Lets setup a petition to ban private parking companies

fisherjim

DullGreyGuy said:

Have lived on many estates with parking companies and on roads with council parking controls, have occasionally seen vans get tickets but never then had Amazon say they won't deliver. In typical high density living London the van can be parked there for a fair amount of time with 4 building doors potentially serving hundreds of flats

Coupon-mad said:

Not everyone uses moving companies. A lot of tenants don't and certainly not Uni students.

It is a normal life expectation to be able to unload at flats.  As found in Jopson v Homeguard, and by the DLUHC (now MHCLG) in the temporarily stalled CoP, unloading or dropping off passengers isn't parking.  This matches the rules on street.

Tenants will depend where they are... major cities where furnished flats are common then no. Places where almost everything is unfurnished then it's no different between home owners and non-home owners as a double bed is equally hard to get into a car irrespective of the ownership of a house/flat. 

I'd argue it's normal expectation to follow the rules which means parking near your front door may not be possible. As mentioned, when in halls at uni the carpark was controlled by an automatic barrier. Guess your suggesting you'd have driven through the barrier, across the carpark and onto the lawn to enforce your expectation of being able to unload close to the door of the building?

I think you are totally missing the point here.

Private parking companies only get revenue from motorists breaking their rules, the appeals process put together by the ATA is unregulated, contrived for the benefit of their members (not the appellant), the audits are an office based exercise, the PPCs rarely consider any appeal favourably, PPC's have been caught out falsifying evidence, and add costs that are not incurred.

A recent case was rejected by a PPC where a customers car drove in to a supermarket car park, caught fire from an electrical fault while the driver was shopping, and was driven out on the back of a low loader some hours later a write off.

The PPC sent a NTK and just quoted the rules on the signage when appealed, luckily the supermarket had more sense, but it shows the intransigence of a company blinded by greed!

But you carry o defending them if it makes you feel better, I will continue thinking this is a money saving forum and that PPCs are scamming bullies.

Coupon-mad

DullGreyGuy said:

KeithP said:

DullGreyGuy said:. Guess your suggesting you'd have driven through the barrier, across the carpark and onto the lawn to enforce your expectation of being able to unload close to the door of the building?

You guess wrong. You don't know me at all!

But luckily we have the persuasive case of Jopson as authority for common sense. Of
course tenants moving in would almost always need temporary vehicular access if space exists.  Furniture or no furniture.

To echo @fisherjim

You carry on defending them if it makes you feel better, I will continue thinking this is a money saving forum and it is my opinion that PPCs are scamming bullies. 

DullGreyGuy

fisherjim said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Have lived on many estates with parking companies and on roads with council parking controls, have occasionally seen vans get tickets but never then had Amazon say they won't deliver. In typical high density living London the van can be parked there for a fair amount of time with 4 building doors potentially serving hundreds of flats

Coupon-mad said:

Not everyone uses moving companies. A lot of tenants don't and certainly not Uni students.

It is a normal life expectation to be able to unload at flats.  As found in Jopson v Homeguard, and by the DLUHC (now MHCLG) in the temporarily stalled CoP, unloading or dropping off passengers isn't parking.  This matches the rules on street.

Tenants will depend where they are... major cities where furnished flats are common then no. Places where almost everything is unfurnished then it's no different between home owners and non-home owners as a double bed is equally hard to get into a car irrespective of the ownership of a house/flat. 

I'd argue it's normal expectation to follow the rules which means parking near your front door may not be possible. As mentioned, when in halls at uni the carpark was controlled by an automatic barrier. Guess your suggesting you'd have driven through the barrier, across the carpark and onto the lawn to enforce your expectation of being able to unload close to the door of the building?

A recent case was rejected by a PPC where a customers car drove in to a supermarket car park, caught fire from an electrical fault while the driver was shopping, and was driven out on the back of a low loader some hours later a write off.

The PPC sent a NTK and just quoted the rules on the signage when appealed, luckily the supermarket had more sense, but it shows the intransigence of a company blinded by greed!

I'm aware of the nature of those that frequent this part of the forum so can predict the response but... it's actually a theoretically interesting scenario. 

The law, generally, doesn't require sympathy or goodwill. The Travel section here is full of cases of people saying their great Aunt died a week before the OP were about to travel but the airline/travel agent won't allow them to cancel their holiday which they dont feel like going on any more or a honeymoon but the groom finds out their fiancée was cheating on them the night before the wedding. The law doesn't require the travel company to allow them to cancel the holiday for free and refund the £5,000 booking. Should every company have to waive the costs for whatever story the customer comes up with?

