Mr McDonald

Umkomaas

Well done martmonk on your impressive stamina and persistence.

Parking-Prankster

Excellent research martmonk. I found this all very interesting and have blogged about it here


http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/northumbria-nhs-stiffs-patients-for.html

Umkomaas

An excellent blog from PP. Well worth a read, gets right to the nub of all this.

Dogged campaigner martmonk has unearthed figures showing that the Northumbria NHS has targeted the sick, the injured, the elderly, new mothers and the disabled (in other words, your typical hospital patients) for an estimate annual figure of £1 million in parking fines to save the £70,000 it cost them to run a car park barrier system.

Well done PP :T and well done MM.:T

bazster

martmonk wrote: »

Business rates a non-issue...(?)

The rateable value of any hereditament (legal name for property) is defined as:

“The rateable value of a non-domestic hereditament none of which consists of domestic property and none of which is exempt from local non-domestic rating shall be taken to be an amount equal to the rent at which it is estimated the hereditament might reasonably be expected to let from year to year on these three assumptions:(a) the first assumption is that the tenancy begins on the day by reference to which the determination is to be made;(b) the second assumption is that immediately before the tenancy begins the hereditament is in a state of reasonable repair, but excluding from this assumption any repairs which a reasonable landlord would consider uneconomic;(c) the third assumption is that the tenant undertakes to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes and to bear the cost of the repairs and insurance and the other expenses (if any) necessary to maintain the hereditament in a state to command the rent mentioned above."

As you can see from the definition above, we don't have regard to the profit generated by the property, this aspect is dealt with by taxation, the more profit they make, the more tax they will pay, this is dealt with by HMRC. If Parking Eye are a public limited company you will be able to view their accounts on line and see from that how much VAT and Corporation tax they pay.
I hope this answers your questions, but feel free to contact me if you have anything further I can help you with
Kind regards

No it is not a non-issue. The VOA is being as disingenuous as every other government agency.

It's as plain as the nose on your face that the amount of revenue a car park is capable of generating affects what it could attract in rent and hence its rateable value.

The VOA's own rating manual says this:

"In some cases whilst there is no provision for parking charges, the operator rigidly applies a policy of penalty charges to anyone who overstays their free parking period. Where a significant income is generated from this source, there is a presumption of value; how much will depend on the facts."

That seems to address the principle, does it not?

If the VOA persists in giving you the brush-off then I'd suggest it's another job for your MP.

martmonk

^^^^^ sent a version of that. Thanks Bazster

and internet fame at last!

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/northumbria-nhs-stiffs-patients-for.html

The_Slug

From the 2012 published accounts of PE they made a profit of £4.5m in that year. From the takeover statement of PE by Capita, PE 'regulate parking' in over 830 car parks. Thus PE derive (on average) 4,500,000/830=£5422 profit per annum from each car park.

Thus in one day (2012 was a leap year) they derive £5422/366 = £14.80 per day per car park. Therefore to cause PE to lose £70 profit one would have to close about 5 car parks for a whole day !!!!! How then can PE suggest that a few minutes overstay in one parking space cause them a loss of £70!!!

If one assumes, say 200 parking spaces on average, per car park managed by PE -then the loss per parking space for a whole day is 14.80/200 = £0.074 i.e. 7.4 pence a day!!!

The charge of £70 for what is effectively a loss of 7.4 p is a multiple of nearly 1000 - Surely this qualifies as unjust enrichment from a legal point of view.

The_Slug

Of course loss of 7.4p per space per day is for a day. Now there are 1440 minutes in a day thus the loss per minute is 7.4p/1440=0.005p per minute for blocking a parking space.

bod1467

Very interesting, but fundamentally flawed ... you can't calculate loss on the basis of profit.

nigelbb

bod1467 wrote: »

Very interesting, but fundamentally flawed ... you can't calculate loss on the basis of profit.

Agreed. Loss is loss not absence of profit. Aside from potential pay & display charges there can never be any losses attributable to a motorist overstaying in a car park or contravening any of their other artificial rules. Fundamentally though PE never suffer any loss other than through their bizarre business model. If the parking management service they offer was efficient they would have no revenue. They only make profits (not losses) if a motorist contravenes their rules. If there are no contraventions then they make no profit at all.

Umkomaas

nigelbb wrote: »

Agreed. Loss is loss not absence of profit. Aside from potential pay & display charges there can never be any losses attributable to a motorist overstaying in a car park or contravening any of their other artificial rules. Fundamentally though PE never suffer any loss other than through their bizarre business model. If the parking management service they offer was efficient they would have no revenue. They only make profits (not losses) if a motorist contravenes their rules. If there are no contraventions then they make no profit at all.

Pin-point accuracy, as usual, Nigel; laser guided observation. Always read your inputs with interest.