Parking Code evidence - your images of private parking signs are needed please!

Coupon-mad

Just for a laugh, while I nurse my jet-lag 

We saw this sign in motorbike-mad Indonesia when on our hols the other day:

Nice big terms, clear hours of operation and clear message. No bikes were parked there.

  

Coupon-mad

District Enforcement sign from this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6641088/help-needed-letter-before-claim-from-gladstones-for-council-owned-car-park-pcn/p2

DE seem to think it's OK to add fake (double recovery of the letter chain) fees or costs that aren't specified in the sign, just because they have a bit of small print effectively saying they can charge what they like 'on the indemnity basis'.

£100 extra? £2000 extra? Who knows!

Whatever these drip pricing imaginary 'costs' might be, they would take the charge way above the 'maximum recoverable sum' in Schedule 4 POFA. Which is the PCN sum only (plus capped court fees if it gets that far).

Coupon-mad

ParkingEye sign from another thread here this week:

Again, only the PCN is stated.

No imaginary fake costs are in the contract.

The entire business model of an ANPR or CCTV using PPC is (automated decision making) AI data look up from the DVLA's deluded automated KADOE conveyor belt, followed by an automated letter chain as seen in Beavis.

Getting a third party to send the tedious template letters doesn't create an extra cost! If anything, the PPC should expect to receive less than face value for cases they farm out to a DRA sub contractor.

But no.

Only in parking does the PPC make more by letting it go to pseudo 'escalation' or 'enforcement' stage. Which isn't anything of the sort. It's not enforcement, it's just the usual standard 'reminders series' letter chain, on different headed notepaper.

With red ink to frighten recipients.

But the fake fee isn't on the sign.

Even if these false 'costs' were listed, it's double recovery because the PCN itself already includes the minor costs of a £2.50 DVLA look-up and a letter chain (£1.88 per letter using a hybrid mail consolidator via the Unity5 Zatpark software)...

...with the small addition of a 29 pence 'soft trace' if needed along the way, to check the address. But this isn't a special service that comes at a cost; DRAs offer it free. And it's not new or different: ParkingEye already did bulk soft traces in-house, even at the time of the Beavis case.

They also offer payment plans for no added cost. We saw an example recently.

Therefore, no costs can be added.

COME ON MHCLG - WAKEY WAKEY!

Coupon-mad

New UKPC sign from this news article, featuring unreadable small print, looks smaller than 12 point and WHITE text on ORANGE?!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20e0n93x1zo.amp

UKPC  seem to think it's OK to add fake (double recovery of the letter chain) fees or costs that aren't on the sign at all, or maybe that's the orange bit! Who knows?

Whatever the drip pricing imaginary 'costs' might be (and of course their mates at the BPA 'let' them have double recovery of £70 for no lawful reason whatsoever, they just made it up) any added 'late fee' or costs would take the charge way above the 'maximum recoverable sum' in Schedule 4 POFA.

Which allows the PCN sum only.

But the Government isn't listening.

Coupon-mad

CPMS sign from this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6641592/pcn-residential-visitor-parking#latest

That yellow colour is already faded.

CPMS seem to think it's OK to add fake (double recovery of the letter chain) fees or costs that aren't specified in the sign, just because they have small print saying they can charge what they like 'on an indemnity basis'.

£100 extra? £2000 extra? Who knows.

Even if the added extortion of the fake 'fee' was on the sign, the standard letter chain of an ANPR parking model isn't 'enforcement'.

Coupon-mad

Longbridge (Birmingham) shopping centre sign from this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6642038/longbridge-parking-charge#latest

That's a forbidding sign: no contract is on offer because valuable consideration is missing. 'NO PARKING' isn't a contractual agreement where a bay is on offer.

Nothing readable about any charges or costs except the massive PCN of £100 (already double the PCN cost locally from the council). 

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

I already posted on another thread:

Here's a picture of the woeful Gatwick signs, taken by a relative as we dropped off a friend this weekend (... hello NCP...). 

  



No we didn't forget to pay once back home but we had to keep reminding each other and it was only because I knew all about it that it remained in my mind and we made a point of paying within half an hour of getting home.

I can totally see why people forget!

Nondescript signs. Unreadable t&cs.

Nothing about added DRA fees.

Why is it justifiable to be a massive £100 reduced to £60? Extortionate for a minor human error.

Why is it the same as stopping on double reds or causing an obstruction? It is absurd enrichment.

NCP USED to issue PCNs with £15 as the early discount. 

The above was at the South terminal of Gatwick Airport.

This week, we dropped off at the North terminal where the generic alerts about "pay to drop off" and surface markings are large

...but:

- they knowingly and deliberately prey on human nature (people should be able to pay by card immediately on site at the exit like we used to, or at kiosks alongside the kerb). Arriving home is too late for most busy people to know & remember to go online & pay. THEY WOULD PAY £7 IF AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY ON SITE OR IF THERE WAS A WAY TO RECEIVE A TEXT REMINDER!

and

- the sign is wordy with no readable t&cs

Nothing about any costs or fake 'DRA fee' add-on for sending the same letters that any ANPR private PCN sum has to cover to be proportionate, recoverable and not 'extravagant and unconscionable' (Beavis).