The Mail gets dirty

Ivor_Pecheque

Mr Tiger has a right of audience and makes some very relevant points.

Of course hospital and other landowners have a right to manage their car parking as they see fit, as long as it is fair, and within the law. If, for one moment, I felt that Parking Eye made a difference to abuse of parking I'd say so. But, rather perversely, they make more profit from those who default than those who do not.

I'll chuck my hand in, I've been dragged through the legal system, quite unnecessarily, by Parking Eye, and their partners, so it's obvious I don't like them.

It's easy to jump on the political bandwaggon, big fat PPC's, the like of Jonty Langham and Parking Eye's Ledson, creaming off the back of a 13 second late cancer patient.

But it's true.

Cornucopia

londonTiger wrote: »

1. tickets are issued and handled by a third party PPC [AFAIK]

Under contract to the landowner. No PPC behaviour should come as a surprise to a landowner. Especially where that landowner is a public authority.

2. they will target whoever violates the parking terms without discrimination. whether they're billionaires or cancer patients on the doll.

They should not be "targetting" anyone. If the PPCs were playing by the rules, the rate of appeal and default would be substantially lower.

3. well the amount is debatable. I have had a look at the financial affairs of PPCs and they're not all that profitable. They have a lot of costs. They have to recover ther costs somehow.

Who cares about their profits - companies make a loss and fail if their business models don't work. PPCs' present business model doesn't work. They are only entitled to a reasonable pre-estimate of loss. They are not permitted to levy fines, or anything that looks like a fine.

The_Deep

Mr London makes one valid point, the DM has an agenda, it wants to sell more newspapers.

Nothing wrong in that, it very much coincides with what we scribblers on here want, to drive the rats out of the private parking industry

To this end I commend to you today's expose,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2711460/Give-sites-good-banging-The-wardens-3k-bonuses-urged-bosses-issue-scores-parking-tickets-day.html

which lists some of the devices used to defraud motorists. It cannot be chance that PPCs lose more mail even than the DVLA, they are deliberately not sending out correspondence which they say they are, and denying receipt of letters which they have received. If John Lewis or Starbuck treated their customers thusly, they would soon go to the wall.

Now, whether you love or loathe the DM, you have to give it credit for this well orchestrated campaign.

Cornucopia

In my experience on a similar matter, mainstream media coverage is extremely difficult to come by. This can only help the rationalisation of PPCs and I would applaud it.

Guys_Dad

londonTiger wrote: »

Sorry you are wrong about daily mail. 1. They're just using sensatalised headlines on populist stances just to get more readers. They do not have the publics interest at heart. If you want change join 38degrees and become an activist.


2. well the amount is debatable. I have had a look at the financial affairs of PPCs and they're not all that profitable. They have a lot of costs. They have to recover ther costs somehow.

1. With a circulation that the Mail has, the articles on parking will have substantially more result than pressure groups such as 38 degrees.

2. Not profitable????? Just what planet are you on and whose financial results are you reading??? Parking Eye's? NCP? etc. I know - the expensive cars and yachts are just gifts from appreciative motorists. Any company's results can be inflated or deflated by whether directors have dividends or the company pays corporation tax instead.

HO87

londonTiger wrote: »

Sorry you are wrong about daily mail. They're just using sensatalised headlines on populist stances just to get more readers. They do not have the publics interest at heart. If you want change join 38degrees and become an activist.

Thank you for that most valuable 101 in the workings of the press.

And 38degrees are not populist when by definition that is at the very heart of what they do. In that respect the term is not perjorative and one would think that 38degrees would be happy to wear the badge with pride.

It would seem that, with a demonstrable lack of knowledge of both PPC World and of basic political theory but a willingness, nevertheless, to hold forth on the subjects, something of a theme is developing here.

londonTiger

Guys_Dad wrote: »

2. Not profitable????? Just what planet are you on and whose financial results are you reading??? Parking Eye's? NCP? etc. I know - the expensive cars and yachts are just gifts from appreciative motorists. Any company's results can be inflated or deflated by whether directors have dividends or the company pays corporation tax instead.

Ok let's work at it from your angle.

How much should a PPC charge for someone parking without a ticket or overstaying their stay from what they've paid for?

