Derbyshire pub fights back in tripadvisor backlash over "parking fines"

Coupon-mad

Nice one. We are also playing well but not enough goals yet!

peter_the_piper

Carthesis wrote: »

The land hasn't changed use. It was always a car park.

Yes but it was a free car park, now its a business therefore change of use could come into it.

Johno100

DoaM wrote: »

Whilst I can't say it categorically, I'm pretty sure daytona0 is not a PPC stooge. We've a known former MSE forum member has had our agreements and spats on other boards (mainly Consumer Rights as I recall) over the past few years

Agreed, it would be going to extreme lengths to cover their tracks for a PPC stooge to make over 1,600 posts over 3 years before venturing onto this sub-board.

Carthesis

daytona0 wrote: »

... I don't agree about bashing local businesses for trying to tackle these sort of issues.

This isn't abuot bashing the business for their business. It's "bashing the business" because of who they are in business with. The pub hold all the cards, and could *INSIST* that the PPC manages *THEIR* car park on *THEIR* land in the way that *THEY* demand to ensure it is fair, proportionate, and that genuine customers aren't inconvenienced, either accidentally or otherwise...

...but they haven't done that, have they?

daytona0 wrote: »

Also don't agree with people who fail to be a bit mindful of possible car park charges on private land. Again, UKPC wouldn't be in business very long if people complied with the rules, whether in small text or not, instead of just "chancing it"! That's sad to think that drivers hold all of the power in forcing UKPC out of business, but it doesn't happen!

You mean the same company that targets cancer wards to "hammer" people visiting relatives?

The same company that deliberately manipulates photographs for "evidence" to force people to pay money for extortionate parking "fines" that they haven't even incurred, comedy T&Cs or not?

The same industry that is so far from playing by the rules that they had to set up not one but TWO puppet trade bodies, whose codes of practice they are legally required to abide by, but in most cases simply do not?

The same industry that ignores things like the Equalities Act to fine new mothers who might spend five minutes feeding an infant before they drive off? Or wheelchair users for whom it takes much longer getting to and from / in and out of a vehicle, and not making adjustments to the grace period?

The same industry that ignores railway bylaws to "fine" people despite them having no right to do so in law?

The same industry that deliberately hides ANPR records so they can "fine" people for "double dipping"?

The same industry that knowingly and deliberately misquotes legislation and case law to intimidate people into paying? Beavis -v- ParkingEye? Elliot -v- Loake?

You mean that poor, hard-put-upon industry, boo-hoo-hoo?

Those lads you mean, yeah?

You'll forgive a lack of sympathy for them.

They have *ALL THE REMEDY THEY NEED*! All they need to do is follow their own rules, and the laws of the land like everyone else.

If PPCs *DID* in fact put up large signs, in big letters, at readable heights all over the place as they claim; charged a reasonable "penalty" fee; abided by the very clear requirements of PoFA2012 with regard to wording and timing; had an appeals service worthy of the name that didn't auto-reject 99.99% of appeals; had an independant appeals service that wasn't a sham-puppet; employed decent lawyers that knew the law and what they were doing; and just generally weren't utter utter utter ex-clamper, money-grabbing, rotten-to-the-core, scumbag vermin, then this forum wouldn't exist! It certainly wouldn't be as successful as it is.

daytona0

Coupon-mad wrote: »

A Toon fan could live and work anywhere though. This poster has never denied 'working' (for want of a better word) for a PPC and has come here defending the protection racket as if it's normal business. Clearly it's not.

Because my posts go against the general theme of 'we hate the PPCs' it isn't appreciated what I'm saying.

I'm not defending PPCs in any way, shape or form. I'm defending common sense and decency from other motorists, as well as a small business on this thread (of which the majority who took the poll seemed to agree in some way).

If you want to 'accuse' me of being a PPC employee because of that then fair enough! I find it quite funny how obsessed you are with that! Bottom line is, my current job is none of your business Just like yours is none of my business

Oh and Newcastle will win the EFL cup! If you can find odds of 18/1 or higher after tonight it is absolute value!

daytona0

Carthesis wrote: »

This isn't abuot bashing the business for their business. It's "bashing the business" because of who they are in business with. The pub hold all the cards, and could *INSIST* that the PPC manages *THEIR* car park on *THEIR* land in the way that *THEY* demand to ensure it is fair, proportionate, and that genuine customers aren't inconvenienced, either accidentally or otherwise...

