"Not genuine pre-estimate of loss" is still a strong argument

Marktheshark

It wont matter what car parks, one thing we have learned is they can lie to courts without fear of repercussion and will bend it around every case.
You can not win any game playing by the rules when up against a cheat.

TDA

Shell2015 wrote: »

The £25 from £3 ticket was not based on multiplying it, it was based on the GPEOL of a ticket, DVLA cost, letter & postage costs.

So regardless of the parking charge the additional costs should remain around the same so what £22? If we just deduct the £3 from £25.

Sure, the costs will, but the deterrent effect won't work is the point I'm getting at. Cost of parking is half the cost of a ticket? I'll risk it knowing that I'll make a saving because I won't get a ticket every time or even once every two times.

OrdinaryPerson

TDA wrote: »

But we aren't talking about camera controlled car parks, we are specifically talking about P&D car parks?

P&D car parks can be camera controlled too. When you buy the P&D ticket, you enter your registration number so the computer knows whether you have paid and how long you have paid for.

Shell2015

TDA wrote: »

Sure, the costs will, but the deterrent effect won't work is the point I'm getting at. Cost of parking is half the cost of a ticket? I'll risk it knowing that I'll make a saving because I won't get a ticket every time or even once every two times.

Fair point, however that comes down to poor parking management which is exactly what these companies are supposed to be employed for.

Aka they should be managing the parking constantly, not just catching people once every 3 times.

And some P&D places do use the ANPR systems, one of the hospitals here does, you enter your reg, pay then display. Another uses a system where you pay at a machine just before you leave after it takes a picture of your REG on the way in. Though I suppose the latter does remove the display portion.

OrdinaryPerson

Shell2015 wrote: »

The £25 from £3 ticket was not based on multiplying it, it was based on the GPEOL of a ticket, DVLA cost, letter & postage costs.

GPEOL can also include the estimated cost for recovering the above items.

OrdinaryPerson

TDA wrote: »

Sure, the costs will, but the deterrent effect won't work is the point I'm getting at. Cost of parking is half the cost of a ticket? I'll risk it knowing that I'll make a saving because I won't get a ticket every time or even once every two times.

Even if the car park is not camera controlled, the odds are not as good as you say.

If parking is £3 an hour and the PCN is £25, that's 8 hours of parking. Most people wouldn't take the risk of parking for 8 hours without paying.

If all day parking is £20 and the PCN is £40, do you really think you can park for 2 full days and get away with it? It only needs an attendant doing the round once a day to make sure you lose £80. So £40 is still a good deterent.

salmosalaris

TDA wrote: »

In some situations, but not where you know you won't get caught 9 out of 10 times. It might work as a deterrent for those who might not otherwise pay who are genuine shoppers. Less so for those abusing the system for cheap all day parking (and despite what others suggest, this goes on more than you might think - parking is at a premium and if people have to park to get to work, a lot of them will abuse the system if they can. I certainly wasn't the only one going from my car to the train station without paying when commuting from the local car park).

Also not sure why this £3 figure keeps being bandied around? I don't know anywhere round me that charges so little for a days parking (you'd struggle to get more than 2 hours for that rate!), and if I travel the 30 minutes into London it's even more expensive.

Apart from the fact a deliberate abuser will mask their number plate on exit so in reality this flawed system will not prevent that problem but will mainly hoover up marginal overstays for which the charge is extravagant and unconscionable

ColliesCarer

salmosalaris wrote: »

Apart from the fact a deliberate abuser will mask their number plate on exit so in reality this flawed system will not prevent that problem but will mainly hoover up marginal overstays for which the charge is extravagant and unconscionable

I agree. One blanket charge - irrespective of the length of overstay is inherently unfair.

The marginal overstayer has no, to very limited, impact on any potential, or actual loss, of revenue (whether in a free car park or P&D) as spaces are freed up fairly quickly for other users. Yet they are "penalised" just as heavily as the person who parks all day.

Heavily "penalising" genuine users who have made an honest mistake, lost track of time, been delayed by till/ exit queues etc actually deters customers. (It certainly has in my case. I will never shop anywhere that is infested by PE until they are kicked out and replaced by a fair and honest system).

If the aim is to manage the car park to achieve a reasonable churn rate so that spaces are available to genuine users, whilst detering abuse by long overstayers, then why haven't the parking companies introduced a set of charges based on the length of the overstay e.g. Up to one hour - £20, 1 - 2 hrs £x ..........Over 8 hours - £100?

As we all know they choose not to for a reason - they like marginal overstayers - they like them a lot.

They probably account for the vast majority of their income and if they don't net enough of them the terms are altered, e.g. the free time limit is reduced, so they can increase their catch.

This needs to be brought out in any appeal.