Aldi, Parking Eye and Capita - the good the bad and the Stupid

Footymanu

Aldi parking charges

Parking Eye, the car park operator for Aldi is losing wholesale at parking appeals (POPLA) and court cases. Parking Eye cannot legally justify their “contractual” charges around a term known as the Genuine Pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL).

Oddly, Parking Eye is not entitled to profit from its activity, yet has reported spectacular profits from its parking operations. In the year to 31 August 2012 Parking Eye reported a turnover of £13.9m and an operating profit of £4.47m. This is a profit rate of 32% and works out at more than £20.25 in profit for every ticket it says was paid.

Odder still, Capita have just purchased Parking Eye for £57.5m, yet Capita know Parking eye is not legally entitled to make any profit on most of its business. This could destroy shareholder value. Why would a director buy this company?

Aldi know it is unlawful to profit on parking charges. So, Why would Aldi allow Parking Eye to generate such huge profit on its customers when contract law does not PERMIT this?

Parking Eye say their average fine is £63 and their profit margin is 32%. This equates to a healthy £20.25 profit on each paying ticket. It is interesting Aldi would have to sell £454 of goods at their margin of 4.4% to make the same money. Can you imagine you would need a Hummer to fit it all in :-) How can Aldi claim this is a genuine loss.

To help Capita, Parking Eye and Aldi the “Parking Prankster” and myself have taken time out to show the “true loss” at the time of the breach. I propose the following simple calculation to help Parking Eye and Aldi remove the current confusion they have with GPEOL (Genuine pre-estimate of Loss) payable at the time of breach:

• Aldi car parks often include free parking for up to 1.5 hours.
• The average spend at Aldi is £18.63, the average basket consists of seventeen products (just below Morrisons and Sainsbury’s).
• Aldi average profit (operating margin is 4.4%).
• So an average spending customer who chooses to park for 1.5 hours would generate a profit for Aldi of (4.4% of £18.63) which is 82p.
• However, if a Customer parks for 3 hours, instead of 1.5 hours, Aldi would lose a parking space for 1.5 hours. One or possibly two additional customers could have parked in the space and shopped. (Assuming no other parking spaces available). Aldi could lose £1.64 in profit based on losing two customers during this time. That said, the original customer may have done a large shop or the car park may have had other spaces so no loss may have occurred.
• Aldi say they receive no money from Parking Eye from fines. Why then does Aldi think a charge of £70 is fair and not punitive? Aldi know that to make £70 in their pocket through trading would equate to 85 customers doing an average shop at 82p profit per customer.

The Parking Eye Scam (Unveiled– How Parking Eye do it)

• Put up signs saying the driver owes £70 for any overstay.
• Install Cameras taking all registrations and detect when someone has stayed ten minutes more than they should.
• At this point the driver genuine loss to Aldi is minimal less than 80p, but don’t tell the driver this or give him any opportunity to pay.
• Go to the DVLA with the registration pay £2.50 and get the owners personal data.
• Write repeatedly demanding as much as they think they can get away with eg £70 from the owner for the original small loss of 80p.
• Write forceful letters to convince the unwary that they have to pay.
• If the customer appeals, hope he doesn’t mention overcharging. So you can still win the appeal.
• If the customer goes to court again hope he hasn’t noticed the overcharging and that he won’t mention Parking Eye spectacular profits to the court so Parking Eye can still win in court.
  
  The solution.
  
  A conventional fair Parking system that uses tokens has been around for years. Parking Eye and Aldi have had to overlook these methods and use so they could use new technology to the detriment of the driver. Eg With a traditional token method, on leaving the carpark the driver would pay nothing if within the free time, or 20p, £1 or £2 depending on the overstay. Whilst Aldi know the driver has parked 10 minutes more and could easily charge £1 or £2 in the car park for the overstay. They will seek £70 rather than pence.
  
  Technological advancements like ANPR and Bar code systems could help improve the above conventional token model for the benefit and not to the detriment of customers. Many options exist to implement a fair system and Aldi and Parking Eye have had to go the extra mile to overlook these.
  In conclusion.
  Parking Eye have devised a complex collecting system which generates large additional administration charges. For example 600,000 requests were made to the DVLA by parking eye yet only 200,000 payments made for tickets. Presumably the 400,000 extra DVLA lookup charges must have been covered by the 200,000 unfortunate payers.
  
