quisquose Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Don't you just love the automatic censoring. It actually draws attention to a rude word which would go unnoticed normally. And I thought this was a "family friendly" forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bludragonfly Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 This is good news - let's see what happens after 29th June Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Don't you just love the automatic censoring. It actually draws attention to a rude word which would go unnoticed normally. And I thought this was a "family friendly" forum. I wrote 'that' word the other day on here and it didn't get censored. I don't think. I think the automatic censor uses **** not exclaimation marks. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=988276&page=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Don't you just love the automatic censoring. It actually draws attention to a rude word which would go unnoticed normally. And I thought this was a "family friendly" forum. I believe that it was copied and pasted from another forum, where the word Scunthorpe isn't in the exceptions to their swear filter. We have no problem with it here, apart from the very unusual situations where something goes wrong and someone wearing a hi-viz vest and a hard hat has to sort it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 I might be reading it wrong, or got the wrong end of the stick. But isn't the judge in effect saying that Excel have screwed up in applying to court in their name? Would it not be feasible for them to enforce parking restrictions in the name of whoever the landowner was? (providing of course that their 'contract' says this, which in this case it didn't). They may well do this in future and catch a good few people, having sewn up the loophole the judge has pointed out. But the reason that companies lazily employ Excel do do their dirty work is that they actually want to wash their hands of the problem and actually let Excel do, well, their dirty work. Directly putting their name to actions against people that are often their customers might not sit too well with companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 I believe that it was copied and pasted from another forum, where the word Scunthorpe isn't in the exceptions to their swear filter. We have no problem with it here, apart from the very unusual situations where something goes wrong and someone wearing a hi-viz vest and a hard hat has to sort it out. Darn that Martin Lewis and his over sensitive forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 But the reason that companies lazily employ Excel do do their dirty work is that they actually want to wash their hands of the problem and actually let Excel do, well, their dirty work. Directly putting their name to actions against people that are often their customers might not sit too well with companies. Do you know this to be fact or is it supposition? genuine question. Cos if that's the case, then why bother with a company like Excel, who it is known can't enforce any parking 'invoices'. I don't understand the logic. It's like buying a toothless dachund for a guard dog! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkley Dave Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 You have it in one. Also - the idea is not to control parking (as you might imagine) but to raise the maximum available in fines. This totally screws up the private parking companies business model. I suspect this stems from two things. One was Simon's tirade against the judge in the Stockport case. The other is that they (VCS) have recently lost a tax tribunal case in the upper tier of the tax tribunal concerning VAT on these invoices also sometimes called wrongly, "fines". Whilst that is not exactly binding or setting a precedent - it might be persuasive. Put the two together and it looks bad for S R-S and his business model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Do you know this to be fact or is it supposition? genuine question. Cos if that's the case, then why bother with a company like Excel, who it is known can't enforce any parking 'invoices'. I don't understand the logic. It's like buying a toothless dachund for a guard dog! Because companys like Excel work on the pretext that if they send out enough threatening letters ,then a percentage will feel intimidated and just pay up rather than telling Excel where to shove their worthless parking invoice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkley Dave Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Let's take an example. Companies that offer free parking = e.g. ASDA have an interest in the land and start charging people for stays after two hours. They can only charge their losses - not a penalty. Since parking is free - then there is no loss. Private parking companies are prepared for their money to send out loads of threat-o-grams. Do you really think e.g ASDA will do the same? The answer is no. What will happen is other forms of parking control. Which is what there should have been in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.