Parking Code evidence - pictures of signs with £50, £60 or £70 PCN and no £ DRA fee on the sign

Castle

Interesting paragraph on the terms and conditions for Horizonspaces.co.uk  

4.5       Car park owners must not list their parking spaces on the Horizon Parking platform for a higher price than the drive-up rate charged at the car park, inclusive of our 20% commission. In the event that this is not adhered to, Horizon Parking reserves the right to refund customers the over-charged amount to match the drive-up rate.

They charge £2.50 per day at Asda Dundee; whilst it's free parking all day.

NCC1701-A

Nat west, ransomes europark, ipswich. No PPC, elsewhere on same park, B&Q, Halfords etc with a PPC

NCC1701-A

Riversbrook vets, Cliff lane, ipswich, no PPC

Coupon-mad

Useful evidence in an article about horrific ex-wheelclampers UKPC, posted today by @1505grandad  on the News / Media thread.

Now this is £100 sign but...

...it's a brand new sign - made this Summer - and says 'up to £100' and refers to the Parking Code of Practice (ironically, I think UKPC were in a group of PPCs/DRAs behind one of those who blocked the very Code that they are now referring to on these signs!).

Now, the PPCs will probably all do this, so like this one, I believe next year, signs will say "up to £100" regardless of whether the DLUHC plump for Option 3 or Option 5 (all other options are excessive - adding hundreds to every multi-PCN claim for no justified reason, and would let nasty bulk litigators to continue to enrich themselves by rinsing motorists).

Putting 'up to £100' saves the PPCs from spending anything on different signs for accessible bays, staff-only parking spaces, yellow hatched 'no parking' sections, etc.

We all know from the evidence on this thread that they will use stickers.  Costs pennies.

OK - so given they've signalled their intent to put "up to £100" and in a BPA AOS meeting publicised on this forum last year, I think Derek Millard-Smith said that putting "up to £100" would be OK (in sites where a contravention of £100 was possible) this begs the question::

... where exactly is the loss of deterrent value?!

Look at the pic. Headline deterrent £100:

NCC1701-A

Coupon-mad said:

Useful evidence in an article about horrific ex-wheelclampers UKPC, posted today by @1505grandad  on the News / Media thread.

Now this is £100 sign but...

...it's a brand new sign - made this Summer - and says 'up to £100' and refers to the Parking Code of Practice (ironically, I think UKPC were in a group of PPCs/DRAs behind one of those who blocked the very Code that they are now referring to on these signs!).

Now, the PPCs will probably all do this, so like this one, I believe next year, signs will say "up to £100" regardless of whether the DLUHC plump for Option 3 or Option 5 (all other options are excessive - adding hundreds to every multi-PCN claim for no justified reason, and would let nasty bulk litigators to continue to enrich themselves by rinsing motorists).

Putting 'up to £100' saves the PPCs from spending anything on different signs for accessible bays, staff-only parking spaces, yellow hatched 'no parking' sections, etc.

We all know from the evidence on this thread that they will use stickers.  Costs pennies.

OK - so given they've signalled their intent to put "up to £100" and in a BPA AOS meeting publicised on this forum last year, I think Derek Millard-Smith said that putting "up to £100" would be OK (in sites where a contravention of £100 was possible) this begs the question::

... where exactly is the loss of deterrent value?!

Look at the pic. Headline deterrent £100:

What if the government introduce a limit of £50 - how would a reduced charge of £60 for early payment work?  Maybe the PPCs costs will be double for 2 bits of sticky tape?

patient_dream

"up to £100" ?

Who would ever buy something that says "up to" ?  
They would need to list the charges for each so called offence with a start price. Otherwise this would be anti-consumer

If that is the new UKPC sign, it is as bad as their current signs ... tiny writing that you need binoculars to read

Coupon-mad

They would need to list the charges for each so called offence with a start price. Otherwise this would be anti-consumer.

No they wouldn't. Looks OK.
I'm happy if they put "up to £100" on signs next year and if smarmy 'loophole' speeding case lawyer Derek Millard-Smith tells them that's OK, then on his head be it.

I have absolutely no issue with it.

And it blows their "no deterrent" argument out of the water.  They are so good at shooting their own toes off.  Bless 'em.

patient_dream

Coupon-mad said:

They would need to list the charges for each so called offence with a start price. Otherwise this would be anti-consumer.

No they wouldn't. Looks OK.
I'm happy if they put "up to £100" on signs next year and if smarmy 'loophole' speeding case lawyer Derek Millard-Smith tells them that's OK, then on his head be it.

I have absolutely no issue with it.

And it blows their "no deterrent" argument out of the water.  They are so good at shooting their own toes off.  Bless 'em.

And we know that £100 will be the norm. All the signs we see for £70 will vanish and show "up to £100" ??
That's a 43% pay rise .
Which fool thought this one up ??

patient_dream

Coupon-mad said:

I've no idea what you mean - you are mistaken - but not on this thread please.

I think everyone else contributing to this evidence thread can see what 'up to £100 - in accordance with the CoP' means.

It's perfectly OK and fantastic evidence that the deterrent value is retained.

I don't so please explain

patient_dream

Coupon-mad said:

Not here please.

You could tell me by email, you have my addy