Victory for Motorists: MHCLG Caps Parking Charges at £50 (£80 in London) with Mandatory 50% Discount

Castle

AnotherForumite said:

bargepole said:

What Mr Clark actually means, is that 99.5% of parking 'events' are compliant with the terms and conditions.

To see how that works in practice, take the example of the Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford, which was the subject of the Beavis case.

It has around 500 spaces, serving some 13 retail outlets, including a McDonalds and a Costa. Parking is free for 2 hours, and the site is open from 8am - 8pm.

Most visitors will stay for less than 2 hours, apart from a small number of overstayers. So let's assume that the average stay time is 1.5 hours.

The car park will be fairly full at peak weekend times, and less so during the week. So let's assume an average of 60% occupancy.

That means that, on average, there will be 300 spaces, each turning over 8 parking sessions in a 12-hour period, which means 2,400 parking 'events'.

0.5% of those (according to BPA figures) are overstayers, so that's 12 x PCNs issued daily, or 84 per week. We know, from the first Beavis hearing, that Parking Eye pay the landowner £1,000 per week for the privilege of operating there. They also claimed that the average revenue per paid PCN was £64.

So 84 PCNs x £64 gives a weekly income of £5,376, a very healthy return on their £1,000 investment.

Under the new CoP, their charge will be capped at £50 (£25 for prompt payment). Therefore, the average revenue per paid PCN is likely to be about £30.

So 84 x £30 = £2,520, still a profit, and of course they may decide to renegotiate with the landowner to reduce the weekly bounty amount.

This shows that it will still be possible for PPCs to operate profitably under the new regime, and all that it really means is that some of the owners of these companies might have to rethink their extravagant salaries, and purchases of luxury items such as gated mansions, yachts, Aston Martins and helicopters.

Think your missing numerous other overheads in that calculation 🙄

For the financial year ended 31st December 2019, Parking Eye's overheads were £6.53 per DVLA request; and a further £9.18 per request in direct costs.

beamerguy

AnotherForumite said:

bargepole said:

What Mr Clark actually means, is that 99.5% of parking 'events' are compliant with the terms and conditions.

To see how that works in practice, take the example of the Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford, which was the subject of the Beavis case.

It has around 500 spaces, serving some 13 retail outlets, including a McDonalds and a Costa. Parking is free for 2 hours, and the site is open from 8am - 8pm.

Most visitors will stay for less than 2 hours, apart from a small number of overstayers. So let's assume that the average stay time is 1.5 hours.

The car park will be fairly full at peak weekend times, and less so during the week. So let's assume an average of 60% occupancy.

That means that, on average, there will be 300 spaces, each turning over 8 parking sessions in a 12-hour period, which means 2,400 parking 'events'.

0.5% of those (according to BPA figures) are overstayers, so that's 12 x PCNs issued daily, or 84 per week. We know, from the first Beavis hearing, that Parking Eye pay the landowner £1,000 per week for the privilege of operating there. They also claimed that the average revenue per paid PCN was £64.

So 84 PCNs x £64 gives a weekly income of £5,376, a very healthy return on their £1,000 investment.

Under the new CoP, their charge will be capped at £50 (£25 for prompt payment). Therefore, the average revenue per paid PCN is likely to be about £30.

So 84 x £30 = £2,520, still a profit, and of course they may decide to renegotiate with the landowner to reduce the weekly bounty amount.

This shows that it will still be possible for PPCs to operate profitably under the new regime, and all that it really means is that some of the owners of these companies might have to rethink their extravagant salaries, and purchases of luxury items such as gated mansions, yachts, Aston Martins and helicopters.

Think your missing numerous other overheads in that calculation 🙄

As the Supreme court said, the parking ticket includes operational costs. That would be the running of the business.   Any "other overheads" will probably be extravagance and can be discounted

AnotherForumite

Castle said:

AnotherForumite said:

bargepole said:

What Mr Clark actually means, is that 99.5% of parking 'events' are compliant with the terms and conditions.

To see how that works in practice, take the example of the Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford, which was the subject of the Beavis case.

It has around 500 spaces, serving some 13 retail outlets, including a McDonalds and a Costa. Parking is free for 2 hours, and the site is open from 8am - 8pm.

Most visitors will stay for less than 2 hours, apart from a small number of overstayers. So let's assume that the average stay time is 1.5 hours.

The car park will be fairly full at peak weekend times, and less so during the week. So let's assume an average of 60% occupancy.

That means that, on average, there will be 300 spaces, each turning over 8 parking sessions in a 12-hour period, which means 2,400 parking 'events'.

0.5% of those (according to BPA figures) are overstayers, so that's 12 x PCNs issued daily, or 84 per week. We know, from the first Beavis hearing, that Parking Eye pay the landowner £1,000 per week for the privilege of operating there. They also claimed that the average revenue per paid PCN was £64.

So 84 PCNs x £64 gives a weekly income of £5,376, a very healthy return on their £1,000 investment.

Under the new CoP, their charge will be capped at £50 (£25 for prompt payment). Therefore, the average revenue per paid PCN is likely to be about £30.

So 84 x £30 = £2,520, still a profit, and of course they may decide to renegotiate with the landowner to reduce the weekly bounty amount.

This shows that it will still be possible for PPCs to operate profitably under the new regime, and all that it really means is that some of the owners of these companies might have to rethink their extravagant salaries, and purchases of luxury items such as gated mansions, yachts, Aston Martins and helicopters.

