Parking Eye (3 Viewers)

[Glandwr]

I take it Nick that you regard any way of making money as legitimate as long as it is not expressly prohibited by legislation? That ethics and morality and the threshold of legality all coincide.

If that's the case I give up and am out of here. Or am I wrong?

Dick

 

[gus-lopez]

It wouldn't have been enforceable then just as it wouldn't be now.As others have said they work on the naivety of people using bullying tactics & threats.
Admittedly I now do not live in the Uk but even when I did if i wished to purchase something & entered a car park they provided to do so I certainly would not then,nor even now expect to see or even be expected to look for , signs telling me that there are rules etc regarding parking . It is a car park if it is pay & display I will pay & display. What I won't be doing is putting in numbers ,phoning to pay ,etc.

 

[Deleted member 29692]

I take it Nick that you regard any way of making money as legitimate as long as it is not expressly prohibited by legislation? That ethics and morality and the threshold of legality all coincide.

If that's the case I give up and am out of here. Or am I wrong?

Dick

That pretty much covers it yes.

Do I take it that you've shifted the focus of your argument because the sinister "illegal practices" you were hinging it all on are actually pretty boring admin stuff and not the tooled up heavies in a Transit you were hoping for?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Deleted member 29692]

It wouldn't have been enforceable then just as it wouldn't be now

That remains to be seen. Don't forget the judge used the word "probably." The £135 charge hasn't been tested in court as yet. I suppose it's possible it still could be if someone wanted to but with the Beavis judgement it wouldn't be easy.

 

[Glandwr]

That pretty much covers it yes.

Do I take it that you've shifted the focus of your argument because the sinister "illegal practices" you were hinging it all on are actually pretty boring admin stuff and not the tooled up heavies in a Transit you were hoping for?

Nope, I just give up against the mentality that I am up against.

Dick

 

[GJH]

I take it Nick that you regard any way of making money as legitimate as long as it is not expressly prohibited by legislation? That ethics and morality and the threshold of legality all coincide.

If that's the case I give up and am out of here. Or am I wrong?

Dick

One might also ask whether those who argue against Parking Eye regard any way of gaining pecuniary advantage (e.g. by seeking to avoid contractual payments) as ethical, moral and legitimate as long as it is not expressly prohibited by legislation.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Glandwr]

One might also ask whether those who argue against Parking Eye regard any way of gaining pecuniary advantage (e.g. by seeking to avoid contractual payments) as ethical, moral and legitimate as long as it is not expressly prohibited by legislation.

Seriously though Graham. There is a school of thought in the more extreme free market think tanks that says that ethics and morality have no place in business today. That the only constraint to practice should be what is actually prohibited by legislation.

Indeed some go further and say that directors can actually betray shareholder interest if they stop too short of breaking the law.

What is your view?

Dick

 

[GJH]

Seriously though Graham. There is a school of thought in the more extreme free market think tanks that says that ethics and morality have no place in business today. That the only constraint to practice should be what is actually prohibited by legislation.

Indeed some go further and say that directors can actually betray shareholder interest if they stop too short of breaking the law.

What is your view?

Dick

My view is that we have the opportunity to try to change the law if we don't like it but that we are bound to accept its authority whilst it is in place. That applies whether the legislation in question is criminal or civil.

It is ethical and moral to perform a contract within the law and that applies to both parties once the contract is freely entered into. In the case of car parks managed by Parking Eye et all we all have every opportunity not to enter into those contracts if we don't like their terms. However, once we do enter into them we are ethically and morally bound to accept the responsibilities we have assumed and not complain about unfairness in retrospect.

The problem (if that is the correct word) in general with ethics and morality is that different people have different standards (often dramatically demonstrated by the approach of different religions to punishment for instance). In a society like ours legislation is there in order to arbitrate between those differences. The courts are there to make a judgement when there is dispute as to the application of legislation. That is what the courts did in both the cases involving Parking Eye which were quoted above (Somerfield and Beavis).

 

[Glandwr]

My view is that we have the opportunity to try to change the law if we don't like it but that we are bound to accept its authority whilst it is in place. That applies whether the legislation in question is criminal or civil.

It is ethical and moral to perform a contract within the law and that applies to both parties once the contract is freely entered into. In the case of car parks managed by Parking Eye et all we all have every opportunity not to enter into those contracts if we don't like their terms. However, once we do enter into them we are ethically and morally bound to accept the responsibilities we have assumed and not complain about unfairness in retrospect.

