CPM boss James Randall off his trolley, DailyMail report

catfunt

twhitehousescat wrote: »

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


or do they cost to much?

Beat me to it !!!

I have invested in home security to deter thieves.
I bought a dashcam for my car to help protect my interests in the event of an accident that was not my fault.
I pay for flea treatment for my cats to prevent them becoming infested.

I could go on.......

This thread is going round in circles, tbh....

Half_way

twhitehousescat wrote: »

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


or do they cost to much?

I was just about to post the same thing, to keep unwanted people out of our homes we need doors with locks, security devices such as burglar alarms, premises and other places need fences to keep people out.

The BPA/IPC model does not use Parking management companies,
your reference to such entities as Parking management companies leads me to believe that you are in some way linked to the world of private parking - a camera opn a stick does not equate to management, issuing parking charge notices is not management, but a complete failure of management.

In the PPC world there is no such thing as parking management. these are outright parasites. Private Parking Companies PPC's such as CPM are no more than Parasitic Parking Companies.

If a legitimate user of a space, that is they have a right to park there as defined by their lease/AST/Freehold whatever is nabbed by a PPC scumbag company then the property management company and the PPC deserve all they get for a breach of the DPA and more.
Likewise maybe these self ticketers should also feel the heat.

And if there is to be any punishment/punitive fees charged then this should be kept well away from the likes of James Randal and CPM.
However in order for that to happen the PPC business model needs to be outlawed and instead backed up by legislation and regulation with private parking industry that exists not to make a profit but to benefit those to whom it pertains to protect. As I mentioned previously.

Coupon-mad

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.

I disagree, as do many here but this is just my opinion and I know not shared by all. I have always held the view, since joining this forum years ago when clamping was rife (and now things are no better, with credit clamping) that the private parking industry has no place whatsoever anywhere. No role for them here, NOTHING. Get rid of the whole lot and start again.

The problem is that they exist in order to fine people; that entire ethos is wrong and like a protection racket.

Parking is something that operates without issue at almost all locations and where there may be a local specific problem like match-day or local station parking, use barriers and charge a tariff so the landowner themselves makes money from every parker. No private firms are needed to sue people, this is the wrong approach for a civilised country.

Whatever next, private firm bouncers in shops, getting data (under some old 'Big Brother' style excuse allowed by Government) and suing people if they don't buy anything, for daring to wear down the floor and take up space browsing?

fisherjim

So getting back to the original thread here, if this dozy Muppet and others use this magic app for a self ticketing money making scheme how would they satisfy section 15 of the BPA COP?

Specifically ensuring self ticketers conform to the COP, failure to do this is a sanctionable matter.

Also 9:1 9:4 and 10

Concerning uniforms, learning and development, and non incentivisation of ticketers.

A total crock of dung if you ask me.

Half_way

Rising bollards system under £200 https://www.ultrasecuredirect.com/parking-security-posts/automatic-battery-powered-parking-posts/automatic-battery-powered-parking-post-001-0900-p192.html?gclid=Cj0KEQiAt9vEBRDQmPSow-q5gs8BEiQAaWSEDpfZK-WA6WNu3kTvzTfHZjqeKH8WrQfA5lJXnslYHRQaAkYO8P8HAQ

Altarf

twhitehousescat wrote: »

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

You seem to be blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator.

So you really think the victim should be blamed if they haven't taken enough precautions?

twhitehousescat

Altarf wrote: »

You seem to be blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator.

So you really think the victim should be blamed if they haven't taken enough precautions?

yes ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

putting a ticket on , or sending a letter 14 days afterwards has not stopped the "crime" taking place , the landowner does not receive compensation , only the parking Co make money for a failure to stop the car being parked , as they were asked to do !

Coupon-mad

Altarf wrote: »

You seem to be blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator.

So you really think the victim should be blamed if they haven't taken enough precautions?

The only perpetrators discussed in this thread are the parking firms. They are suing people for parking in their own workplaces or home car parks.

Drivers are not all rogue parkers looking to cause issues and get away with dumping their car anywhere for nothing. The very idea that this is common is spread by the PPCs.

Half_way

If you own a house, or any other property then you need to protect it from unwelcome vistors, the same goes for parking places.
There is a world of difference between a car park where the public are invited into such as at a retail park/pub/supermarket etc as a temptation to encourage them to visit the facility and a private car park for residents.

Irrespective of which the potty self ticketing scheme as mentioned in this topic by CPM, is a recipe for disaster for all involved as the PPC will soon start to target residents who have a right to park there for all sorts of minor infringements, and if it is an appointed individual they will soon get carried away taking pictures of all sorts to get their bounty, maybe even faking some pictures and altering time stamps in order to issue parking charge notices as has happened with other parking companies.

As soon as own space incidents start racking up then the property management company can be liable for al sorts of things, such as a DPA breaches and so on.

Altarf

Altarf wrote: »

You seem to be blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator.

So you really think the victim should be blamed if they haven't taken enough precautions?

twhitehousescat wrote: »

yes

Quite astonishing.

Does this apply to all victims of crime?