CPM boss James Randall off his trolley, DailyMail report

catfunt

Umkomaas wrote: »

And make them work honestly (a rather rare phenomenon) within CoP parameters, as well as deal fully with appeals (1st and 2nd stage) and risk exposure to DPA breach claims/counter claims. Sounds like a plan!

Unfortunately, it would mean foregoing PPC kick-backs!

And there are the flaws in that idea!

Altarf

So it seems there is agreement, that if a parking management company operated honestly there is a role for them to dissuade people from parking where they should not.

The challenges that have been put forward for them to operate honestly don't seem too burdensome to identify residents or genuine visitors/contractors to prevent any incorrect ticketing.

So assuming this is in place, presumably there would be no objection to them charging a fee large enough to dissuade people who genuinely shouldn't be parking.

catfunt

Altarf wrote: »

So it seems there is agreement, that if a parking management company operated honestly there is a role for them to dissuade people from parking where they should not.

The challenges that have been put forward for them to operate honestly don't seem too burdensome to identify residents or genuine visitors/contractors to prevent any incorrect ticketing.

So assuming this is in place, presumably there would be no objection to them charging a fee large enough to dissuade people who genuinely shouldn't be parking.

I would have no real objection, provided the 2 points in my post above were strictly adhered to.

That will not happen without legislation.

As it stands, the PPCs are incentivised to issue as many charges as possible, which means hitting genuine residents. We have all seen the results of that.

beamerguy

Altarf wrote: »

So it seems there is agreement, that if a parking management company operated honestly there is a role for them to dissuade people from parking where they should not.

The challenges that have been put forward for them to operate honestly don't seem too burdensome to identify residents or genuine visitors/contractors to prevent any incorrect ticketing.

So assuming this is in place, presumably there would be no objection to them charging a fee large enough to dissuade people who genuinely shouldn't be parking.

There is no agreement here ..... parking companies will never be honest
Parking companies make money from their antics. Why would they ever be honest ?
On that basis, assume you would work for nothing then

The_Deep

Not just parking companies, those who employ them.


I have written several times to one of my landlords. The Thames Valley Charitable Housing Association, pointing out to them the shortcomings of their preferred PPC, ULPC, but they have paid no heed.

fisherjim

This thread has become pointless, PPC's are run as a business and will always want to maximise profits, fair play and honesty will never prevail unless the authorities set up strict sanctions. They don't even enforce those on councils.

Half_way

This has gone massivly off topic, from something about a potty self ticketing scheme to the rights and wrongs of the PPC buisness model.
Its almost as it it has been steered that way by a PPC stooge, juts like previous posts on here with the "how would you like it of someone parked on your drive"
Genuine car park management is not about the stick, but more abut the carrot, why are people parking in places they shoulnt? can the layout of the car park/internal roads be changed?
Can physical devices be used? such as bollards, traditional fold down bollards exist, as well as automatic powered devices ( types that retract down into a hole, or powered ones that fold up/down - and can be remote operated for those with mobility issues, and of course theres the old fashioned gate, again these can be powered.
There are plenty of options out there that can physically stop a vehicle entering a space.
A yellow envelope dressed up like a council ticket will not make a vehicle occupying a space magically disappear.

And if we are on the subject of Private parking companies issuing fees that will deter people form parking there then there has to be a hole raft of things in place first, such as full regulation backed up by statue where companies ire de incentivised from issuing tickets such as taking any money from fines levied away from the parking companies and into the hands of the residents/landowners afffected by bad parking (zero profit for the PPC)
A full audit and check of PPC employees to see if they are fit and proper to obtain and use private data form the DVLA ( ie an enhanced CRB/DBS check)
A genuine independent appeals service that is open to public scrutiny, is fully accountable and operated by a body that is completely independent of any parking company, or any associated trade organisation.
Signage and road markings that meet certain specifications as laid down by legislation, and not by some trade associations made up code of practice.

but anyway back to the original post

CPM boss James Randall off his trolley, DailyMail report UK Car Parking Management is teaching people how to set up no-parking zones

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4186768/The-app-turns-parking-informants.html

RAC spokesman today said it 'beggars belief' and called it a 'recipe for disaster'



I would suspect that the pretend David Bailey's will face a lot of aggression and even damage to themselves.

WHAT A STUPID IDEA .... THIS IS HOW A SCAMMERS BRAIN WORKS

Any property management using that deserves everything they get, including any possible action for a DPA breach

Altarf

Half_way wrote: »

[/I]Genuine car park management is not about the stick, but more abut the carrot, why are people parking in places they shoulnt? can the layout of the car park/internal roads be changed?
Can physical devices be used? such as bollards, traditional fold down bollards exist, as well as automatic powered devices ( types that retract down into a hole, or powered ones that fold up/down - and can be remote operated for those with mobility issues, and of course theres the old fashioned gate, again these can be powered.
There are plenty of options out there that can physically stop a vehicle entering a space.

So your view is the innocent should spend significant sums of money to physically protect themselves from the obnoxious behaviour of a minority, even if there was a mechanism that could achieve the same effect with only the guilty suffering.

Interesting.

twhitehousescat

do you have locks on your doors to protect your property from "the obnoxious behaviour of a minority"


or do they cost to much?

The_Deep

I own a flat where UKPC have been installed by the landlords a HA.

I also own another flat in the same complex where spaces are allocated, there is no PPC, and there is a barrier controlled by a PBCL. There are few parking problems in the latter.