The problem (if that is the correct word) in general with ethics and morality is that different people have different standards (often dramatically demonstrated by the approach of different religions to punishment for instance). In a society like ours legislation is there in order to arbitrate between those differences. The courts are there to make a judgement when there is dispute as to the application of legislation. That is what the courts did in both the cases involving Parking Eye which were quoted above (Somerfield and Beavis).

So your answer is?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

So your answer is?

As given.

 

[Glandwr]

As given.

That you believe that ethics and morality should have no place in corporate business today?

Dick

 

[Deleted member 29692]

That you believe that ethics and morality should have no place in corporate business today?

Dick

Step back from that point just for a minute.

You mention ethics and morality. Both of those are absolutely subjective.

Something I might consider unethical or immoral, you might have no problem with and vice versa and someone from a different culture may well have a completely different opinion from both of us. So, keeping that in mind, if you want businesses to be run according to an ethical and moral code who should decide what that ethical and moral code should be?

All businesses are run according to the ethical and moral code of their owners. Who are you to say that somebodys particular code is any less valid than yours just because it's different?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

That you believe that ethics and morality should have no place in corporate business today?

Dick

Just because you don't like an answer doesn't mean it hasn't been provided.

Corporate business is all about performance of contracts and, as I said, it is ethical and moral to perform a contract within the law and that applies to both parties once the contract is freely entered into. How much clearer do you want it that ethics and morality should have a place?

As I also said (and @NickNic has echoed) different people have different standards. That does not mean that the standards of a given company are unethical or immoral - and that (as I also said) is why we have the law to arbitrate.

 

[Glandwr]

Just because you don't like an answer doesn't mean it hasn't been provided.

Corporate business is all about performance of contracts and, as I said, it is ethical and moral to perform a contract within the law and that applies to both parties once the contract is freely entered into. How much clearer do you want it that ethics and morality should have a place?

As I also said (and @NickNic has echoed) different people have different standards. That does not mean that the standards of a given company are unethical or immoral - and that (as I also said) is why we have the law to arbitrate.

So the law is the arbitrator of ethics and morals Graham? Are you not tying yourself in knots there?

Dick

 

[GJH]

So the law is the arbitrator of ethics and morals Graham? Are you not tying yourself in knots there?

Dick

It's a waste of time trying to debate sensibly with you. Read the flamin' posts properly before commenting please.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Deleted member 29692]

So the law is the arbitrator of ethics and morals Graham? Are you not tying yourself in knots there?

Dick

No the law isn't. But neither are you.

 

[Glandwr]

No the law isn't. But neither are you.

Very true Nick.

Why do you think that those that transgress have to make a choice between appealing and accepting the 50% discount for early payment? Apart from the fact that it is possible for PE to do it.

Dick

 

[Deleted member 29692]

Why do you think that those that transgress have to make a choice between appealing and accepting the 50% discount for early payment? Apart from the fact that it is possible for PE to do it.

For the same reason that council/traffic warden issued parking tickets generally make exactly the same offer.

If someone thinks they are getting a discount or a deal they are more likely to pay quickly so nobody has to waste time and resources on pursuing the payment.

It's not morals or ethics. It's marketing.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Glandwr]

For the same reason that council/traffic warden issued parking tickets generally make exactly the same offer.

If someone thinks they are getting a discount or a deal they are more likely to pay quickly so nobody has to waste time and resources on pursuing the payment.

It's not morals or ethics. It's marketing.

Not so Nick. If you dispute a PCN and appeal within the 14 day period, should you lose you still pay the discounted amount.

PE force you to choose, pay half OR appeal.

Dick

 

[Deleted member 29692]

Not so Nick. If you dispute a PCN and appeal within the 14 day period, should you lose you still pay the discounted amount.

PE force you to choose, pay half OR appeal.

Dick

Typical council money wasting then. Why would anyone in their right mind offer a discount and then have to faff around dealing with an appeal. That's stupid.

My point stands though. It's still marketing, the idea being to get as many people as possible to pay it quietly and go away.

 

[Glandwr]

Typical council money wasting then. Why would anyone in their right mind offer a discount and then have to faff around dealing with an appeal. That's stupid.

My point stands though. It's still marketing, the idea being to get as many people as possible to pay it quietly and go away.

They don't offer a discount Nick they double the fine. PE offer the discount to discourage appeals largely because it would appear that between a third and two thirds (figures are difficult to obtain) of disputes result in the charge being cancelled.

