BLUE BADGE parking in KINNOULL STREET PERTH

Emmia

Umkomaas said:

Emmia said:

Coupon-mad said:

Emmia said:

@Coupon-mad I appreciate that you have your particular viewpoint, but unfortunately motorists who want to use city centre car parks may need to pay to park close to where they want to go. 

That includes people who hold blue badges. If no one pays for parking, then mysteriously car parks will vanish as landowners (including councils) find more financially beneficial uses for the land.

Be careful what you wish for.

We'll have to agree to disagree but I think you have misunderstood my viewpoint: nobody on this board is saying that people shouldn't pay a reasonable fee for parking.

The issue is the rogue parking industry who rinse millions from people. 

Luckily, the Government is on the case and is listening to me (and others with clout) and the MHCLG guys love the evidence from this forum.

Luckily too, the local MP has named and shamed that car park in Parliament which is why I 'm confident they'll assist this person to stop them being scammed by a PPC again.

Did the OP pay for the parking as they were supposed to, since the car park in question is not free for blue badge holders? If they didn't pay, then the fine is a consequence of that.

The trouble with telling people they don't need to pay the fines/invoices when they are charged because someone failed to pay, is why would someone pay the to park in the first place, if the consequences of not doing so can just be batted away...

How do you think parking charges should be enforced when people fail to pay when they are required to do so.

Much of this is the confusion BB holders have between council, on-street parking and private car parks, and their right to park for free for up to three hours in the two former ones. We have so many examples of that confusion. Sometimes the confusion is a symptom of their condition.  We hardly ever see a BB holder arguing the case that private parking should always be free to them as a group. 

So, do you think it's reasonable that some private company (many of them ex-clampers, some with criminal pasts) should be enriched to the tune of £100 every time for a simple error?

A blue badge holder should be aware of the rules of using the badge... They shouldn't assume parking is always free for them. 

As for the £100 charge - surely that's an incentive to make sure they know the rules associated with where they're parking. 

I still don't understand what you propose as an alternative to these fines?

Nellymoser

The OP parked in Kinnoull St before they had a blue badge. Got a pcn (reason not stated) they paid after Smart declined their appeal.

What you don't seem to grasp @Emmia is if landowners want to invite motorists to park on their land they need to tell motorists the 'rules', the tarrif and pcn charge (via the signs) and have a workable payment system in place.

So often this isn't the case in private car parks yet you always assume it is (your previous posts). I don't know how you can make these assumptions. You've previously stated you don't own a car so I'd imagine your not a regular user of private car parks, their systems and or experienced their pcn practices first hand.

If the landowner's car park is half empty while the council one across the road is always full the landowner needs to question why. They are the one losing out on parking payments. It won't be the motorists fault if as you say landowners 'find more financially beneficial uses for their land'. 

Private car parks are no different from other businesses give poor customer service and customers won't return.

That's why when I visit Perth I never park in the private car parks. Plenty of council ones available Canal St always has spaces, clear signage, a payment machine that works if your not exempt and it's central. 

Coupon-mad

@Emmia

To be clear, in terms of the charge (not fine) for failure to pay a tariff, I'm proposing what was in the 2022 statutory CoP that the rogue parking industry blocked by throwing money at more than one Judicial Review.

That 2022 Code said failure to pay a tariff was lower rate. £50 with 50% discount.

Not £100.

And we don't even know that the OP's son did fail to pay. Maybe there was a keying error (which the 2022 withdrawn code says should not be a burden on consumers and that such PCNs should not be issued).