...but they haven't done that, have they?

No, the 1 star review was given because a £60 car park charge was applied but they offered to refund them as genuine patrons! This was revoked when the review was made.

Why give pub 1 star if you haven't been fined, without making reference to food or drink etc?

You mean the same company that targets cancer wards to "hammer" people visiting relatives?

I'm going to be ignorant and ignore most of your post.

1. This is a pub, not a cancer ward.

2. I'm in full agreement with most of what you said anyway.

Carthesis

daytona0 wrote: »

No, the 1 star review was given because a £60 car park charge was applied but they offered to refund them as genuine patrons! This was revoked when the review was made.

Why give pub 1 star if you haven't been fined, without making reference to food or drink etc?

Because people are allowed to base internet recommendations on whatever criteria they wish?

Maybe these people were a bit fed up that, not only had they got to go through the rigmarole of appealing the charge to the operator, but they also had to get in touch with the pub to get it cancelled, no doubt because the scumbag operator refused to cancel it for completely arbitrary reasons?

(Oh - and doesn't it speak volumes about the attitude of the pub for refusing to cancel the charge for apparently *ACTUAL GENUINE CUSTOMERS* just because there was a bit of a narky review?)

And the point of the parts of my post which you ignored was that it's not like these are reputable, moral, honest companies we're talking about here. If they were, then appeals on the ground of "I'd paid for a ticket, here is a copy of my ticket / receipt showing I paid, but the ticket fell out of the window", or "I drove around for ten minutes trying to find somewhere to park but couldn't so I left" or pretty much any other valid excuse you can think of (and there are lots) would be allowed without stress, question or fuss.

But they aren't - a cursory glance across the board will show you the number of people having to go through POPLA/IAS second-stage appeals for just such cases, and a smaller number having to defend these actions in front of the courts.

We aren't talking about companies with good reputations here.

THAT is the critical difference you seem to be missing.

As I said (and you didn't read):

They have *ALL THE REMEDY THEY NEED*! All they need to do is follow their own rules, and the laws of the land like everyone else.

If PPCs *DID* in fact put up large signs, in big letters, at readable heights all over the place as they claim; charged a reasonable "penalty" fee; abided by the very clear requirements of PoFA2012 with regard to wording and timing; had an appeals service worthy of the name that didn't auto-reject 99.99% of appeals; had an independent appeals service that wasn't a sham-puppet; employed decent lawyers that knew the law and what they were doing; and just generally weren't utter utter utter ex-clamper, money-grabbing, rotten-to-the-core, scumbag vermin, then this forum wouldn't exist! It certainly wouldn't be as successful as it is.

And all of that, of course, is WELL BEFORE you start talking about BW Legal, or Gladstones and the deliberate flouting of the system and law that means they are under investigation by the SRA.

If one were to judge a man by the company he keeps... just sayin'

daytona0

Carthesis wrote: »

Because people are allowed to base internet recommendations on whatever criteria they wish?

Indeed they are, as I am also entitled to my own opinion that a review of 1 star when you get a parking charge 'refunded', without reference to food/drink/venue, is a bit harsh on the business.

I don't really want to argue the toss any more to be honest! You have your view, I have mine.

And the point of the parts of my post which you ignored

I ignored it again here because I am in agreement with you regarding how the PPCs operate

THAT is the critical difference you seem to be missing.

I haven't missed it. I agree with you.

If one were to judge a man by the company he keeps... just sayin'

Ok.

catfunt

daytona0 wrote: »

Indeed they are, as I am also entitled to my own opinion that a review of 1 star when you get a parking charge 'refunded', without reference to food/drink/venue, is a bit harsh on the business.

Agreed. Harsh, but understandable.

If I got a parking charge as a result from being a customer of a business like that... with all the threatening, and for some, very worrying language that they contain, then it would heavily colour my view of that business.

Harsh or not, it's human nature.

atilla

"The parking system is not a scam at all - it is a step we have had to take to protect misuse."

Truly the mark of a scammer??