Combined parking Solutions

[Nick6976]

Please accept my apologies for using the term "illegal" instead of "parking where they shouldn't" or "fine" instead of penalty imposed upon them, or whichever politically or strictly legal correctness term you would prefer I use.

 

I would love to hear from anyone who has been in a similar predicament to the one we were in - and the solutions they found.

 

Maybe another business where their private parking was abused, or perhaps someone who is used to people parking over their driveway. Maybe these people can show be a better alternative to these companies which you all think are so bad.

[DBC]

duplicate post

Edited April 7, 2010 by DBC

[DBC]

How about a gate or barrier to prevent unauthorised parking?

 

By the way, it's not just "political correctness" about using such words as "fine" or "illegal". It could be a breach of the Administration Of Justice Act if you or a parking company use these words in an attempt to dupe somebody into paying a parking fee, and making them believe that there is some legal basis for that demand.

[anotheronegone]

If the charges are unenforcable, how about this I have just read in our local newspaper, The web version is smaller than the newspaper one ?

 

Court told of signs in parking wrangle : Shropshire Star:

[Nick6976]

DBC, thanks for the solution, but we have a listed building, and as a consequence there are a lot of things we can't do.

 

We looked into parking cameras, gates, barriers, pay & display, posts and most other more traditional solutions. Even ones that we were able to do were not financially viable from both actual costs and cost of labour point of view.

 

However, thank you for the post.

[DBC]

If the charges are unenforcable, how about this I have just read in our local newspaper, The web version is smaller than the newspaper one ?

 

Court told of signs in parking wrangle : Shropshire Star:

 

I image that the reason she lost that case was that the only defence she put forward was that of the failure to see the signs. I image that if she had introduced the question of unfair penalties (as in the Mansfield case) then the outcome would have been different.

[Zamzara]

If the charges are unenforcable, how about this I have just read in our local newspaper, The web version is smaller than the newspaper one ?

 

Court told of signs in parking wrangle : Shropshire Star:

 

They printed a Perky press release I expect. A district judged cannot believe that a parking ticket from a private company is equivalent to an official one, there must be more to it than printed. I've never said it is impossible for a private company to win in some cases on the individual facts, it's certainly possibe to make contracts, but I expect this lady ran an idiotic defence.

[electron99]

 

It didn't take trawling to find this site - the #2 and #3 listings on Google for Combined Parking Solutions are this site and one other - all posting negative views, and I see it in my best interests to research a company who we use.

 

So you did some research, and found all these negative reviews on CPS, but still went with them.

 

Either you couldn't care less what damage this will do to your company, or you are not what you claim.

[anotheronegone]

So you did some research, and found all these negative reviews on CPS, but still went with them.

 

Either you couldn't care less what damage this will do to your company, or you are not what you claim.

 

You say there are negative reviews, but are there any examples of where this company CPS has issued a ticket incorrectly ?

 

I have looked and I cant actually see any but then again I could be looking in the wrong place, as you seem to know so much please advise.

[Nick6976]

Electron,

 

I am exactly what I claim, and having the freedom to issue PCN's to people who park in our private spaces, and cancel them for people who have made a genuine mistake, is fine by me.

 

And when reading these forums, or at least extracts from them, the majority of the time, I do not believe companies such as CPS to be acting unfairly. I am not a solicitor, and have not studied law, but I do believe I have a good grasp on what is right from what is wrong.

 

Someone parking in a private space without the owners consent, I believe to be wrong. Someone being issued with a penalty notice, which is clearly displayed will happen if they park in a private space without consent, I believe is right.

 

The intricacies of which defence to use is for legal minds far better than mine, although I am yet to hear anything which indicates I have made a mistake using the CPS solution.

[Al27]

DBC, thanks for the solution, but we have a listed building, and as a consequence there are a lot of things we can't do.

 

We looked into parking cameras, gates, barriers, pay & display, posts and most other more traditional solutions. Even ones that we were able to do were not financially viable from both actual costs and cost of labour point of view.

 

However, thank you for the post.

 

I understand Nick. All seems a bit toytown to me though. It seems a bit silly putting fake parking tickets on cars!

[mightymouse_69]

I would have to agree with Nick here.

 

My mother is disabled and great nuisance can be caused when people park in 'my' usual spot... When this happens i have to push the wheelchair over uneven ground.

 

Now, no one is doing anything wrong in the above situation... but its annoying, and i can understand how annoyed a land owner would be if others abused the open space they had.

