More Unhappy Parking Eye "Customers".

trisontana

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/probe_into_parking_at_whitlingham_country_park_1_3667111

Pity about the use of the"f" word in the article, but the council seem to be on the ball:-

"Councillor Lee Hornby described £90,000 going to a private company as “completely wrong” and called for the trust to withdraw from the contract with Parking Eye. “Because they [Parking Eye] make their income from penalties, they make it extremely difficulty for people to get out of paying,”

bazster

£10,000 grant withheld by the council. Well done that council!

esmerobbo

I would love them to explain how Parkingeye issuing £60/£100 charges protects their revenue from the car park.

In fact it probably has the reverse effect that once stung people don't return.

bazster

Well it's certainly stung them for ten grand!

bargepole

One of the main issues with this car park is the signage.


It's a pay and display facility, and the money from that all goes to the Whitlingham Country Park to help with the maintenance costs of the site.


If you return to your car and find you've overstayed the time paid for, there is a means of topping up your payment to cover the additional time - £1.20 per hour, or something similar.


But this is not prominently advertised on the PE signage, it's buried in the small print, so many people simply drive off and then get a £100/£60 parking charge in the post some days later.


So if they are going to keep going with their PE contract, they need to make it a condition that the top up facility is prominently advertised, which will reduce the money going into PE's coffers, and increase the P&D takings for the site owners, which has to be a good thing for this important local amenity.

The_Deep

I wish people on here would get over this hang up over the use of the word "fine". Of course it is a fine, just as keeping a library book longer than one should attracts a fine.

It is a word which people understand, to which they can relate, if a supermarket wants £100 for spending too long at the deli counter, and buying too much stuff, they get angry.

If a PPC sends them an invoice for a breach of contract they do not connect, The public as a whole are vastly ignorant of the nuances of the Law of Contract, but they jolly well know what a fine is.

Lets keep the word in front of the public, and, while we are about it, what is wrong with the word summons? Few of us are lawyers, so why do we so readily embrace legalise?

rdr

bargepole wrote: »

One of the main issues with this car park is the signage.


It's a pay and display facility, and the money from that all goes to the Whitlingham Country Park to help with the maintenance costs of the site.


If you return to your car and find you've overstayed the time paid for, there is a means of topping up your payment to cover the additional time - £1.20 per hour, or something similar.


But this is not prominently advertised on the PE signage, it's buried in the small print, so many people simply drive off and then get a £100/£60 parking charge in the post some days later.


So if they are going to keep going with their PE contract, they need to make it a condition that the top up facility is prominently advertised, which will reduce the money going into PE's coffers, and increase the P&D takings for the site owners, which has to be a good thing for this important local amenity.

If it's that bad surely it's a trading standards issue

Iceweasel

The_Deep wrote: »

I wish people on here would get over this hang up over the use of the word "fine". Of course it is a fine, just as keeping a library book longer than one should attracts a fine.

It is a word which people understand, to which they can relate, if a supermarket wants £100 for spending too long at the deli counter, and buying too much stuff, they get angry.

If a PPC sends them an invoice for a breach of contract they do not connect, The public as a whole are vastly ignorant of the nuances of the Law of Contract, but they jolly well know what a fine is.

Lets keep the word in front of the public, and, while we are about it, what is wrong with the word summons? Few of us are lawyers, so why do we so readily embrace legalise?

Rather than use words which are incorrect we should increase our efforts in trying to educate the public on this, rather than give up or give in to the wrong usage.

It's like signs in Scotland saying 'No Trespassing' or 'Private Road' - usually erected by non-Scottish born buyers of rural property - I just laugh and carry on.

The_Deep

Rather than use words which are incorrect we should increase our efforts in trying to educate the public ...

I agree, but we should start by eradicating the confusion between "there" and "their", "your" and you're" and "less" and "fewer". The word "fine" makes perfect sense in this context, an "unsolicited invoice for an alleged breach of contract" does not.

Making a fuss about the use of this word is not only elitism, but pedantry. It puts off those whom we are trying to attract.

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

... The public as a whole are vastly ignorant of the nuances of the Law of Contract, but they jolly well know what a fine is.

Lets keep the word in front of the public, and, while we are about it, what is wrong with the word summons? Few of us are lawyers, so why do we so readily embrace legalise?

Which is exactly why we should educate people about 'fines' and 'summonses'.


A fine implies something which is lawful, and which you are obliged to pay, issued by a Court or some other statutory body. PPC charges are NOT fines.


A summons is a demand that you appear at a specific court on a given date, either as a defendant or witness, and almost always in a criminal case.


PPC claims are simply that; we claim that you owe us £X, do you agree if so pay up, or do you disagree, if so send a defence and a court will decide at a later date.


What's hard to understand about that?

The_Deep

What's hard to understand about that?

Nothing at all for me, but what about those people who constantly confuse "complement" with "compliment", "stationery" with "stationary" " there" with "their"?