Sunday Times Article - One Parking Solution

beamerguy

Johnersh .... you have a delightful and smooth way of slapping someone to the ground

I fear in this one, it will fall on deaf ears

AnotherForumite

Johnersh said:

@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I am sure that a number of tickets are sensibly rescinded, although I have seen some silly ones on here which were not, but which ought to have been.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. 

If the driver appeals within 28 days, and they are a bonafide resident, and a first event of this nature; we usually cancel.

If they engage with us after 28 days, we offer a discount and offer the opportunity to pay £10-£50 depending on what stage we are at (there has to be an incentive for them to engage with us at the earliest opportunity); if the decline the offer or rack up numerous PCNs they leave us no choice but to litigate.

By processing as a conditional discount, rather than an ‘admin fee’ it can revert to the full charge if they don’t pay it; where there is no scope for an ‘admin fee’ to escalate if payment is not forthcoming.

Most people don’t appreciate the unseen costs that we have to account for; I won’t be listing them here. They can’t be regarded as a general business overhead; as in many cases PCN revenue is the only source of income.

I’m pretty sure most operators scrapped the contractual model post Beavis / HMRC v VCS, it was only put in place due to the historical POPLA/GPEOL nonsense (which is history now).

nicestrawb

You talk as if you are the authority, entitled some might say. I can say first hand that I was harassed for 3 years and I was in the right all along and yes, I responded to the convicted criminals immediately. The only reason I was persued was greed in the hope I caved in, not because I'd actually done anything wrong. This forum exists for that reason. You've made so many enemies through your dodgy practices that they're all turning against you, including the government. And we are all very happy about it. Oh, and you can't answer simple questions...

Curlyben

Tonight's bedtime is the story of parking.
Are you sitting comfortably, then I'll begin.

Many eons ago the Police managed parking as a criminal matter, but as the number of cars on the road increased, the police found their time and resources spread thin, so parking was decriminalised and passed to local councils to look after.
As the number of cars continued to increase some clever private land owners hit on a money making wheeze where they would rent space for a monetary consideration, and all was good.
But they soon became greedy and inflated the charges until more people refused to pay to park and simply dumped their cars. The private land owners turned to the councils for help in recovering their money. The councils in turn refused to help and said it's your land you sort it out yourselves but we have been fining people that don't park nicely in public areas.
Now that sounded like a great idea to the land owners and so the parking change notice was born.
This state of affairs continued for a time, with rising changes and PCNs being issued, but there was a growing group of inconsiderate car drivers refusing to pay these fines. The Land owners needed a surefire method to extract payment from these inconsiderate drivers and again they asked from help. This time they turned to the Police who showed them a metal device they had been using to immobilise cars, the wheel clamp.
WoW, the land owners were smitten with this new extraction technique and they put a large release price to deter the inconsiderate drivers. This did indeed help to reduce the numbers that refused to pay and all was good.
The number of cars continued to rise and the amount of available space was finite, so the price to park kept increasing.
While the land owners loved the extra income their land was generating, they really did't like getting their hands dirty, so they decided to pass the heavy lifting to some people they met down the local hostelry.
They came up with a plan that would mean they kept the parking money and their new friends would keep any charges they raised. As far as the land owners were concerned all was very good again, however the new friends soon realised that by bending the rules and confusing the drivers they could make liberal use of the wheel clamps and extract even more money with which to gild their own dwellings.
The inconsiderate drivers soon became extremely vocal and raise this unfairness to their local members of Parliament, who agreed that this was a sharp practice of which they weren't getting their tax cut, so banned it forthwith.
The new Friends, now ex-clampers, didn't like this one little bit and claimed it would lead to carmagedon and the destruction of their livelihoods. Some of the ex-clampers had become friends with some bottom feeding lawyers that found that they could use the court system to their advantage. As the British Way was not to question authority, when an official solicitors letter landed on the door mat this was more then enough to make the inconsiderate drivers see the error of their ways and pay up.
While all this was going on a little known piece of technology called the World Wide Web was gaining a bigger audience and people found that they could talk to others in similar situations. They banded together into forums to exchange storied and ideas and they started to question authority. This was bad for the ex-clampers as their solicitors claims were being over turned so they had to spend money to make bigger signs with far more words on them to confuse the drivers even more. They also decided to vastly increase their parking charges and add many hidden fees with official sounding names, so to add to the confusion.
And all was good in the ex-clampers world again.

That's all for tonight, comeback tomorrow for the next thrilling installment...
Good Night..

