This post brings the topic right back to where it started.
The private parking companies, or the unlicensed debt collectors and shyster solicitor firms who act for them, send out a tsunami of letters, threatening court action, CCJs, bailiff visits etc, to scare people into paying up.
These are often vulnerable or elderly people, or just ordinary folk with no knowledge of the law, who get scared and pay money they can scarcely afford.
And that's why the Government are trying to crack down on them, and why I asked people to respond to the Consultation. If the charges are capped at a lower level, and the added debt recovery fees banned, that will change the whole landscape of private parking because it won't be worthwhile for them to operate that business model.
Yes, civil litigation is a nasty and horrible world, and the adversarial court system means it can be quite a battle of wits in court. As an argumentative bastard, I believe I'm well equipped to fight those battles, as my track record shows.
The Consultation is solely about two issues, namely the capping of parking charge levels, and the banning of additional debt recovery fees.
The remainder of the proposed Code of Practice, which includes a fair and independent appeals service, clarity of signage etc., is not in dispute, and has been accepted by the parking industry.
Perfectly true @Twizz . I was part of the "no to bike parking tax" campaign in London for a year or two. We used to travel into London, go to the "honey hot spots" & point out the poor signage designed literally to trap the motorists into making "illegal" manoeuvres so Westminster council could up their revenues. We would simply follow the "camera cars", park our motorbikes in the area & stand there with foldable cardboard signs pointing out the errors that the motorist was about to make. Really miffed the council off as they made about 8 million pounds a year from that before we came along, then almost halved their income down to four million! Small victories and all that. ☺️
I'm resurrecting this thread, because it has just come to my attention that Franchise owner Pete Winkleman is a director of a private parking company that has recently started up, and is issuing their bogus so-called 'fines' in parts of Milton Keynes, including Stadium MK.
Comments
This post brings the topic right back to where it started.
The private parking companies, or the unlicensed debt collectors and shyster solicitor firms who act for them, send out a tsunami of letters, threatening court action, CCJs, bailiff visits etc, to scare people into paying up.
These are often vulnerable or elderly people, or just ordinary folk with no knowledge of the law, who get scared and pay money they can scarcely afford.
And that's why the Government are trying to crack down on them, and why I asked people to respond to the Consultation. If the charges are capped at a lower level, and the added debt recovery fees banned, that will change the whole landscape of private parking because it won't be worthwhile for them to operate that business model.
Yes, civil litigation is a nasty and horrible world, and the adversarial court system means it can be quite a battle of wits in court. As an argumentative bastard, I believe I'm well equipped to fight those battles, as my track record shows.
Well that missed the point I was making spectacularly (and presumably deliberately).
(Pretty much agree with your point on the behaviour of private car parking companies and unlicensed dept collectors.
Out of curiosity - and laziness because I’ve not looked - do the proposals extend beyond car parking charges for unlicensed debt collectors?)
The Consultation is solely about two issues, namely the capping of parking charge levels, and the banning of additional debt recovery fees.
The remainder of the proposed Code of Practice, which includes a fair and independent appeals service, clarity of signage etc., is not in dispute, and has been accepted by the parking industry.
The fact that noone argues it's not a parking industry, i.e. a business designed to generate revenue and profit, says it all in my view.
Edit. Actually it's a parking control industry, designed to trap and then penalise the unaware.
Perfectly true @Twizz . I was part of the "no to bike parking tax" campaign in London for a year or two. We used to travel into London, go to the "honey hot spots" & point out the poor signage designed literally to trap the motorists into making "illegal" manoeuvres so Westminster council could up their revenues. We would simply follow the "camera cars", park our motorbikes in the area & stand there with foldable cardboard signs pointing out the errors that the motorist was about to make. Really miffed the council off as they made about 8 million pounds a year from that before we came along, then almost halved their income down to four million! Small victories and all that. ☺️
I'm resurrecting this thread, because it has just come to my attention that Franchise owner Pete Winkleman is a director of a private parking company that has recently started up, and is issuing their bogus so-called 'fines' in parts of Milton Keynes, including Stadium MK.
Article from the local rag here: New parking charges take people by surprise around MK1 shopping centre and stadium in Milton Keynes
If ever there was an incentive for Wycombe fans to respond to the Consultation as I suggested at the start of this thread, this is it.
This amused me
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67066744