Dick

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Deleted member 29692]

They don't offer a discount Nick they double the fine. PE offer the discount to discourage appeals largely because it would appear that between a third and two thirds (figures are difficult to obtain) of disputes result in the charge being cancelled.

Dick

Whatever. It amounts to the same thing.

 

[PeteH]

So What is the Morality, of the case of the guy who genuinely stopped to ask for directions and received a "Charge". for "parking/Stopping in a prohibited area. No other traffic at the time so no "obstruction". £100-00 for asking the way. That`s Moral Is it? It is apparently LEGAL.?? Which I personally would question!.

Robin Hood Airport, Recently as seen an "Look North" Or "look Linc`s" as we know it North of the river!.

IMHO Morals and Business are divorced bedfellows.

Pete

 

[Deleted member 29692]

So What is the Morality, of the case of the guy who genuinely stopped to ask for directions and received a "Charge". for "parking/Stopping in a prohibited area. No other traffic at the time so no "obstruction". £100-00 for asking the way. That`s Moral Is it? It is apparently LEGAL.?? Which I personally would question!.

Robin Hood Airport, Recently as seen an "Look North" Or "look Linc`s" as we know it North of the river!.

IMHO Morals and Business are divorced bedfellows.

Pete

And did he contact the airport to explain the situation and ask them to cancel the charge? Or did he think the better option was to immediately go complaining to the media?

According to their website the parking there is administered by the airport themselves, no outside company involved. As to legality, as long as it's signed properly then he accepted the contract by choosing to stop there so yes, it's perfectly legal.

I'm not familiar with this case but if he did contact them and they wouldn't cancel the charge I would like to hear their side of the story before jumping to conclusions. How long was he parked there? Where exactly was it? Could it have obstructed emergency vehicles? Was there an appropriate alternative place that he could have stopped in?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[PeteH]

And did he contact the airport to explain the situation and ask them to cancel the charge? Or did he think the better option was to immediately go complaining to the media?

According to their website the parking there is administered by the airport themselves, no outside company involved. As to legality, as long as it's signed properly then he accepted the contract by choosing to stop there so yes, it's perfectly legal.

I'm not familiar with this case but if he did contact them and they wouldn't cancel the charge I would like to hear their side of the story before jumping to conclusions. How long was he parked there? Where exactly was it? Could it have obstructed emergency vehicles? Was there an appropriate alternative place that he could have stopped in?

No Idea but this came up when Googled?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/613987/Pensioner-fined-23-second-wait-while-asking-directions.

Pete.

 

[Deleted member 29692]

No Idea but this came up when Googled?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/613987/Pensioner-fined-23-second-wait-while-asking-directions.

Pete.

So an article from a tabloid rag who are obviously going to paint the airport in the worst light possible in order to fill half a page.

As I said no opinion from me without hearing the airports side. One sentence in that article that tells you there is a lot more to the story:

A spokesman for Vehicle Control Services said Mr Sculthorpe, from Doncaster, should have been aware as he had been fined on the road before.

So he was aware that it's a restricted road and still stopped there anyway. I'd like to know how many times he's stopped there in the past and they've cancelled the charge for him. If it's a regular occurrence maybe they've just lost patience with him. If so I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.

Maybe he thinks the regulations don't apply to him for some reason. Maybe he's just stupid.

 

[Glandwr]

At least it was recognised that there was an unacceptable face to capitalism right across the political spectrum in the 70s. Now the very concept is shouted now by the fanatical free marketeers. The law is the arbitor full stop. No other constraint necessary.

A sad state.

Dick

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[TheDentons]

We have received a fine for overstaying while our exit was blocked £110 for exiting 11 minutes late

 

[GeebeeJaybee]

But YOU aren't paying to park ,the company/business is ? & it is all tax deductable. What you have to ask is would YOU as a private individual be prepared pay ridiculous amounts of money like that.
PE don't buy any land it is just a company employed to manage the car parking .

I'm sorry but that is incorrect. Since I am a Director of the company then I am paying it. In addition I obviously drive for personal use as well and pay to park accordingly. I paid £3 on Saturday to park for 4 hours in Bakewell. I also made sure I was back within the 4 hours. Its not hard really - just buy a watch!

Also I said I can't use my passport after it has expired - what on earth was the relevance of your response? If my passport has expired it is not valid after the expiration.

 

[Deleted member 29692]

We have received a fine for overstaying while our exit was blocked £110 for exiting 11 minutes late

And I'm sure if you write to whoever issued the charge explaining and pointing out that the exit was blocked and you were prevented from exiting on time through no fault of your own they will cancel the charge.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}