A parking invoice I do like

Grizebeck

Gotta appreciate this 

Coupon-mad

How did they get the person's data I wonder? Maybe a paper application as landowner.

Grizebeck

Coupon-mad said:

How did they get the person's data I wonder? Maybe a paper application as landowner.

No it was just left on the car in an envelope 

Coupon-mad

That's good. Parking management without the threats.  It would put most drivers off.

Like that they called it an invoice. Says what it is.   PPCs hate that word & it was funny that the DLUHC used it somewhere in the draft IA.

pustit

But they do use the word "fine" further down the invoice.

troublemaker22

Well it is absolutely fine. 

Le_Kirk

I applaud the sentiment and I hope it had the desired outcome but the grammar in their first sentence cannot be similarly commended.

Grizebeck

She actually paid £25 in the end  after we had a discussion about it 

Coupon-mad

Grizebeck said:

She actually paid £25 in the end of after we had a discussion about it 

Seems fair.  This is how small church & similar car parks should be run.

Whatever2023

Highlights how not to manage your parking as the driver clearly has no respect for other peoples property.

You can see the frustration in the letter and it seems that the driver ignored all previous requests not to park there.

It is unacceptable for the landowner to have to firstly suffer the inconvenience of someone parking without their permission (potentially causing legitimate users to park elsewhere) and secondly have the hassle of issuing multiple written requests for the driver to park elsewhere; giving just £25 for all that hassle is an insult.

Had the motorist been issued with a Parking Charge on the first visit, they would have got the message immediately and the landowner would have suffered minimal inconvenience.

Coupon-mad

Whatever2023 said:

Highlights how not to manage your parking as the driver clearly has no respect for other peoples property.

You can see the frustration in the letter and it seems that the driver ignored all previous requests not to park there.

It is unacceptable for the landowner to have to firstly suffer the inconvenience of someone parking without their permission (potentially causing legitimate users to park elsewhere) and secondly have the hassle of issuing multiple written requests for the driver to park elsewhere; giving just £25 for all that hassle is an insult.

Had the motorist been issued with a Parking Charge on the first visit, they would have got the message immediately and the landowner would have suffered minimal inconvenience.

But it has been resolved, the person feels admonished and has paid the church £25.

This is all good.

How can the landowner getting £25 be 'an insult' when the rogue parking industry would have given that church nothing at all and would have royally peed off and driven away the genuine parishioners, to boot?

I bet some random small PPC will be sniffing around that church and quite possibly deliberately staging a worse parking problem and sending in fake complaints, come Monday morning.

I've heard from a source that using decoy cars to cause issues and staging complaints is how some PPCs persuade a landowner to let them set up cameras and infest a site.

PPCs have no place in such car parks.