|
Give that man a medal! Get caught with a PCN? - just send them that speech and tell them to get stuffed!
Edited by Honestjohn on 13/07/2012 at 09:26
|
|
Bet they didn't applaud!
Edited by Honestjohn on 13/07/2012 at 09:26
|
|
Whoever booked him will not be very popular.
I've heard that there were quite a few parking officials from local councils (The conference was for private and local authorities). Apparantly a few of the council officials congratulated Mike afterwards for the speech and thanked him as they did not realise they did not have to pay the parking charges from private parking companies
Edited by Honestjohn on 13/07/2012 at 09:26
|
|
That speech could equally have delivered to the house of ill repute, seeing as it centred around fair and just behaviour with a dose of truth and honour, probably be met with the same incomprehension it was at the parking conference.
Edited by Honestjohn on 13/07/2012 at 09:27
|
|
Actually BPA members are acting no differently from the way TfL did over imposing penalties for failure to pay the London Congestion Charge, which TfL deliberately made difficult to pay by refusing to automate payment by ANPR and credit or charge cards. This is not a defence of the BPA. Its members are clearly out to make fortunes from imposing penalties, so they are parasites on society rather than the guardians of private property that they claim to be. They currently make between £80,000,000 and £100,000,000 , but want to make £150,000,000 to £200,000,000, and they will make it if vehicle keepers are frightened into payment by the imposition of Clause 56 of the Protection of Freedoms Act in October 2012 that makes vehicle keepers liable for any contractual penalties incurred by their vehicles, whoever was driving. BPA members are clearly in it for the (huge) money, and the money they make might well buy them political favour, or favour from high ranking public servants or from government agencies. The DVLA already rakes in fees from BPA members by allowing them access to Data Protected vehicle keepership details. But if BPA members are not allowed to control private parking, who will control private parking? Drivers cannot simply be allowed to park their vehicles freely on any patch of private land they choose at whatever inconvenience that may cause the owner of the land and his customers. How would you like it if some thug parked his Dodge Ram in your private driveway, preventing your wife from taking your children to school? So there needs to be some kind of control, but not a means of control that provides a cash cow to former clamping gangs.
HJ
Edited by Honestjohn on 13/07/2012 at 09:27
|
|
The most effective control to stop parking on land is a fence and a gate. The BPA is a classic solution for a problem which doesn't exist. They have invented a problem and profit from it, as do landowners. Hospitals get 50% of money obtained by deception.
Edited by Honestjohn on 13/07/2012 at 09:27
|
The most effective control to stop parking on land is a fence and a gate. The BPA is a classic solution for a problem which doesn't exist. They have invented a problem and profit from it, as do landowners. Hospitals get 50% of money obtained by deception.
Hear, hear. A few years ago, some travellers dragged their caravans onto a university's parkland, ripping the rugby pitches to shreds (they also burnt several trees and large swathes of grass). The council would do nothing and the police did only a little more - they hammered a small stake into the ground and stuck an A4 sized 'get off' notice on it. This university had to plant trees and put in fences to prevent this from happening again. Admittedly this has spoilt the open aspect of the sweeping parkland but nobody has tried to park on there again.
Edited by Honestjohn on 13/07/2012 at 09:28
|
|
So we have to imprison ourselves behind gates fences and padlocks because some people know not the meaning of decent behaviour.
What a horrible place this country, or rather the people therein have become.
Edited by Honestjohn on 13/07/2012 at 09:28
|
|
But GB the fact is 99.9999% of people do have decent behaviour, hence my comment that its a problem that doesn't exist. There is no massive issue in this Country of people parking on any piece of land which is vacant.
Edited by Honestjohn on 13/07/2012 at 09:28
|
|
"Drivers cannot simply be allowed to park their vehicles freely on any patch of private land they choose at whatever inconvenience that may cause the owner of the land and his customers. How would you like it if some thug parked his Dodge Ram in your private driveway, preventing your wife from taking your children to school?"
Unless we each, individually, employ a BPA member I'm not sure what possible difference any of this would make to a private individual. If someone parks in your drive what can you do about it - apart from retropective action.
|
|
Much of this industry and its dubious practices was brought about by unscrupulous selfish people who took the p, as is often the case with many things.
