Private driveway

Coupon-mad

I would be putting in writing to the landowner a response thanking him for his personal visit and chat.  Then add:

To be clear, this site is not a 'closed site' therefore it is ONLY suitable for foot patrols in order to avoid encroaching on the rights of way or capturing unjustified data by camera.  For the avoidance of doubt, I absolutely forbid any filming (including by CCTV) that captures my cars or vehicles belonging to visitors, or people walking to/from my property, or on my property.

I would kindly suggest that you read the recent Ring Doorbell court case, found in the public domain including here:https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/warning-anyone-ring-doorbell-after-21845329

and were you aware of this about UKPC?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-34220908

and this?
https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/324523-ukpc-liable-for-trespass-success/

Whilst you may think you have a parking 'problem' now, my research into this murky world has told me that getting into bed with ex-clampers with this sort of appalling conduct background, just as the Government is stepping in to regulate the industry this year, is not the best idea. Here is the new statutory Code of Practice which firms like UKPC are likely to struggle to meet:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

I would suggest this really is not the time to be signing a long-term contract that might bind you and cause you and your own visitors detriment. Sledgehammer to crack a nut springs to mind. And indeed, these cases:

https://iwobserver.co.uk/browns-golf-course-parking-fiasco/

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/food-bank-users-threatened-with-170-parking-fine/ar-AAX42xo?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=cfed435649d1426d83bdbcd22d05a3b6

Because parking contracts offered 'free of charge' to landowners work by incentivising the parking firm to issue as many PCNs as possible and to refuse to cancel them even for authorised staff and visitors, I predict that's what will happen to you and your visitors if you take on a private parking firm (any).  Cautionary tales like the above, and the expensive Ring Doorbell case, should warn any unsuspecting landowner off the whole idea.  It just is not needed.

Can we talk again about what your issues are because I have found expert advice and a mine of information that might assist you.  Most sites need no third party parking firm and there are no good ones.  Better to put your own signs up, maintain control in house and let the new law 'bed in' then - if you still want to contract with the currently rogue private parking industry - see who is still standing in 2024/2025 after the new regulation starts to take real effect.

diystarter7

from what the OP said IMO its nothing to do with if its "legal" or not. The bottom line is it is sensible. Otherwise how on earht can the parking co ID which car to fine/charge and which not to

The above is a first for me voting in favour of a car park.

Does the OP have any other solutions, I doubt it.

My understanding is the OP had right of access and that is still being maintained and the car park was there before he bought the property so I am with the car par

If it was my place I'd not be happy about it but there is no alternative other than to get fines and then appeal to drop.

Coupon-mad

Wow. You are with the car park landowner in this appalling case?

You are the only one.

I replied to you here already that you need to realise this is a forum board of experts and we know exactly what we are doing, and we are making a difference:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79218770/#Comment_79218770

But in this specific case, what do you mean there is no alternative?

If it was my place I'd not be happy about it but there is no alternative other than to get fines and then appeal to drop.

Does the OP have any other solutions, I doubt it.

She does.

We've already got rid of the ANPR threat within days of this query starting, and I've just written a new reply for the OP to use that will remove the CCTV threat as well, and possibly the entire idea to use UKPC!  It will make the landowner re-think, I'm sure.  If I were the landowner I'd be telling UKPC to get lost.

fisherjim

diystarter7 said:

from what the OP said IMO its nothing to do with if its "legal" or not. The bottom line is it is sensible. Otherwise how on earht can the parking co ID which car to fine/charge and which not to

The above is a first for me voting in favour of a car park.

Does the OP have any other solutions, I doubt it.

My understanding is the OP had right of access and that is still being maintained and the car park was there before he bought the property so I am with the car par

If it was my place I'd not be happy about it but there is no alternative other than to get fines and then appeal to drop.

With respect you are talking out of your rear end, of course legalities come in to it.

The PPC is not being sensible in the slightest how do you think parking was controlled for decades and decades prior to anpr?

The PPC has other methods to ID which car to target (they cannot issue a fine keep up).

Of course you can state your opinion even if it is backed by ridiculous assumptions 9my opinion)

The OP came here for other solutions which they have been given.

Who said it was always a car park? No one as I can see it may have been a field with the house there before the car park.

Your last sentence is just laughable and suggests 'you ain't from round here partner' as they say in Texas!

prowla

Having (apparently) closed off the ANPR issue, the next step is to deal with the CCTV one...

Do you want CCTV there or not?

In certain circumstances it could be beneficial to you, or you could decide you don't want to be snooped on.

Half_way

CCTV systems all depend on how the data is used and where it goes.

 As for the landowner, its good to e that they are comming round, however they may be getting into more trrouble than its worth and having a PPC on site using either ANPRor CCTV is a recepe for disaster.

 the only viable solution woulld be foot patrols and a traditional P&D system , as the principal ( landowner) is jointly and severally liable for the actions  of its agents ( pakring company) they are putting thmselves at risk with an unregulated predatory pakring compay

Trainerman

The small Council pay-and-display car park near me just have a visiting van patrol.  He avoids a schedule, and you never know when he will turn up. Yes, no doubt some overstayers get away with it, but the Council seem ok with it overall.

Of course, that bit of 'give and take' would not work for PPC scammers who want any and every possible excuse to write PCNs at inflated prices.

Lindsey006

There was a car park when I bought the house. I have lived here for 20 years, my neighbours for 36 years and we have never had a problem at all with the car park. 

UKPC were determined to get ANPR cameras and said they had this in other car parks, why was I objecting, the solution they offered was to hand out cards with details of numbers to text etc for visitors for them to avoid charges. 

I would rather not have CCTV if I am honest, the more I think about it the less happy I am. Preferable to ANPR but not ideal. This is all in a semi rural village with free unrestricted road parking so seems entirely unnecessary.

I think the landowner is inexperienced with charging for car parking and UKPC are quite insistent with their plans. It is a relatively small car park for about 20 cars. My house is a freehold property and the deeds to my house clearly detail the right of way and the right for myself and visitors to be able to access the property freely at all times across the car park. The car park has to be kept as a car park according to the original permission for when it was built.

I like the idea of the letter to the landowner. I will do that. The landowner would presumably need to employ someone to manage the car park and that would be more expensive than using UKPC presumably so that could be an issue. I would prefer to avoid UKPC at all costs, I have certainly learnt that since this all started!

Coupon-mad

The point is that the landowner doesn't need to contract with or employ anyone.  That's why I suggested he has another chat with you to find out what issues he is trying to address.  It only needs a couple of polite signs to tell people not to park, if fly-parking (trespassers) is his worry.

Drivers will abide by a polite notice but PPCs don't want landowners to realise that.

fisherjim

Lindsey006 said:

 UKPC are quite insistent with their plans. It is a relatively small car park for about 20 cars.

There in lies the crux of the matter, (1) the tail wagging the dog (2) a small car park which the scammers at UKPC will have to aggressively target to get their profits.

What ever they promise now I guarantee when your family/visitors/delivery drivers etc etc start getting charges UKPC will make it as difficult as they can.

The only reason they want camera controls is purely for easy lowest cost cash extraction.