Snakes_Belly

AnotherForumite said:

Snakes_Belly said:

@Johnersh "You fail to differentiate between (or perhaps to understand) that professional indemnity cover (for negligence) is different to litigation insurance in case a claim is lost."

I assume that is the type of insurance that companies are taking out in bringing Neil Woodford and HL to court.

Really though small claims should be what they say on the tin otherwise the ordinary person will be put off seeking justice and litigation will be just for the people that can afford it.  

@AnotherForumite The company that you work for will receive it's pound of flesh so why is it any skin off your nose if people want to contribute to a crowdfunding page? 

I actually feel sorry for the motorists as, reading the notes on the funding page, she is vulnerable and has clearly been used as a pawn by her 'advisors' in order to satisfy their personal agenda i.e. fight their cause through others without any liability/risk to them in the event of failure.
Your right, it is 'no skin off my nose; however, it should be the 'advisors' that foot the bill; as it's them that got the motorist into this mess by using her to fight their cause.

If the lady in question is vulnerable then why was the PPC chasing and harrassing her with debt collectors letters? They could have cut her some slack and just asked for an small admin fee. Now they have a large costs bill to pay.

You and your ilk do not give a hoot about vulnerable people.  VCS are a prime example of chasing a veteran multiple amputee through the courts for the fact that his disabled badge was being renewed.  JB has never explained that one.

When the new CoP comes into force hopefully the PPC's and their bottom feeding debt collection agents will have to be regulated in which case they will have to make enquiries as to whether they are dealing with a vulnerable person before they send out their letters.  

Snakes_Belly

In relation to bias the PPC's have had bias on their side for years. There are very few situations where the claim has been cancelled by the PPC at the first stage.  Appeals to the IAS are a total waste of time as very few are upheld as they are totally biased towards the PPC's.

What is more biased than "putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank". Roll on a fairer system for the motorist.

I hope that the lady in question is contacting her MP. This should not happen as a result of a small claim.
 

northcountry

'hope that the lady in question is contacting her MP. This should not happen as a result of a small claim'
Indeed she has.

Jenni_D

I saw the Go Fund Me link mentioned in another thread ... donated.

northcountry

Jenni_D said:

I saw the Go Fund Me link mentioned in another thread ... donated.

Thank you Jenni D, very kind of you.  I will let her know.  She is a close friend of mine.  Also, she wants people to know that any excess funds (unlikely at this rate) she wants to go to help other motorists caught in a similar trap.

Fruitcake

What I don't understand is why a resident needs to display a permit when they already have a right to use a parking space. This being the case, there is no requirement for a  resident to appeal or to engage with a parking operator who was not a party to their lease/AST/rental agreement giving them a right to park.

Before a PPC is introduced they have a duty to check what rights residents already have, must have the landowner's permission to operate a parking scheme, and where a licence is granted by an agent, the agent must have express or implied authority from the landowner to for a contract with a third party.

The PPC has a duty to check that an agent has authority from the landowner to form a contract with a third party, and a duty to check the terms of any head lease, and any individual lease or tenancy agreement or property rental agreement before commencing operations.
In addition, a ballot of all landlords and all residents must be carried out in accordance with Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, and the majority in favour and maximum number of those against not exceeded before a resident's lease can be varied.

Even when there is no restriction to access, all that is needed is a whitelist, a list of VRMs supplied to the PPC, so that an attendant can immediately see that the vehicle is permitted to park. This saves the PPC the time and cost of issuing a PCN, obtaining keeper details, and costs of pursuing the keeper.

Permits may be needed for visitors, but there must be a fair method to prevent a genuine visitor being issued with a PCN whilst they are obtaining a physical or digital permit, and/or some method of retrospectively granting permission. Again, a ballot of residents must be carried out as above before a permit scheme for visitors can be introduced.

This is only one aspect of problems with private parking management. Of course landowners have the right to protect their property and assets from inconsiderate motorists, but the problem is the excesses unregulated parking companies go to in order to generate a profit, riding rough shod over the rights of ordinary people.
Parking companies have had nearly eleven years to resolve issues around the management of disabled parking bays, yet still insist the only option is the blue badge scheme. When responding to the parking consultation, I came up with about half a dozen different ideas in fifteen minutes.

Don't get me started on ANPR scameras. The government has stated these are not fit for purpose with regards to car park monitoring and are therefore prohibited from use by councils and local authorities.
Parking companies have been trying to get the government to change this, no doubt as a first step towards legitimising the use of these scameras in private car parks. Thankfully the government so far have not changed their stance.