CPM boss James Randall off his trolley, DailyMail report

Altarf

safarmuk wrote: »

#1 when they are operating in a Residential Car Park they don't target residents or genuine visitors/contractors and if they do accidentally ticket them they cancel those tickets when notified by the resident.

Seems perfectly reasonable.

There would obviously need to be some process to identify residents or genuine visitors/contractors to prevent any accidental ticketing, but that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

How much should the honest car parking company charge people who genuinely shouldn't be parking?

Johno100

Altarf wrote: »

You are blaming the victim?

Do you really believe that the innocent recipient of obnoxious behaviour should have to pay many thousands of pounds to avoid it?

Thousands of pounds for a chain and padlock or a barrier?

Coupon-mad

bemac wrote: »

Firstly disagree with just anyone attempting to issue parking tickets using this kind of App.

However there are legitimate requirements by businessmen. Where I am there are 1000 spaces owned by businesses inside the building the car park surrounds. These businesses pay a monthly fee for their staff to park there.

...and then those staff get scammed:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/ukpc-lose-shared-car-park-claim.html

We see people being sued for parking in their own car parks/work car parks all the time.

The signage provided by genuine companies is extremely useful and clear.

Show an example please, of said 'extremely useful and clear' sign in a business car park.

Show an example please, of said 'genuine' parking company? Enlighten me...

Coupon-mad

Johno100 wrote: »

Thousands of pounds for a chain and padlock or a barrier?

And thousands of pounds for 2 or 3 parking posts at the entrance?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/bhp/folding-parking-post

Never heard of a site where hoards of rogue parkers tailgate their way in...sounds like the alarmist rubbish from PPCs - maybe this is the new version of: 'how would you like it if someone parked on your driveway?'

The new comeback during this scourge of residential 'scam ticketing' being 'How would you like to be fined £100 and then sued for £250 for parking in your own bay?'

Altarf

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And thousands of pounds for 2 or 3 parking posts at the entrance?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/bhp/folding-parking-post

Unfortunately those are not suitable for the elderly or disabled to use, so you would need something like this -

http://www.solargates.co.uk/raising-bollards/automatic-raising-bollards

So yes, unfortunately you are talking thousands.

twhitehousescat

Altarf wrote: »

Unfortunately those are not suitable for the elderly or disabled to use, so you would need something like this -

http://www.solargates.co.uk/raising-bollards/automatic-raising-bollards

So yes, unfortunately you are talking thousands.

answer:

sell land move to warmer country , or hire a man servent

<I,m out yet again>

Umkomaas

@Altarf - I note you haven't responded to my question in post #58.

catfunt

And here is that question:

Umkomaas wrote: »

@Altarf. Fly-parkers are quickly eradicated, but in many instances landowner:PPC contracts are signed for 3 years. PPCs want a return on their investment. Who provides that return after all fly-parkers are gone?

Give me the answer to that, and there'll be another question coming your way.

I know where Altarf is coming from.

The question is whether he honestly thinks that the ticketing of people at their own residences, the ghost ticketing, the sham appeals system, the constant misrepresentation/obfuscation of the law by PPCs, the taking to court of innocent people, and worst of all, the issuing of court papers to addresses that people nolonger live at leading to default CCJs and the person concerned being left in an almighy legal and financial mess... is a price worth paying.

Altarf.. have you read the Parking Prankster blog? If not, I suggest you do.



The only solution I can see, is stronger legislation to deal with the poor practices of the PPCs, perhaps by amending the Protection of Freedoms Act.

In this case, then, if (for example)

1. The keeper/driver of the ticketed car is a resident of the premises where he/she is ticketed... then by law, the invoice MUST be cancelled. If the DVLA provide data that the keeper's address is the same as that of the parking incident, then they MUST NOT issue a NtK, and cancel a windscreen ticket if issued.

2. If a resident supports (in writing) that the keeper/driver of a ticketed car is there legitimately (visitor etc) and therefore requires the invoice to be cancelled, then by law, they MUST do so.

This is the only way I see this working to the satisfaction of Altarf.

Of course, it is possible that once the fly parkers have been eradicated, the arrangement makes the PPC no more money, so they withdraw their 'cover'.

Perhaps there may be a method by which the residency's management company can become an ATA, so that they can manage the land themselves, with the same limitations that I outline in the 2 points above to prevent abuse. Then, their sole raison d'etre is not to make money from parking, er, infractions, unlike a PPC.

beamerguy

catfunt wrote: »

And here is that question:
I know where Altarf is coming from.

The question is whether he honestly thinks that the ticketing of people at their own residences, the ghost ticketing, the sham appeals system, the constant misrepresentation/obfuscation of the law by PPCs, the taking to court of innocent people, and worst of all, the issuing of court papers to addresses that people nolonger live at leading to default CCJs and the person concerned being left in an almighy legal and financial mess... is a price worth paying.

Altarf.. have you read the Parking Prankster blog? If not, I suggest you do.

The only solution I can see, is stronger legislation to deal with the poor practices of the PPCs, perhaps by amending the Protection of Freedoms Act.

In this case, then, if (for example)

1. The keeper/driver of the ticketed car is a resident of the premises where he/she is ticketed... then by law, the invoice MUST be cancelled. If the DVLA provide data that the keeper's address is the same as that of the parking incident, then they MUST NOT issue a NtK, and cancel a windscreen ticket if issued.

2. If a resident supports (in writing) that the keeper/driver of a ticketed car is there legitimately (visitor etc) and therefore requires the invoice to be cancelled, then by law, they MUST do so.

This is the only way I see this working to the satisfaction of Altarf.

Of course, it is possible that once the fly parkers have been eradicated, the arrangement makes the PPC no more money, so they withdraw their 'cover'.

Perhaps there may be a method by which the residency's management company can become an ATA, so that they can manage the land themselves, with the same limitations that I outline in the 2 points above to prevent abuse. Then, their sole raison d'etre is not to make money from parking, er, infractions, unlike a PPC.

Yes Yes Yes.

You need to kick the lazy a*se of Marcus Jones MP, DCLG

He is one of Mrs May's boys who is paid a salary from the public purse .... that's motorists to you and me.

His agenda seems to back scammers because he does nothing.
I am sure Mrs May can do better than this

Have a pop at him, probably like me, you will get a load of junk back from Jones. The man is fast asleep

https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/mr-marcus-jones/4024

Umkomaas

Perhaps there may be a method by which the residency's management company can become an ATA, so that they can manage the land themselves, with the same limitations that I outline in the 2 points above to prevent abuse. Then, their sole raison d'etre is not to make money from parking, er, infractions, unlike a PPC.

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!