Watchdog tonight

[c4rr0t]

Did anyone see it?

 

A traffic lawyer just demonstrated what to do with a PCN.

 

He folded into a paper plane and threw it away!!

 

lol:D

[MARTIN3030]

Aw missed it.

[MARTIN3030]

Was it concerning McDonalds and Met Parking ?

 

BBC - Watchdog: Big charges with your Big Mac

[c4rr0t]

It was about McDonalds.

A follow up to an earlier program (which I didn't see)

[laguna]

This is it.

 

BBC iPlayer - Watchdog: 06/05/2010

 

It's about twenty minutes into the program.

 

Class.

[reallymadwoman]

I thought making it into a paper plane was a bit tame. I have some much better suggestions ....

[sb118]

Didn't actually go into the details of it being a unlawful penalty, etc.

 

But it's a start!

[MARTIN3030]

See theres no shortage of comments-including a Cagger.

[sb118]

heh, my latest post has been "referred to the moderators"

[andydd]

heh, my latest post has been "referred to the moderators"

 

rut-roh !..now you're in trouble !

[tomtubby]

Didn't actually go into the details of it being a unlawful penalty, etc.

 

But it's a start!

 

I suppose that he was limited time wise but it would have been better if he could have explained a bit more on the reason for why there was no legal right to pay.

 

The journalist did say that this was the 2nd time that Mc Donalds and Met Parking had been asked to attend on the show but so far NO RESPONSE from either.

[sb118]

The way the legal bloke on their talked, it made it sound like they're running a legitimate system which has a few flaws, not that it's a total [problem].

[sb118]

Removed my comment!

[DBC]

The way the legal bloke on their talked, it made it sound like they're running a legitimate system which has a few flaws, not that it's a total [problem].

 

I didn't read it that way. I think he made it pretty clear that you can ignore these charges, and that the PPCs wouldn't get very far if they were stupid enough to take anyone to court.

 

I was also pleased to see that the "f" word wasn't used once in the programme. Instead they were rightly called "charges".

[kiptower]

kip make s quick note to himself

 

practise ORAGMI before next visit to MacDee's

[sameagle]

Also ORIGAMI.

[sb118]

I didn't read it that way. I think he made it pretty clear that you can ignore these charges, and that the PPCs wouldn't get very far if they were stupid enough to take anyone to court.

 

I was also pleased to see that the "f" word wasn't used once in the programme. Instead they were rightly called "charges".

 

Me and my crossed wires, should have said it was the guy with the van, not the legal guy.

 

Showing the defective camera system as a "legitimate" get out for a "legitimate" ticket muddied the waters a bit.

[green_and_mean]

Me and my crossed wires, should have said it was the guy with the van, not the legal guy.

 

Showing the defective camera system as a "legitimate" get out for a "legitimate" ticket muddied the waters a bit.

 

In some cases the charges can be legitimate if the signage is clear and the charge not excessive ie free for 2 hours £25 for longer stays then the charge is perfectly legal. The flaw in the system is that any claim is against the driver as the legal expert explained and that is the problem, its not a [problem] as such just a charge that is almost impossible to collect. A land owner has the legal right to charge for parking on private property and collect those fees via the courts if unpaid, there is no legal right to 'free parking' be it a burger bar or a supermarket.

[kiptower]

also they have no right to their [causing problems] charges either, thier LOSS is only what they can claim and ONLY if they can prove it

 

£25 is still a [problem] G&M , there is no justification for that amount either

 

as for COUNCIl it is no more than a cash cow and we all know it,

 

their is no JUSTICE IN EITHER

 

 

errrrrrrrr thanks Sam

[green_and_mean]

also they have no right to their [causing problems] charges either, thier LOSS is only what they can claim and ONLY if they can prove it

 

£25 is still a [problem] G&M , there is no justification for that amount either

 

as for COUNCIl it is no more than a cash cow and we all know it,

 

their is no JUSTICE IN EITHER

 

 

errrrrrrrr thanks Sam

 

Why do you think they can only claim for 'loss' they are not claiming damages they are claiming a lawfully advertised and imposed charge. If B&Q wish to charge £25 for a days parking why shouldn't they its their car park and its no more of a [problem] than charging £45 for a drill they buy for £5 in China or are you saying I can just walk out with the drill and offer to pay £5 for their loss??

[sb118]

In some cases the charges can be legitimate if the signage is clear and the charge not excessive ie free for 2 hours £25 for longer stays then the charge is perfectly legal. The flaw in the system is that any claim is against the driver as the legal expert explained and that is the problem, its not a [problem] as such just a charge that is almost impossible to collect. A land owner has the legal right to charge for parking on private property and collect those fees via the courts if unpaid, there is no legal right to 'free parking' be it a burger bar or a supermarket.

 

True, but how many private parking companies have "reasonable" parking costs...?

[kiptower]

so twisted again

 

it does not take a lot of common sense to understand how PPC's work , its simple make as much as you can , if a store wants to charge for parking thats not a problem, but not the way PPC's use it to [problem] people , and when these stores are challenged , typical excuse is its not me GUV its the parking company's charge ,

 

now lets no go far into how Council abuse the situation shall we , so many have been highlighted , in the press and on CAG , parking is a cash cow for Council nothing else Westminster a typical example , then there was Greenwich rubbing their hands when the Dome opened , hoping for £8 million plus per year, what a pity the dome failed , teach them to be so greedy, just look @ how they were going to [problem] local residents with all the yellow lines everywhere, they even crossed the line over blue badge's when they tried to ignore the rights of none residents.

[sb118]

Why do you think they can only claim for 'loss' they are not claiming damages they are claiming a lawfully advertised and imposed charge.

 

But if you drive in to a £25/day carpark and don't pay, they've lost £25. They can't charge you £100 for losing £25 can they?

 

If B&Q wish to charge £25 for a days parking why shouldn't they its their car park and its no more of a [problem] than charging £45 for a drill they buy for £5 in China or are you saying I can just walk out with the drill and offer to pay £5 for their loss??

 

No, because they will have lost £45, not £5.

[green_and_mean]

now lets no go far into how Council abuse the situation shall we , so many have been highlighted , in the press and on CAG , parking is a cash cow for Council nothing else Westminster a typical example , then there was Greenwich rubbing their hands when the Dome opened , hoping for £8 million plus per year, what a pity the dome failed ,

 

The Dome is actually one of the most popular and succesful leisure venues in the UK?? Westminster are one of the very few Councils who make money out of parking if you actually research your argument properly you would know that.

[green_and_mean]

But if you drive in to a £25/day carpark and don't pay, they've lost £25. They can't charge you £100 for losing £25 can they?

 

I never said they could?

But if the charge for parking over 3 hours is £100 then I cannot see why they cannot charge it. Who has the right to decide whats reasonable you have the option of not parking. I don't think steak and chips in Gordon Ramseys restaurant is worth £50+ when I can get the same for a fiver in Weatherspoons but I make the choice not to eat there. If you think Tescos should not charge you £50 for shopping longer than 3 hours shop in Sainsbury no one forces you to park at gun point.