far) for getting it wrong.

aguynameddarryl

Expanding the BB scheme would remove the discretionary element and make it a clear "allowed/not allowed" system.

I'd certainly be interested in a scheme which allowed more pain for PPC's found to be issuing CLEARLY dodgy tickets or disallowing plainly valid first stage appeals.

fisherjim

aguynameddarryl wrote: »

Expanding the BB scheme would remove the discretionary element and make it a clear "allowed/not allowed" system.

I'd certainly be interested in a scheme which allowed more pain for PPC's found to be issuing CLEARLY dodgy tickets or disallowing plainly valid first stage appeals.

And you still haven't answered the question of how PPC's actually enforce the parent and child bays that you are so keen on either!

Herzlos

aguynameddarryl wrote: »

I'd certainly be interested in a scheme which allowed more pain for PPC's found to be issuing CLEARLY dodgy tickets or disallowing plainly valid first stage appeals.

That's what the trade bodies are meant to do. Of course the BPA became totally toothless when operators just left and went to the IPC, who don't even care.

Regulation that forced the BPA, IPC and DVLA to enforce the rules should be sufficient.