If you own a shop or small business and with your business comes a bit of land, then you might be forgiven in thinking that people would park sensibly on your land when visiting your premises and then clear off....but no in practice you will have a selection of ne'er do wells of varying social standing who will simply dump their vehicles on your land and go off to do their thing.
A similar scenario for anyone who happens to own a bit of land privately.
Unreasonable parkers helped result in unreasonable solutions, the equivalent mentality to the selfish parker saw an opportunity to fleece innocents....just as the inscrupulous parkers have been doing to their victims, thuggish behaviour isn't the sole perogative of tattooed shaven headed clampers.
I don't think the forthcoming ability for parking companies to take the owner of a vehicle to court for unpaid parking charges is at all unreasonable, if you don't park unreasonably in the first place, or take the p you won't get caught out.
Edited by gordonbennet on 13/07/2012 at 11:56
|
|
In an effort to avoid extortionate parking charges in the city centre, I took to parking in an outlying residental street (legitimately) and walking into town. One day, I returned to see a "polite notice" placed under the windscreen wipers warning me that vandalism was rife in the area. Point taken.
|
|
|
|
"I don't think the forthcoming ability for parking companies to take the owner of a vehicle to court for unpaid parking charges is at all unreasonable, if you don't park unreasonably in the first place..."
Therein lies the rub. What is "reasonable" in one situation is "unreasonable" in another.
While it may be obvious that someone who leaves their car on your drive, thereby blocking your access, is acting unreasonably, you could argue for a long time over whether someone who overstays their free two hours by five minutes in a B & Q car park that was half-empty at the time is acting unreasonably.
You might also wonder whether a parking management company that demands a parking charge of (say) £150 for overstaying in a half-empty car park by five minutes is acting reasonably.
I for one will be very interested to see if the forthcoming change in the law with regard to the assumption of responsibility in the part of the car owner will in fact transfer the argument in any resulting court case into new areas: whether a contract to park (with accompaning penalty clauses) can be said to exist between a parking management company and a possibly absent and unwitting party (if the car was being driven by someone else); and whether the size of the penalty demanded will be scrutinised in relation to the damages sustained by the company - which in most cases is negligible, though not in the case of a small retailer whose limited parking space gets invaded, say, by commuters.
The end-result might be that in most scenarios taking court action becomes pointless, but I guess we need some test cases first.
And I do feel that the way motorists have been treated by parking management companies is vile and that the motorist in the vast majority of cases has been the victim of unreasonable behaviour, not the perpetrator of it.
Edited by FP on 13/07/2012 at 12:57
|
|
I wasn't thinking clearly enough in that last post - the issue of a contract between a parking management company and the owner of a car doesn't come into it - once the driver has been identified, they will be deemed to be a party to the contract. (I don't know what penalty the new law has if the owner refuses to identify the driver, but presumably this then becomes a separate issue.)
Then we shall have the other issues already mentioned above - whether the signage is clear and so on.
Edited by FP on 13/07/2012 at 13:20
|
|
''Therein lies the rub. What is "reasonable" in one situation is "unreasonable" in another.''
Absolutely, and as usual innocent and reasonable people on both sides suffer whilst the unreasonable, the selfish and bullies win...it seems thats always been the case, and not just in motoring.
''which in most cases is negligible, though not in the case of a small retailer whose limited parking space gets invaded, say, by commuters.''
Thats the point i was trying to make, but you have put it far better than i.
|
|
Here is an interesting transcript from a recent County Court Case.
Well worth a read, I almost feel sorry for Ms Coates representing the Private Parking Company...
tinyurl.com/87c5yck
|
A cracking good read. I'd seen the judgement before but not the full transcript. The focus moved from the circumstances of the parking infringement to a finding that the enforcement company were flouting court process by starting proceedings without the landowner's authority. The 'better bring a toothbrush' line is one I've heard deployed in the court offices with a degree of irony. Never been aware of it in open court before!!
Should think Miss Coates needed a strong drink after that!!!
Did the Director respond as required?
Edited by Bromptonaut on 14/07/2012 at 10:37
|
|
I'm not sure if he answered to the judge, he certainly would have paid for very expensive legal advice on the matter.