Cornucopia

londonTiger wrote: »

Ok let's work at it from your angle.

How much should a PPC charge for someone parking without a ticket or overstaying their stay from what they've paid for?

There is precedent, here, from the financial services industry.

It has been ruled that the reasonable fee for sending a letter regarding common types of defaults is £12.

I would suggest that if the banks can send a letter for £12, then the PPCs should also be able to. The separate issue of loss depends on what the "offer" for parking was at the time. In a free car park, it is difficult to justify the loss being anything other than £0.

And this is not "our angle". The law and the POPLA code states that the amount invoiced can only be a genuine estimate of loss.

The question is how best to rein in the PPCs who are commonly in breach of their own code of practice, and get them to behave lawfully (when in all likelihood, that would cause their business model to break).

londonTiger

Guys_Dad wrote: »

1. With a circulation that the Mail has, the articles on parking will have substantially more result than pressure groups such as 38 degrees.

I don't get how circulation alone will change things. Almost ever driver at some point has received a PCN or a parking invoice - so awareness is not the problem.

The article provides no call to action to explain to people how to change the current situation. E.g. write to MP, set up lobby groups.

Most importantly the article lacks any facts which would help in making a case. It's all sensationalised with little hard facts. It's also manipulative. The second article linked refers to PCN the 3K bonus is well known - in fact it was filmed in a parking documentry. Commision payments for parking has been outlawed long time ago. The bonus is for the person who issues the most tickets. It's a league table just so that the the wardens just don't sit around and consume taxpayers money and not issue tickets. They have to meet targets just like every other employee in any line of work.

They have a minimum target and those who excel get a bonus.

This is not news, and this is not illegal (currently)

The daily mail falls short if its intention was to campaign against these bonuses because it failed to encourage its readers to write to their mps and take action.

Also the daily mail has intentionally worded this article so it sounds like every worker has a chance of getting a £3000 bonus. I bet there are idiots on facebook who have interpreted it that way and are now posting how wardens are filthty rich because they all get 3K bonuses.

Part of the reason they did not is probably down to the fact that they would need to report on this objectively and produce data. Which would make the whole article sag like a wet sponge.

e.g. that the 3K bonus is competed for by 100+ wardens. And that the total bonus is probably £60K out of a total warden wage bill of £2M p.a. (35K top price, and some extra for 2nd & 3rd prize)****

***Just hypotethical numbers, but the bonus:wage bill is probably skewed like that.

londonTiger

Cornucopia wrote: »

There is precedent, here, from the financial services industry.

It has been ruled that the reasonable fee for sending a letter regarding common types of defaults is £12.

I would suggest that if the banks can send a letter for £12, then the PPCs should also be able to. The separate issue of loss depends on what the "offer" for parking was at the time. In a free car park, it is difficult to justify the loss being anything other than £0.

And this is not "our angle". The law and the POPLA code states that the amount invoiced can only be a genuine estimate of loss.

The question is how best to rein in the PPCs who are commonly in breach of their own code of practice, and get them to behave lawfully (when in all likelihood, that would cause their business model to break).

Well loss is debatable.

Most people who whine about PPC have no idea of the bigger picture.

1) They assume that the car park has to be 100% full before it can incur loss. Forgetting that as drivers we would probably leave a supermarket car park after a few minutes of looking for a space. So even if the car park is 80% full legitimate customers will still leave and drive to another supermarket.

2) Parking is usually subsidised by the business. E.g. supermarket offers free parking for customers and the average customer spends £60 per shop. So the loss is not £0 just because they offered free parking. The loss is potentially £60 of revenue and future customer loyalty from that person who drove off because they couldn't find a space.

3) Parking enforcement costs money. Warden have to be paid, an employee has to be paid to constantly watch over the bays, admin has to be paid too. The bank default of £12 is all automatic. It is handled by a computer so the cost to the bank is probably just postage & printing. OTOH for parking the overheads are much more, it's a manual process.

Also if PPC was capped at £12 - I would never pay to park. Excel exhibition centre charges £15 for all day parking. Why would I pay? I'll just park up and wait for the parking invoice.

Chances are I will get away without a warden catching me 80% of the time so it's a good money saving gamble I can take.