  What can be done?
  
  Aldi/Capita/Parking eye could implement a fair conventional parking system.
  The DVLA could switch off the system to provide data. This would stop the Capita Cash cow in its tracks. Without this data Parking Eye would have to charge in the car park. Aldi/Capita could quickly implement a legal parking system by modifying their approach.
  If you feel strongly enough about this, you can easily write to your local MP and councillors by copying (Cut and paste) the following and sending it to your mp and councillors by using the easy automatic form which can be found on google by searching "write to them"
  
  Footymanu
  
  

  ---

  
  Dear xxxx,
  
  Parking Eye are generating millions of pounds in profit from unfair charges from Supermarket car parks like Aldi. In the year to 31 August 2012 Parking Eye reported a turnover of £13.9m and an operating profit of £4.47m. Parking Eye is forecasting an operating profit of £8.1m on turnover of £25.8m in its financial year to 31 August 2014.
  
  The law does not allow Parking Eye to make any profit on most of their operations as they are only allowed to cover genuine losses that occur from the overparking. (Parking rules that apply to private land). It appears Parking Eye are currently losing virtually all appeals and court cases when trying to defend on the grounds that the charges are a Genuine loss. What is odd is Capita have just purchased Parking Eye for £57.5M. This is a lot of shareholder money for a company that is not allowed to profit from most of its business.
  
  Aldi generally provide one and a half hours free parking. The average Aldi shop of £18 makes Aldi 82p in profit. So if you take a parking space someone else could have used, the loss to Aldi is 82p per average customer. In short, Aldi deny the driver the right to pay a reasonable charge in the car park and they use technology to the detriment of the driver to generate large administration charges and profit. From their figures Parking Eye were making more than £20 profit on each driver it fines.
  
  
  The DVLA assist Parking Eye by providing them with names and addresses of car owners for a sum of £2.50. The DVLA say they make no money on this. It is odd that when 600,000 applications were made by Parking Eye for personal data, Parking Eye claim only around 200,000 (1/3) fines were paid. So why is Parking Eye getting personal information if they are not pursuing the fine? They had claimed they were pursuing all cases.
  
  A fair system
  

  ---

  
  Conventional parking systems can use tokens to allow 1.5 hours free parking then charge a modest amount for additional time perhaps £1. Aldi have gone the extra mile to use camera technology to the detriment of the customers and use DVLA information to help generate charges and spectacular profits and deny the driver any opportunity of paying at the time. The same technology could be used to make a conventional fair sytem more efficient and to the beneift and not detriment of the customers.
  
  Please can you look into this and advise if the DVLA should be providing data when the loss to Aldi is so small and they are not legally entitled to inflate charges. This cash cow is causing misery for hundreds of thousands of people.
  
  Best wishes,
  
  name
  
  

  ---

spacey2012

The business plan is this.

Think how stupid the average person is.
That means twice as many are twice as stupid as that.

In Plain English around 65-75% of people just pay fake parking tickets as they are stupid.

Nobody every went bust underestimating the gullibility of the British Public.

With statistics like those, the bussines plan holds more water than the Somerset levels.

Half_way

With statistics like those, the bussines plan holds more water than the Somerset levels.

And then it all starts to go wrong once the parking companies start getting greedy

Bantex_2

I like to see a company making healthy profits. Good for the economy and the governments tax take.

Coupon-mad

What are you doing on MSE then Bantex?

Bantex_2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

What are you doing on MSE then Bantex?

Money saving is about more than just the initial price paid.
A thriving economy with a decent tax take benefits the majority of people.
From a personal point of view, i have always managed to avoid parking penalties so I am an overall winner as others are paying some tax for me.

Nodding_Donkey

I'd like to know, in the context of the thread title, which one is 'the good'?

Nodding_Donkey

spacey2012 wrote: »

In Plain English around 65-75% of people just pay fake parking tickets as they are stupid.

Although some will pay because they are stupid I don't think it's fair to saythat anyone that pays is stupid. Some (most?) will be mis-informed.