The morals of private parking thread

[porkyp1g]

What was the actual reason for overstaying the two hours?

[porkyp1g]

What was the reason for over staying the two hours? Surely that's key to the appeal?

[renegadeimp]

Doesnt matter what the reason was. In the end they have to justify the charge as a genuine estimate of loss. They cant. If they asked for a fiver or tenner, then they could win. But they dont. They try and claim MUCH more. All PPC's do. They're just the rogue clampers that got banned and decided to set up PPC's in carparks instead.

[porkyp1g]

Course it matters, if the op was using private land to avoid paying elsewhere. Supermarket car parks are for people to park and shop. The one near us is abused by football fans on matchdays, people who wanna shop can't get parked because it is full of football traffic. **** take.

[renegadeimp]

You are talking about morals now. The supermarket/PPC still needs to prove the PCN is a genuine estimate of their loss. Morals wont factor into it.

[porkyp1g]

This place is devoid of morals sometimes. I wonder how often people are advised how to get out of stuff, when they are in the wrong. Not saying that is the case of the op until he says how he came to be in breach of morrisons parking rules.

[renegadeimp]

Sigh. Oh well. It's easy for the OP to get out of this. As i said before, someone with more knowledge them me or porky will be around soon.

[f16]

. I wonder how often people are advised how to get out of stuff, when they are in the wrong.

 

??????

 

ALL of the time.... We all "Breached" the parking terms.... We are here to "help" not "judge"

[renegadeimp]

??????

 

ALL of the time.... We all "Breached" the parking terms.... We are here to "help" not "judge"

 

It's best to ignore strange posts like that f16, especially given his post history.

 

Lets focus on giving the OP the info that they need to solve the issue they came to CAG for.

[porkyp1g]

What's wrong with you breached the terms you agreed to by parking there, you live with it.

 

Question, would you advise somehow how to get out of a fine for parking in a disabled spot, when they weren't entitled to use it?

[renegadeimp]

What's wrong with you breached the terms you agreed to by parking there, you live with it.

 

Question, would you advise somehow how to get out of a fine for parking in a disabled spot, when they weren't entitled to use it?

 

Easy. In a supermarket A PPC cannot issue a fine. In a supermarket the bay markings are purely graffiti and have no relevance in law.

 

You seem to be very misinformed on whats going on and prefer to stand on morals instead.

 

 

Now, i will 100% agree with you if the person in question did this all the time and stayed there for hours, say for example, they went to visit a relative and used a disabled bay as a parking space. However, we are not talking about anything like that. Therefore we deal with the facts we have, how it pertains to law/regulation etc etc .

 

Again, morals does not factor into this at all, and our continued discussion (argument? ) about it is simply serving to derail the thread away from helping the Op solve their issue.

[silverfox1961]

This thread contains a discussion from another thread discussing the morals of private parking

[silverfox1961]

If you wish to continue the discussion, please do so with respect.

 

EDIT:

 

Oops. Sorry, forgot to re approve the posts.

[porkyp1g]

Basically the point I was trying to make are that those who choose to park wrongly and know the consequences of doing so somehow try and exploit loopholes with the aid of some on here advising on legal get outs to avoid paying up. Surely if someone has abused the system (even the harsh world of private parking) and isn't a genuine victim of the system, then they should face the consequences of their actions. Albeit harsh consequences, as in the case of topics like these.

 

For example, someone might post they got caught on ANPR. They don't state the alleged offence (as most don't) and it could be something such as parking in a disabled bay and they weren't entitled to use the space. Surely they should be paying the fine for being lazy etc, rather than being told on here how to get out of paying. I don't think that the CAG should be used in cases like this and the facts of the offence should be established before advice is handed out willy nilly. I know you guys don't like to judge, but surely you don't want to be helping people in these circumstances.

[silverfox1961]

It is very difficult on any forum to get the full story.

 

I shop at Morrisons and occasionally have a meal at the cafe (they do good meals BTW) and I do go over the limit so I could get a ticket however, the Morrisons I go to (Pakefield in Lowestoft) do not have ANPR, just a 'parking warden' and he is quite lax.

 

I agree that people who park all day should be targeted but for the occasional slip up and the punitive charge should be challenged on every occasion.