A freedom of information request has result in a list of BPA members who have actually issued court proceedings, it totals 845 (The BPA got the law changed by saying it was between 30000 and 90000 and a new law would free up court time). Of the 845 only 49 actually went before a judge (Many were dropped by the Parking Companies) so their figures were somewhat out hence Martin Cutts indignation. Of the 49 cases that made it to a judge only about 29 were judged in the parking companies favour. Bearing in mind it's fault there are millions issued a year, the odds of you being taken to caught are very low, the chances of losing even lower.
Here is the FOI list
Name of Parking Company Number of claims initiated OBSERVICES PARKING CONSULTANCY LTD 221, DEVERE PARKING SERVICES 216, EAST KENT HOPITALS UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST 47, SUSSEX SECURITY SOLUTONS LTD 34, DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT LIMITED 30, ARMTRAC SECURITY SERVICES 28, RISK CONSULTANTS LTD T/A APSECT PARKING SOLUTIONS 28, SECURE CAR PARKS LTD 26, LEGAL PARKING ENFORCERS(UK)LTD 23, COUNTY PARKING ENF AGY LTD 22, ELITE MANAGEMENT (MIDLANDS) LI 53A LOWER HALL LANE 22, COMBINED SOLUTIONS UK LTD T/AS COMBINED PARKING SOLUTIONS 18, EXCEL PARKING SERVICES 18, VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES 17, PREMIER PARKING SOLUTIONS 13, BALFOUR BEATTY WORKPLACE LIMITED 10, PARKSHIELD.COM LTD T/A PCPEA 9, EURO CAR PARKS LIMITED 7, NEWLYN PLC 7, OCS GROUP UK LTD T/A CANNON C ONSUMABLES NORTHGATE WHIT 7, SECURITAS SECURITY PERSONNEL L TD CREDIT CONTROL REGENT BU 6, DEVERE PARKING SERVICE 6, PARKINGEYE LIMITED 40 EATON AVENUE 5, TOTAL PARKING SOLUTIONS LTD 5, BUSINESS WATCH GUARDING LTD 2,NCP LTD 2, NEW GENERATION PARKING MANAGEMENT LTD 2, NORTHERN RAIL LTD 2, RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP LIMITED 2, ROSSENDALES COLLECT LIMITED 2, SALISBURY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST2, VINCI PARK CAR PARK SERVICES U PORTSOKEN HOUSE 2, CAR PARK SOLUTIONS 1, ETHICAL GROUP LTD 1, NAPIER PARKING LIMITED 1, WING PARKING LTD 1, Total 845
|
|
Between April 2011 and December 2011 Parking Eye made 411,685 electronic requests to the DVLA for keeper details. In its 'Final Notices' to those keepers it writes, "The consequences of not paying and subsequent legal proceedings, are that Judgement may be entered and, if ignored a bailiff / sheriff may attend the debtor's house to remove goods." Yet last year Parking Eye only initiated 5 actions against registered keepers. So that's 5 out of 411,685. Almost a 1 in 100,000 chance.
HJ
|
|
The figures are interesting.
The chances are that of the 5 cases that it did not go before a judge as was paid by the driver or dropped by the Parking Eye.
Also worth noting, the Parking Companies threaten court action, if they have not actually taken anyone to court eg they never follow through with the threat. Then technically they can get in trouble for threatening court when they have no intention.
Some interesting articles from Martin Cutts of the Plain Language Commission here
tinyurl.com/cwwhlgv
|
|
Very interesting comments from all concerned. I still belive that giving the BPA et al such powers in the new PFA bill is a huge mistake. You do not put a fox in charge of the henhouse! And you certainly do not assume because someone owns a vehicle he is reponsible for it's use when not in his possession. We can accept that from the police, but not from a private company whose sole aim is to extract money from you.
This problem could be easily solved for the most part by a simple expediant. The issue of 'free' parking on private land is only an issue where parking is scarce i.e near town centres etc. Therefore retailers etc should not offer free parking. Eveyone pays for their parking, by the hour so if 3 or 4 hours are required you have it. You pay a going rate and redeem it with a purchase at the local business or businesses involved. Simple. No more BPA and their bunch of sharks, no more frustration with jobsworths, just pay up and get on with life. Cheers Concrete
|
|
|
|
|
|