In this example did the DVLA agree to actually refund a part month of the tax disc? Did the warranty company refund the remaining term? Did the finance company waive the early settlement fee and/or the outstanding balance? Did the low loader pick it up for free? Did their insurance not go up the next year during to the claim? Why is it only the PPC that should be unpaid assuming the person stayed in the carpark for longer than they paid for/is allowed?

You go on holiday and get sick, too ill to fly home but well enough to not be in hospital. Should the hotel put you up for free? I can tell you now they dont so why should the parking company?

I've been on the other side. We moved into a development near a train station and constantly you had random commuters parking in spaces. The freeholders eventually introduced a PPC and it instantly became much better... it went from most weeks to once or twice a year that someone had taken my space. I did get 1 ticket myself when I had a courtesy car but I took a risk and lost but the £40 or so charge was so worth it for being able to use my space for 3 years without some selfish person stealing my space. I was just a renter but the landlord got a modest discount from their service charge for the fee the PPC paid for operating. 

As to blind greed? Ironically looking at Tesco and Horizon, who many complain about for being the PPC in Tesco carparks, their net profit margin is about the same so why is it just the PPC that has blind greed?

Coupon-mad

Because (unlike Tesco):

- they deliberately set consumers up to fail by shortening free parking times to catch disabled people and families, and

- they don't provide a service or product that anyone needs.

Emmia

Coupon-mad said:

Because (unlike Tesco):

- they deliberately set consumers up to fail by shortening free parking times to catch disabled people and families, and

- they don't provide a service or product that anyone needs.

I'd argue that the companies exist because parking needs to be managed.

People (motorists) park inappropriately, for too long,  and in the wrong places. I wish it wasn't so, but it is.

I've seen ambulances unable to get to a nursing home on an unadopted road because station using commuters made the road too narrow, and blocked the allocated space - signs went up asking people to park appropriately, to no avail... a parking company gets hired, tickets cars - guess what, it stopped being an issue.

pustit

DullGreyGuy said:

fisherjim said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Have lived on many estates with parking companies and on roads with council parking controls, have occasionally seen vans get tickets but never then had Amazon say they won't deliver. In typical high density living London the van can be parked there for a fair amount of time with 4 building doors potentially serving hundreds of flats

Coupon-mad said:

Not everyone uses moving companies. A lot of tenants don't and certainly not Uni students.

It is a normal life expectation to be able to unload at flats.  As found in Jopson v Homeguard, and by the DLUHC (now MHCLG) in the temporarily stalled CoP, unloading or dropping off passengers isn't parking.  This matches the rules on street.

Tenants will depend where they are... major cities where furnished flats are common then no. Places where almost everything is unfurnished then it's no different between home owners and non-home owners as a double bed is equally hard to get into a car irrespective of the ownership of a house/flat. 

I'd argue it's normal expectation to follow the rules which means parking near your front door may not be possible. As mentioned, when in halls at uni the carpark was controlled by an automatic barrier. Guess your suggesting you'd have driven through the barrier, across the carpark and onto the lawn to enforce your expectation of being able to unload close to the door of the building?

A recent case was rejected by a PPC where a customers car drove in to a supermarket car park, caught fire from an electrical fault while the driver was shopping, and was driven out on the back of a low loader some hours later a write off.

The PPC sent a NTK and just quoted the rules on the signage when appealed, luckily the supermarket had more sense, but it shows the intransigence of a company blinded by greed!

I'm aware of the nature of those that frequent this part of the forum so can predict the response but... it's actually a theoretically interesting scenario. 

The law, generally, doesn't require sympathy or goodwill. The Travel section here is full of cases of people saying their great Aunt died a week before the OP were about to travel but the airline/travel agent won't allow them to cancel their holiday which they dont feel like going on any more or a honeymoon but the groom finds out their fiancée was cheating on them the night before the wedding. The law doesn't require the travel company to allow them to cancel the holiday for free and refund the £5,000 booking. Should every company have to waive the costs for whatever story the customer comes up with?

In this example did the DVLA agree to actually refund a part month of the tax disc? Did the warranty company refund the remaining term? Did the finance company waive the early settlement fee and/or the outstanding balance? Did the low loader pick it up for free? Did their insurance not go up the next year during to the claim? Why is it only the PPC that should be unpaid assuming the person stayed in the carpark for longer than they paid for/is allowed?

