Open Letter to BPA and Car Park Operators:

Hurtlocker

Three parties (Myself, LCP & POPLA) have been spending significant amounts of time and effort on effectively settling a £2 unpaid parking charge.

Multiply this by the tens of thousands of people each year who are affected by parking charges and the thousands that appeal, many of which reaching POPLA. Surely as an industry, would it not make more sense to help car park operators simply automate the collection of the actual parking charges? I.e. Perform DVLA look-up, Send letter with request to pay parking (£2)+ DVLA Look-up (£2.50) + Postage and consumables (£1.41) = £6.50, and do so as efficiently as possible?

This would release hours and hours of peoples' time, some of which they will choose to spend shopping, which may then increase ordinary car park revenues. Car Park Operators could reduce their administrative staff costs due to the lower overheads (i.e. release the individuals employed for the arguably soul-destroying purpose of chasing for £100 fees so they can find more productive employment), and would have the added benefit that swathes of ordinary individuals will be spared the tedium of learning the ins and outs of POFA 2012!

The parking operator I'm currently dealing with recently reprimanded me for using "an appeals template blatantly copied from the internet". Use of templates is both clever and efficient - I urge you to do more of both when thinking about your business model and how to differentiate from your competitors. :money:

hoohoo

The parking companies have already achieved these efficiencies. It costs an average of £10 for initial processing and £10 for follow-up processing. The rest of the £80 is profit.

Good luck with getting them to give up the £80 profit!

Hurtlocker

No longer so with drivers becoming increasingly sophisticated.

There is an argument that in order to help Parking Operators and the Land Owners that employ them better understand the economic consequences of their current business model, drivers should be encouraged to stop paying ALL parking charges levied in private car parks.

While this may at first appear to be morally reprehensible by some, it is ironically the most socially responsible course of action as typically those who are left to pay the extortionate charges are the less fortunate as they do not have access to this site or the time / knowhow to structure an appeal. As a result, putting pressure on Parking Operators to charge fair £4 surcharge is much more socially equitable. One is always free to back pay any charges after the changes to company policy are made, though I suspect few will bother.

Technics

Good luck getting getting anyone to listen. It's a bit like expecting a thief to stop robbing you by asking nicely.

Punitive measures are required in this case. How any company can continue to repeatedly issued invalid invoices (according to their own industry body), even after being made aware that the premise under which they are issues is flawed (by having the invoices struck out at PoPLA) without warranting fraud charges amazes me.

It's fair enough to go to PoPLA once and loose on GPEOL but to continue issuing these inflated invoices, under identical circumstances to other motorists after the first loss at the adjudicator goes beyond the pale.

trisontana

A Prime example is the recent court case concerning Parking Eye and the Snowdon Mountain Railway over £2 underpaid on a P&D ticket . The motorist (who was injured in a fall) offered to pay the railway the shortfall, but PE had to have their pound of flesh and took him to court. Luckily the motorist won and it's cost PE hundreds of pounds. The irony of all this was that PE weren't owed that £2 , it was the railway.

So a lot of wasted money and time on everyone's part plus the stress caused to the motorist. Where's the justice in that?

hoohoo

Hurtlocker wrote: »

No longer so with drivers becoming increasingly sophisticated.

The sophistication of drivers does not alter the costs significantly.
Base costs remain the same and a very low percentage appeal (around 2% to POPLA according to the BPA)

Technics

hoohoo wrote: »

The sophistication of drivers does not alter the costs significantly.
Base costs remain the same and a very low percentage appeal (around 2% to POPLA according to the BPA)

And therein lies the problem. The issue is political. Going after the businesses or their cronies in the industry associations is a waste of time. The business model has come about because of some quid pro quo between politicians and a bunch of former clampers.

Eventually the old clamping business model caused enough public backlash that something had to be done. So we now have the current situation thanks to the cosy relationship between business and the brainwashed politicians. Those politicians, forever fearful of interfering with business (no matter how corrupt), and having been spoon fed the "industry message" have allowed free reign for the time being. Currently nobody else has the resources to throw at countering that message.

Until the people making the laws remember (or are reminded) who they are are actually elected to serve rather than pandering to those with the time (I.e. money) to court them nothing will change. What reasonable person thinks that 60 or 100 pounds is a reasonable charge for inadvertently overstaying 15 minutes in a car park that's normally free? Even discounting the GPEOL issue it's hardly fair that someone overstaying by many hours would received the same charge.

Fortunately the greed of these companies will eventually be their undoing. If the figures on keeper detail requests that were obtained from the DVLA are anything to go by they are issuing more and more bogus invoices each year. People might mindless pay one or two of these but eventually they'll get jack of that, use Google and find this forum (I did). Rather than letters to the gouging parasites and their enablers the best thing you can do is tell your friends and MP's. Eventually the current business model will be sufficiently on the nose that it will have to change. Though probably not drastically enough.

Hurtlocker

Technics wrote: »

Eventually the current business model will be sufficiently on the nose that it will have to change. Though probably not drastically enough

All valid points and I could not agree more...

It therefore follows, that in order to help expedite this change, drivers should be encouraged to stop paying ALL parking charges levied in private car parks.


While this may at first appear to be morally reprehensible by some, it is ironically the most socially responsible course of action as outlined above.

Hurtlocker

Please vote with your pocket and show your support!


https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/supreme-court-appeal-to-beat-the-parking-bullies/x/10638882#comments


http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/barry-beavis-launches-fund-to-finance.html

The_Deep

Consider where PPCs get their money, From the sheeple who shop in Brighthouse, from those who pay £100+ for trainers made in Bangadeshi sweatshops for a fiver. From people who use Payday tdat loans companies, those who sell their gold for a fifth of the spot price, from those who buy scratch cards.

Dr._Shoe

...or little old ladies who overstay by 41 seconds but are easily intimidated by threats of court action etc...