Out of interest

NeilCr

Clearly, we'd all like it more if the PPCs followed the rules/didn't entrap people etc. Personally, I find it frustrating when people "get away with it" because of the laxness of PPCs. Pepipoo reveals the same issues with councils where there are things like the will/may fatal flaw.

Even more on the Pepipoo council forum there are people going on there saying "fair cop guv" and then asking for loopholes. As someone who lives in a seaside town with limited parking that does irk. There is some truly awful parking here. And, occasionally on MSE, there is someone who posts who does get me. The last one was the gentleman who parked in an emergency vehicles only bay!

The main issue is getting the right rules that have the correct balance between landowner and car driver/owner. And that they are enforced fairly and properly. Our local Waitrose is an interesting example. The vast majority of people who use that car park will be fully aware of the 90 minutes limit. But, even I can see, the signs are woefully inadequate and if someone was ticketed they will win any challenge.

From the view of someone who has problems with parking on a private estate I would only think of using a PPC as a last resort. I wouldn't want, as others do, them to be banned completely. I can see specific instances where they would be of use. But, we wouldn't even be discussing it as a board of directors if a very few, very selfish number of residents didn't park in a way to cause traffic problems. And, continue to do so even in the face of signs, letters, yellow lines, hash markings etc.

The_Deep

It is very easy to blame shoppers for not reading the signs, but when the signs, e.g. those of Parking Eye, contain over 300 words of very small print on an eight pole, it is to be expected.

In such cases, imo. more defences should concentrate on the unfair terms and conditions provisions of the Consumer Rights Act, which is very rarely mentioned in the appeals/defences we see.

beamerguy

I can see specific instances where they would be of use. But, we wouldn't even be discussing it as a board of directors if a very few, very selfish number of residents didn't park in a way to cause traffic problems. And, continue to do so even in the face of signs, letters, yellow lines, hash markings etc.

If you only have a few rogues to deal with, then maybe self ticketing would be the answer as long as the person nominated to do this does not start attacking the decent residents.
A few £100 tickets would stop the rogues

Hate saying this but it's better than having a fully fledged scammer operating

NeilCr

Redx wrote: »

Yes I have given him good advice about this breach and yes I would take it further myself too. But I am not my brothers keeper so it's now up to him as I cannot do it for him. Thanks for asking

beamerguy wrote: »

I can see specific instances where they would be of use. But, we wouldn't even be discussing it as a board of directors if a very few, very selfish number of residents didn't park in a way to cause traffic problems. And, continue to do so even in the face of signs, letters, yellow lines, hash markings etc.

If you only have a few rogues to deal with, then maybe self ticketing would be the answer as long as the person nominated to do this does not start attacking the decent residents.
A few £100 tickets would stop the rogues

Hate saying this but it's better than having a fully fledged scammer operating

Yes. Definitely.

That is the way we'd go if it comes to it. It's a reason why I wouldn't want PPCs banned entirely from residential estates.

I quite agree about nominating the right person. I can think of at least two residents here who I wouldn't want anywhere near a self ticketing scheme!

:D:D

The_Deep

Quite honestly, I cannot see the problems with self ticketing. If I lived in one of my investment flats, (rather down market, with a high proportion of HB recipients with several cars), I would be prepared to take it on.

NeilCr

The_Deep wrote: »

It is very easy to blame shoppers for not reading the signs, but when the signs, e.g. those of Parking Eye, contain over 300 words of very small print on an eight pole, it is to be expected.

In such cases, imo. more defences should concentrate on the unfair terms and conditions provisions of the Consumer Rights Act, which is very rarely mentioned in the appeals/defences we see.

I agree about the signs The Deep.

As I say our Waitrose ones are awful. But the counter argument to that (in our case anyway) is that most regular shoppers will be fully aware of the 90 minutes limit but there are still those who ignore it....

beamerguy

So, if you are going to do that, stay away from the scammers you see on here because when we have the new CoP, some of them could be banned. And stay away from an IPC member

NeilCr

The_Deep wrote: »

Quite honestly, I cannot see the problems with self ticketing. If I lived in one of my investment flats, (rather down market, with a high proportion of HB recipients with several cars), I would be prepared to take it on.

Like a lot of things you'd have to go into it with your eyes open and make sure you have the contract you want.

As BG says you have to ensure that the person doing it is fair. I can think of residents who would ticket people they don't like but let their mates off. Again, as BG says you'd have to have the right company and you want to ensure that you can cancel tickets (and there is a reasonable timescale for this). And, you would need to ensure that the PPC aren't allowed on the estate.

There is the possible of confrontation which is a downside.

It would, probably, work okay on an estate our size (69 properties and quite compact) where most folks are known and there are directors around most of the time. We, also, have a reasonable sense of community which would help. I am not so sure about bigger, more impersonal sites

Hopefully, it won't come to it, anyway. We are looking at more lines on the road and hashed areas, too. Plus bigger signage. Residents don't tend to like big signs.......

ToxicWomble

is t was (clearly?) a typo for isn’t

As NeliC says, there’s always people looking for an out or a loophole, which was why I wondered what would happen if the loopholes were closed.

And before anyone jumps at me for being Mr(s) perfect, no Im not. BUT I have been driving for 30+years and guess how many parking tickets I have had in that time ....,,..,... yep NONE - if you do t do anything wrong, there’s no consequence.
Yes, errors will and do happen along with “entrapment” and those I have sympathy for.
The others who take no ownership of their actions and believe there are no consequences - you deserve everything you get

Snakes_Belly

The_Deep wrote: »

It is very easy to blame shoppers for not reading the signs, but when the signs, e.g. those of Parking Eye, contain over 300 words of very small print on an eight pole, it is to be expected.

In such cases, imo. more defences should concentrate on the unfair terms and conditions provisions of the Consumer Rights Act, which is very rarely mentioned in the appeals/defences we see.

You also have to question why shoppers are deserting the high street. It's not just about online shopping. There have always been other shopping platforms before Internet shopping.