You go on holiday and get sick, too ill to fly home but well enough to not be in hospital. Should the hotel put you up for free? I can tell you now they dont so why should the parking company?

I've been on the other side. We moved into a development near a train station and constantly you had random commuters parking in spaces. The freeholders eventually introduced a PPC and it instantly became much better... it went from most weeks to once or twice a year that someone had taken my space. I did get 1 ticket myself when I had a courtesy car but I took a risk and lost but the £40 or so charge was so worth it for being able to use my space for 3 years without some selfish person stealing my space. I was just a renter but the landlord got a modest discount from their service charge for the fee the PPC paid for operating. 

As to blind greed? Ironically looking at Tesco and Horizon, who many complain about for being the PPC in Tesco carparks, their net profit margin is about the same so why is it just the PPC that has blind greed?

You mention "The law".  However PPCs are anything but "The law".

fisherjim

DullGreyGuy said:

fisherjim said:

A recent case was rejected by a PPC where a customers car drove in to a supermarket car park, caught fire from an electrical fault while the driver was shopping, and was driven out on the back of a low loader some hours later a write off.

The PPC sent a NTK and just quoted the rules on the signage when appealed, luckily the supermarket had more sense, but it shows the intransigence of a company blinded by greed!

In this example did the DVLA agree to actually refund a part month of the tax disc? Did the warranty company refund the remaining term? Did the finance company waive the early settlement fee and/or the outstanding balance? Did the low loader pick it up for free? Did their insurance not go up the next year during to the claim? Why is it only the PPC that should be unpaid assuming the person stayed in the carpark for longer than they paid for/is allowed?

That answer is just plain daft!

The PPC provided no service at all to the motorist for the £100 fee claimed.

The DVLA, the warranty company, the finance company, the the breakdown company, and the insurance company don't belong to an ATA with a (sham) appeals process which should allow for just this type of event. 

If that scenario does not warrant cancellation I don't know what does.

If you cannot accept, as parliament has, that the unregulated private parking industry is full of scammers you carry on paying up to buy their owners Range Rovers and villas in The Algarve.

Oh, and I accept that there are chancers that come on here too with sob stories trying to pick up on loopholes, they tend to get short shift from me, I don't like scammers on either side!

KoalaMSEF

h2g2 said:

fisherjim said:

"The management company have said everything's fair and they have the rights to revoke part of our demised land at will"

They lied to you!

I know. This is why I've had to get a lawyer involved.

Having said that, if the PPC (or the management company) involved had paid attention to POFA or to the IPCs Code of Conduct they wouldn't have entered a contract in the first place.

There are many different scenarios, residential vs. commercial, allocated parking in residential vs. non-allocated parking in residential.

In short, MA can't without varying the lease for a substantial change such as charging £100 a pop for parking in the allocated parking space (unallocated parking is different). If landlord did so, landlord needs to vary the lease as landlord is also obligated to observe the lease. 

PPC uses landlord's name doing their dirty business (in residential allocated parking case). MA helped them to make it possible. Plus, in our budget, it looks like the estate pays about £1000 to managing the parking a year. Then sending charges to the genuine residents because of their post-it notes is intentionally malicious and a pure scam. 

If they are really interested in managing parking, fully informed decisions for residents, digital system, and certainly not to charge a resident whose has newly moved in and/or parks in the same spot for years. 

A good lawyer may know that. But the ones I have dealt with do not. I can argue they did not want to challenge the management companies, even though MA deliberately excludes parking permit information in the extended notes. More likely, it became buyers/leaseholders problem after the purchase is complete. 

I suspect whoever director within MAs signed these contracts would not check anything, as they were probably promised that everything would be taken care of and they just need to sit back and relax. They charge a fortune from leaseholders and then barking at leaseholders who pay them to manage the estate for their sheer incompetence. 

It is not the same as why we need PPCs. The point of contention is whether they are genuinely managing or just scamming the monies out of motorists. More often than not, it is the latter that people here are so irritated about. 

Ensuring PPCs behave reasonably and decently is the call for regulating this industry really about. 

Le_Kirk

Hoenir said:

Le_Kirk said:

Mr.Generous said:

Having worked in retail I can also see it from the landowners - or business owners - perspective. Imagine running a furniture store with 20 spaces for customers that was 2 minutes from the station. What are they supposed to do when every spece is taken by 8am?

Bollards (and I am not being rude) or gates.

Sure way of driving customers away. 

Close the gates or put up the bollards when the store is closed and there are no customers to be driven away.