 

I think that there are some things that need clearing up:

 

1) use of the word illegal is not necessarily wrong in this context. It would be incorrect to say the word can only be used in a criminal conext.

 

2) PCNs are clearly enforceable through the courts. So many times i see the phrase "you have an uneforcable invoice..." This is said despite the fact that in some cases, PPCs do go to court, and do win. Now some may say that this is because of a poor defence. But a DDJ is not going to award the damages if he feels they are much to high...?!

 

However, we have had news reports where the DDJ has said the penalty was not enforceable... so its very unclear. As i said in an earlier thread - from a legal point, both sides are on shakey ground.

 

I would ask Nick - How long have you used CPS and what, if any, has the impact on your business been... as some people indicated that there may be a negative impact.

[DBC]

Definitions of illegal

 

1. [adj] - prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules

 

I can't see any mention in that definition of "rules" made up by an unofficial body such as a private parking company.

Edited April 7, 2010 by DBC

[Nick6976]

MightyMouse,

 

In response to your post, the response we have had, on the whole, has been good. Previously, with the "please don't park here" signs, or going knocking on neighbouring businesses, the tenants were under the impression that we were doing nothing, or certainly nothing productive, even though this would take much more time up than our current solution.

 

Now, they are aware that we are doing what we can to resolve our parking issues, and they are happy paying the monthly charges for their own designated parking space.

 

When I say, on the whole, there have been one or two negative reactions, but that will be from people who have parked without our consent, and are irate to receiving a PCN. When they are decent and polite about it, we help them out - if they are rude and impolite, especially to my staff, then we plead ignorance and tell them to ring the number on the ticket.

 

I can 100% claim that we hold no brand loyalty to any of our suppliers, and if another solution was presented to me which was better than our existing solution, I would certainly look into it. However, I must state that I'm certainly not looking for another solution, as the one we have right now works very well for our business.

[My Real Name]

2) PCNs are clearly enforceable through the courts. So many times i see the phrase "you have an uneforcable invoice..." This is said despite the fact that in some cases, PPCs do go to court, and do win. Now some may say that this is because of a poor defence. But a DDJ is not going to award the damages if he feels they are much to high...?!

 

However, we have had news reports where the DDJ has said the penalty was not enforceable... so its very unclear. As i said in an earlier thread - from a legal point, both sides are on shakey ground.

There has never been a test in a higher court. The current status is, quite literally, moot.

 

In terms of who is winning that moot, it is fairly apparent that the PPC argument is flimsy at best.

 

All this is not to say, and as you point out, that a lower court judge might not find in favour of a PPC, irrespective of the validity of their legal arguments.

[Al27]

1) use of the word illegal is not necessarily wrong in this context. It would be incorrect to say the word can only be used in a criminal conext.

 

Illegal has a specific meaning in law, and whilst the term is commonly used in other situations e.g. "he made an illegal chess move", it should be avoided in parking discussions because it adds a misleading dimension to the issuing of private invoices.

 

PCNs are clearly enforceable through the courts. So many times i see the phrase "you have an uneforcable invoice..." This is said despite the fact that in some cases, PPCs do go to court, and do win. Now some may say that this is because of a poor defence. But a DDJ is not going to award the damages if he feels they are much to high...?!

 

'PCN's', or invoices, are generally unenforceable except in circumstances where the amount being claimed does represent actual loss or the contract has been unequivocally agreed to. Truly enforceable parking invoices are extremely rare, usually because there is little money to be made by issuing 'enforceable' (or more simply accurate) invoices.

 

PPCs do go to court, and do win

 

Very rarely and with a success rate that makes it financially unviable.

 

However, we have had news reports where the DDJ has said the penalty was not enforceable... so its very unclear. As i said in an earlier thread - from a legal point, both sides are on shakey ground.

 

No, not at all. The law is very clear, but as with any small claims case nothing is guaranteed. You are on very solid ground when armed with an effective defence. Obviously PPCs pick their court victims very carefully - housewives, poor students, people they hope won't be able to speak fluent English.

 

The whole point of PPC court cases is PR in an attempt to coerce people into paying, as well as encouraging doubting posts such as yours. The three biggest parking forums on the internet cost these companies hundreds of thousands each year. Taking stooges or people incapable of properly defending are the only weapons these companies have against forums.

 

Nothing has changed. The law hasn't changed. That properly defended cases will win hasn't changed. That poorly defended cases will lose hasn't changed.

