Sunday Times Article - One Parking Solution

Johnersh

Thats really nice to hear. A shame the ppc didn't share the sentiment. No one forced them to claim costs if it was indeed the judge that overstepped.

The ppc could have asked for a third party costs order, but I imagine they didn't run that point and if not, you don't really get to complain about those assisting unnecessarily incurring costs. 

beamerguy

AnotherForumite said:

Just out of interest, given the devastation for parking companies due to covid .... are you guys going to food banks ?

Actually, Covid has been extremely kind to us; never been busier 👍🏼 Less people on the road, but more of the ‘entitled’ brigade.

We all expected that reply ..... we are aware where you farm 
Enjoy this moment in time

 .... it's now time limited and I suspect you will be one of those who have gone crying to government to keep your farm in place. I guess it is going be a case of Jenrick v the motorist.  .

nicestrawb

Ah the "entitled brigade". Exactly who are they again?...

AnotherForumite

nicestrawb said:

Ah the "entitled brigade". Exactly who are they again?...

Those that have no respect for the wishes of landowners; and think that they car park as they see fit.

Johnersh

Those that have no respect for the wishes of landowners; and think that they car park as they see fit.
Fair enough. So explain why a significant number of cases here concern parking companies pursue residents who have an absolute legal entitlement to park in a space unencumbered and:
1. The ppc ticket for minor permit infractions
2. The ppc litigate even where entitlement to park is demonstrated
3. The ppc signs on their own case claim to "sell" parking licenses for £100 to those not displaying permits, notwithstanding that it is the residents who in fact have title and who almost certainly have never agreed to that. 

All of that is inconsistent with what you say, @AnotherForumite. 

The fact is that there are inconsiderate drivers who park badly, for sure, but the conduct of a number of cases by ppcs is such that they only have themselves to blame that defences are followed up robustly. 

Redx

Every case I have assisted on for family and friends locally has been a victory for the appellant or victim , against Parking Eye , Excel , JAS parking , ECP etc

Some were landowner or retailer cancellations ( British land , Morrisons , Asda etc ) , some were Popla appeal wins where the landowners wishes were not complied with by the Parking company after the contracts were produced or unredacted which showed cover ups by the Parking company that were tantamount to fraud )

I have lost count of the number of Pals complaints I have assisted with over the years where the hospital trusts have cancelled , plus there are plenty of recent Roadchef , Moto and Iceland cancellations even when court claims have been started by non POFA compliant parking companies !!

Don't even get me started on Care parking and Metrolink here in Manchester , or Apcoa at Victoria station where the actual landowner is Network rail who know nothing about what their TOC sub contractors are doing with their sub sub contractors !!

Most landowners have no idea what goes on until their customers bring it to their attention , some companies have issued tickets outside the boundaries of their remit , like at airports , or issued no stopping charges at stop signs of zebra crossings on airports , or PCN,s on network rail land where bylaws apply

The list goes on , not one MP objected in parliament , because they are sick of the complaints mailbags they get weekly

But yes , the bilkers and fly parkers exist and will continue to exist , even after next summer in 2022

AnotherForumite

Johnersh said:

Those that have no respect for the wishes of landowners; and think that they car park as they see fit.
Fair enough. So explain why a significant number of cases here concern parking companies pursue residents who have an absolute legal entitlement to park in a space unencumbered and:
1. The ppc ticket for minor permit infractions
2. The ppc litigate even where entitlement to park is demonstrated
3. The ppc signs on their own case claim to "sell" parking licenses for £100 to those not displaying permits, notwithstanding that it is the residents who in fact have title and who almost certainly have never agreed to that. 

All of that is inconsistent with what you say, @AnotherForumite. 

The fact is that there are inconsiderate drivers who park badly, for sure, but the conduct of a number of cases by ppcs is such that they only have themselves to blame that defences are followed up robustly. 

We diverse, but...
Personally, I like to steer clear of residential parking as it a massive pain in the proverbial; (P&D is much more straightforward) but for those that we get ASKED to manage:
1. Not sure what you mean by 'minor infractions, but we tend to cancel on the first occasion on the proviso that a) the driver is a bonafide resident and b) that they engage with the appeals process correctly. 
2. I can't speak for other operators, but the only time we end up litigating in this setting is where the motorist has failed to engage with us at an early stage and wait until LBC stage (usually due to advice from forums such as this); at which point it's too late to just cancel as we have incurred costs that need to be accounted for. We would still offer a generous discount at this stage (providing that they are a bonafide resident, not just someone who has managed to get hold of a permit and present is as their own). In summary, we only litigate in this setting if the driver/keeper is particularly stubborn and they leave us no option.
3. You have lost me on this one.

beamerguy

AnotherForumite said:

nicestrawb said:

Ah the "entitled brigade". Exactly who are they again?...

Those that have no respect for the wishes of landowners; and think that they car park as they see fit.

It is good that we don't all live in a dream world.

"the wishes of the landlord" ...... doubtful the landowner knows about your tricks you get up to ?
Chasing people with fake add-ons, using circus clown debt collectors and so called legals  who still think 2 + 2 = 6 ?

That's why a landowner cancellation is now the order of the day.

beamerguy

AnotherForumite said:

Johnersh said:

Those that have no respect for the wishes of landowners; and think that they car park as they see fit.
Fair enough. So explain why a significant number of cases here concern parking companies pursue residents who have an absolute legal entitlement to park in a space unencumbered and:
1. The ppc ticket for minor permit infractions
2. The ppc litigate even where entitlement to park is demonstrated
3. The ppc signs on their own case claim to "sell" parking licenses for £100 to those not displaying permits, notwithstanding that it is the residents who in fact have title and who almost certainly have never agreed to that. 

All of that is inconsistent with what you say, @AnotherForumite. 

The fact is that there are inconsiderate drivers who park badly, for sure, but the conduct of a number of cases by ppcs is such that they only have themselves to blame that defences are followed up robustly. 

2. I can't speak for other operators, but the only time we end up litigating in this setting is where the motorist has failed to engage with us at an early stage and wait until LBC stage (usually due to advice from forums such as this); at which point it's too late to just cancel as we have incurred costs that need to be accounted for. We would still offer a generous discount at this stage (providing that they are a bonafide resident, not just someone who has managed to get hold of a permit and present is as their own). In summary, we only litigate in this setting if the driver/keeper is particularly stubborn and they leave us no option.

Be a good chap, take off you scam cap, even if they do engage, you know the scam rule which is to reject it ... and you offer a discount to a bonafide resident,

Does the landowner know of this feeble attempt to earn a living ?

Johnersh

@AnotherForumite I'm obliged for the response on my latter points, if not the earlier ones.

I am sure that a number of tickets are sensibly rescinded, although I have seen some silly ones on here which were not, but which ought to have been. The resident who's permit had slipped so the hologram was partially obscured was a particular favourite.  A tad over-zealous by the parking attendant. 

I still struggle to see that there are any significant costs pre-issue, where template correspondence is sent. That's more like general business overhead. What amounts to an admin fee should be modest rather than a discount to the PCN in my view.

The third point was just an observation - it's ironic, really. Technically most residents signs offer up contractual parking for £100 as an alternative to displaying a permit. The fee being sufficient to discourage non residents. Logically that is precisely the opposite of what the landowners seek, which is not to invite all and sundry to park.