[steampowered]

It depends on the situation. If someone is taking the mickey by staying there for hours and hours then fair enough. If someone has overstayed a short time while using the shops then I think a fine is not really justifiable.

 

 

Personally I don't like the concept of these £100 charges because they are completely disproportionate. It is an attempt to get a small number of people to subsidise the parking of everyone else - kind of like punitive bank charges.

[porkyp1g]

That's my point though steam powered, people asking for help without explaining what the alleged offence is and people advising blindly means you could be helping anyone try and get out of any offence. Personally although the cag is here to help, people who do this don't deserve it, so I wouldn't advise until I knew the facts of the situation. I understand genuine cases need help and that probably makes up the majority, just don't understand the negative reaction when all I asked was what the offence was.

[renegadeimp]

There is no offence though. Thats the overriding point and why the thread is about MORALS. As i said to you in a PM, i agree with what you said, but we have to advise based on legislation/regulation etc. Not purely out of sheer morality.

[porkyp1g]

So on another thread, somebody who has already admitted to guilt, is being advised to appeal parking in a disabled bay despite not being entitled to do so. That is wrong and exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Surely the person should be taking it on the chin and be using a normal spot next time. I can't see how this forum should be used to evade fair penalties.

[renegadeimp]

Everyone is entitled to contest an offence. That is their legal right. Go and read the thread again instead of skimming it.

 

It clearly shows advice on how to contest it. Not us saying youre guilty so we're not helping.

 

If you want to do that then there are plenty of other forums around.

[porkyp1g]

Why would you want to help someone who has parked like that? I can't get my head round it. Makes my blood boil when I see people abusing spaces not intended for them and to help others. They deserve what punishment they get and it doesn't happen often enough to eradicate the problem.

[sequenci]

There isn't an 'offence' - This is a contractual/civil issue, not a criminal one.

[ims21]

So on another thread, somebody who has already admitted to guilt, is being advised to appeal parking in a disabled bay despite not being entitled to do so. That is wrong and exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Surely the person should be taking it on the chin and be using a normal spot next time. I can't see how this forum should be used to evade fair penalties.

 

First off this thread is about the morals of private parking. Wasn't the thread you mention for a council issued pcn so the above post is off topic?

 

It seems from reading the posts properly that she wants to do that as a result of all the hassle and errors made by the council.

 

The OP has said all the way through that she was happy to pay the initial ticket and of course it is up to each individual whether they wish to appeal a ticket or not.

 

I mention this in the interests of balance.

 

Here is the thread referred to...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?404544-Urgent-advice-required-Bailiff-letter-delivered-today-(Parking-ticket)&p=4501075#post4501075

[porkyp1g]

Okay, it was created initially with the basis of private parking in mind. Maybe not legally, but morally, private and council pcn are the same when it comes to issues such as parking where you aren't meant to.

 

Sure everyone has the right to appeal, but where there is guilt then they should be left to it and hopefully the appeal isn't successful. The bottom line is if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime. The op in that thread could have took the last disabled spot and it could have been your grandparent or disabled user who was denied a space as a result. It could have been mine, it could have been anybody's and it would definitely have been someone's.

 

Don't get me wrong, where people have been penalised wrongly and there is no infringement then surely that is what the appeal basis is for. Not for people to appeal who have parked wrongly and should be penalised. Exploiting loopholes serves no purpose as to the point of the penalty which is ultimately to stop people doing it again.

[steampowered]

I respect your opinion but simply do not agree with you. I do not agree that morally private and council PCN are the same. Private parking fines are a way of minimising the cost of operating car parks. Companies like Parking Eye do the job for peanuts, and they do it through penalising a small number of people. I think this is wrong - if a landlord wants to offer free parking he should pay for it. If he doesn't then everyone should pay the cost. The law says that contractual penalty charges must be proportionate to the actual loss which is suffered: there is a very good moral reason for this. It isn't fair to let the majority get free parking paid for by a minority being forced to pay disproportionate penalties.

 

It is the same principle as banks using disproportionate charges to subsidise the operation of current accounts. This is fundamentally unfair - either the bank should accept that it is a free service or else split the cost fairly (as in many other countries which often have a e.g. £2 monthly charge to have a current account).