So...

nigelbb

bod1467 wrote: »

Devil's Advocate ... how do barriers provide a more accurate representation of parking time than ANPR cameras? (Other than the obvious ... you have 10 minutes to exit the car park after paying, assuming you pay on exit. But even ANPR camera schemes can offer this methodology - a car park managed by ECP in East Kilbride does this).

The main point about using exit barriers is fairness as it prevents the motorist committing any parking offence. In a pay car park with exit barriers it is impossible to underpay. Various schemes with exit barriers can manage free car parks e.g. free for x hours then £x or £x but free with ticket from store with minimum spend etc

It's because of the use of pay on exit barriers that there are very few posts on here about parking in multi-storey car parks except for the occasional ticket for 'not parked within marked bay'.

nigelbb

Herzlos wrote: »

Fair point - it'll still cause problems if there's a delay leaving the car park, but it avoids a lot of the other issues like double-dips and under/overpaying.

It's because of the use of pay on exit barriers that there are very few posts on here about parking in multi-storey car parks.

Herzlos

Yeah the only issue it can cause for the customer is if there's a delay leaving and you get stuck at the barrier. But normally there's an attendant who can let you out.

But because it's such a reliable system, there's no profit in it for the parking management companies.

Umkomaas

But because it's such a reliable system, there's no need for [STRIKE]profit in it for the[/STRIKE] parking management companies.

Fixed that for you!

zardoz70

Perhaps a simple one-liner might work for the interim.
"Parking 'penalties' in private car parks to be no greater than the maximum similar charge in any council car park within 10 sq.miles for the same violation or £50, whichever is lesser."

And also raise the amount DVLA can charge for details to something more realistic since I believe (but can't find figures) that they make a loss for each request at present. i.e. We taxpayers are subsidising the PPC's

The_Slithy_Tove

HO87 wrote: »

To revise this judgment is I suggest a far more complicated task than simply kicking PPC's into line. This is why I have suggested that as things now stand if there is be any swift intervention it will be to prevent any excesses with a Statutory Instument based in POFA but that will not in any way address the wider ramifications of the judgment.

Schedule 4, para 12 (2):

The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe requirements as to the display of notices on relevant land where parking charges may be incurred in respect of the parking of vehicles on the land.

Using that, for a start, to make the signage much clearer, and in conformance with DfT guidelines regarding size, font and colour, would help. PPCs would still get it wrong, but it would make using POFA harder for them.

Johno100

zardoz70 wrote: »

And also raise the amount DVLA can charge for details to something more realistic since I believe (but can't find figures) that they make a loss for each request at present. i.e. We taxpayers are subsidising the PPC's

So we have some posters who think DVLA make a fortune out of providing data to PPCs, all the 'high up's' get huge bonuses and that's why they are hesitant to act on rogue companies having access to data.

And you reckon PPC requests specifically are being subsidised by Joe Public and the charge should be upped?

I think the truth, as with many of these things, is somewhere in the middle.

bazster

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Schedule 4, para 12 (2):

Using that, for a start, to make the signage much clearer, and in conformance with DfT guidelines regarding size, font and colour, would help. PPCs would still get it wrong, but it would make using POFA harder for them.

Schedule 4 16(1):

The appropriate national authority may by order made by statutory instrument amend this Schedule for the purpose of—
....

(b) adding to, removing or amending any of the conditions to which the right conferred by paragraph 4 is for the time being subject.

Paragraph 4 is the nub of the matter: keeper liability. So, in effect, the government can by Statutory Instrument wipe out keeper liability by adding any additional conditions it wants.

bazster

Johno100 wrote: »

So we have some posters who think DVLA make a fortune out of providing data to PPCs, all the 'high up's' get huge bonuses and that's why they are hesitant to act on rogue companies having access to data.

And you reckon PPC requests specifically are being subsidised by Joe Public and the charge should be upped?

I think the truth, as with many of these things, is somewhere in the middle.

The DVLA is lying when it says it makes a loss on supplying this data, the figures are smoke-and-mirrors. The DVLA doesn't want to be seen to be profiting so it fiddles the figures and pretends to be making a loss.

zardoz70

Found article although had misread it.
Parking Prankster 28/7/14 - DVLA perpetuate myth that they make a loss on providing keeper information to parking companies

DVLA charge £2.50 but claim cost to them of providing each lookup is £2.84.

Whether DVLA are actually lying about their costs or not there looks to be a shortfall from the PPC's as far as they are concerned.
I wonder if in this day and age of profit-making govt. I'm surprised they aren't charging £10, but of course the PPC's would just pass that straight on anyway.