 

The fact that these tickets should NEVER be paid hasn't changed.

[Nick6976]

AI, in response to your comment, it may appear toytown, but I can tell you that the parking problems we used to have, we no longer have. I can also tell you that where a PCN has been issued, CPS have persued to collect, and we do not have people who park without consent more than once.

 

AI, as a consequence, if I'd employed the tactic of "don't park there or I'll tell on you" is kind of irrelevant - the solution I have used has achieved what I set out to do, whilst keeping our good reputation with our tenants and other customers in tact.

[Al27]

I can't defend people who genuinely abuse somebody else's land through stupid parking.

 

I can't defend parking companies or associates who issue fraudulent paperwork and unenforceable invoices and intimidate members of the public.

 

As you can see, I'm between a rock and a hard place.

[DBC]

AI, in response to your comment, it may appear toytown, but I can tell you that the parking problems we used to have, we no longer have. I can also tell you that where a PCN has been issued, CPS have persued to collect, and we do not have people who park without consent more than once.

 

.

 

When you say "persued to collect", do you mean that CPS have taken people to court, or have they just bombarded them with evermore threatening letters until they cave in, believing all the rubbish and pseudo legal threats that those letters contain?

[mightymouse_69]

Illegal has a specific meaning in law, and whilst the term is commonly used in other situations e.g. "he made an illegal chess move", it should be avoided in parking discussions because it adds a misleading dimension to the issuing of private invoices.

 

I'll agree with that. It just seemed to me that Nick was being b*llocked for something that is done a lot and not necessarily wrong!

 

'PCN's', or invoices, are generally unenforceable except in circumstances where the amount being claimed does represent actual loss or the contract has been unequivocally agreed to. Truly enforceable parking invoices are extremely rare, usually because there is little money to be made by issuing 'enforceable' (or more simply accurate) invoices.

 

But there was a link a few pages back that showed the PPC was awarded all it claimed for... which is certainly more than any 'real' damage it suffered.

 

Very rarely and with a success rate that makes it financially unviable.

 

Granted, however i think it would be impossible to come to any conclusion as to how many cases PPCs take to court. The fact that they do take some to court surely means that any advice along the lines of "Ignore them, they wont take you to court" is incorrect and potentially damaging should court action be started?

 

I would like to see what defence would be used in a typical situation. I can understand if we do not want to broadcast it on the forum boards, but if i could be PMd an outline i would be greatful.

 

Obviously PPCs pick their court victims very carefully - housewives, poor students, people they hope won't be able to speak fluent English.

 

I agree 100%. The way they operate is, in some cases, disgusting.

[Nick6976]

Gambling Commission,

 

Many thanks for your information, and I will certainly bear that in mind.

 

I should however point out that to date, I have had no cause for concern in dealing with CPS. The practices they have adopted when dealing with us have been good. However, I should point out that we are yet to have a ticket issued, logged onto the system and then 30 days down the line realise it's a mistake and try and cancel it, although I do believe that was mentioned in our T's & C's that I signed, and I think I'll be liable for an admin fee - although again, legally I'm sure there is a loophole, but working on my right from wrong basis, I've agreed to that, so if it happens, I'll pay.

 

I am sure if I looked, I could find reasons not to shop at Tescos, Asda, Waitrose, Morrissons, Amazon or anyone else. I could find reviews and complaints why not to bank with anyone or buy anything ever again.

 

However, sometimes you just have to trust your own judgement, and so far I am yet to have a reason to look for another solution. Just for record, I had 2 other parking solutions prior to CPS - one was a patrolled service who couldn't attend our site for about 2 hours to 4 days on a call out, and another who totally ripped us off. So maybe that might contribute to my appreciation of CPS?

[lamma]

It is a shame we don't know the location of this car park. look up 'the pepipoo challenge'

[letshelp]

Nick,

 

If choosing CPS has worked for you and from what you have posted it clearly has, then that is good for you and your clients. But knowing the guy behind CPS as we do, please do not try and sell them to us. Have another read of GCR's post at number 65, to see what we are talking about.

regards

[electron99]

A company that deliberately chooses a name, for which the initials are the same as an official legal institution has to have done so to confuse, and mis-represent what they are. Although this is not quite illegal, it is the actions of crooks and con-men.

[lamma]

Its just fodder for Perky's scrapbook. He won't be getting a date from this woman no matter what his dating page says.