Think your missing numerous other overheads in that calculation 🙄

For the financial year ended 31st December 2019, Parking Eye's overheads were £6.53 per DVLA request; and a further £9.18 per request in direct costs.

Plenty of other overheads 

bargepole

AnotherForumite said:

Castle said:

For the financial year ended 31st December 2019, Parking Eye's overheads were £6.53 per DVLA request; and a further £9.18 per request in direct costs.

Plenty of other overheads 

Those are the only overheads associated with issuing PCNs at that site.

They will obviously have other general business overheads, including head office premises, staff costs etc, but those are spread over the 800+ car parks they operate in across the country.

Molts

AnotherForumite said:

Castle said:

AnotherForumite said:

bargepole said:

What Mr Clark actually means, is that 99.5% of parking 'events' are compliant with the terms and conditions.

To see how that works in practice, take the example of the Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford, which was the subject of the Beavis case.

It has around 500 spaces, serving some 13 retail outlets, including a McDonalds and a Costa. Parking is free for 2 hours, and the site is open from 8am - 8pm.

Most visitors will stay for less than 2 hours, apart from a small number of overstayers. So let's assume that the average stay time is 1.5 hours.

The car park will be fairly full at peak weekend times, and less so during the week. So let's assume an average of 60% occupancy.

That means that, on average, there will be 300 spaces, each turning over 8 parking sessions in a 12-hour period, which means 2,400 parking 'events'.

0.5% of those (according to BPA figures) are overstayers, so that's 12 x PCNs issued daily, or 84 per week. We know, from the first Beavis hearing, that Parking Eye pay the landowner £1,000 per week for the privilege of operating there. They also claimed that the average revenue per paid PCN was £64.

So 84 PCNs x £64 gives a weekly income of £5,376, a very healthy return on their £1,000 investment.

Under the new CoP, their charge will be capped at £50 (£25 for prompt payment). Therefore, the average revenue per paid PCN is likely to be about £30.

So 84 x £30 = £2,520, still a profit, and of course they may decide to renegotiate with the landowner to reduce the weekly bounty amount.

This shows that it will still be possible for PPCs to operate profitably under the new regime, and all that it really means is that some of the owners of these companies might have to rethink their extravagant salaries, and purchases of luxury items such as gated mansions, yachts, Aston Martins and helicopters.

Think your missing numerous other overheads in that calculation 🙄

For the financial year ended 31st December 2019, Parking Eye's overheads were £6.53 per DVLA request; and a further £9.18 per request in direct costs.

Plenty of other overheads 

I imagine red ink is a sizeable overhead.

Half_way

While a parking company will have costs associated with being at a site and the site will have overheads, if the parking company choses not to be there then there will be no costs.

If we have no PPC at a site collecting parking charge notices, then a ppc will not have any costs associated in getting/processing RK data, only motorists able to park without the worry of a spurious ticket.

 

Coupon-mad

AnotherForumite said:

Castle said:

AnotherForumite said:

bargepole said:

What Mr Clark actually means, is that 99.5% of parking 'events' are compliant with the terms and conditions.

To see how that works in practice, take the example of the Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford, which was the subject of the Beavis case.

It has around 500 spaces, serving some 13 retail outlets, including a McDonalds and a Costa. Parking is free for 2 hours, and the site is open from 8am - 8pm.

Most visitors will stay for less than 2 hours, apart from a small number of overstayers. So let's assume that the average stay time is 1.5 hours.

The car park will be fairly full at peak weekend times, and less so during the week. So let's assume an average of 60% occupancy.

That means that, on average, there will be 300 spaces, each turning over 8 parking sessions in a 12-hour period, which means 2,400 parking 'events'.

0.5% of those (according to BPA figures) are overstayers, so that's 12 x PCNs issued daily, or 84 per week. We know, from the first Beavis hearing, that Parking Eye pay the landowner £1,000 per week for the privilege of operating there. They also claimed that the average revenue per paid PCN was £64.

So 84 PCNs x £64 gives a weekly income of £5,376, a very healthy return on their £1,000 investment.

Under the new CoP, their charge will be capped at £50 (£25 for prompt payment). Therefore, the average revenue per paid PCN is likely to be about £30.

So 84 x £30 = £2,520, still a profit, and of course they may decide to renegotiate with the landowner to reduce the weekly bounty amount.

This shows that it will still be possible for PPCs to operate profitably under the new regime, and all that it really means is that some of the owners of these companies might have to rethink their extravagant salaries, and purchases of luxury items such as gated mansions, yachts, Aston Martins and helicopters.

Think your missing numerous other overheads in that calculation 🙄

For the financial year ended 31st December 2019, Parking Eye's overheads were £6.53 per DVLA request; and a further £9.18 per request in direct costs.

Plenty of other overheads 

Would that be the ancient, hired or second hand P&D machines, that are often decades old? 

Or the price of a bit of white and yellow paint and cardboard signs and parcel twine?

Those are business costs that exist anyway and are not directly attributable to the conduct of an individual.   

The fact that you have continued, since your clamps went in the bin, to operate without charging a landowner (and often paying them for the 'right' to sue their customers and quietly damage their reputation behind their back) simply shows how entrenched the 'protection racket model' is in the industry. 

That stops.  The industry must move away from funding your yachts from penalties.

Also, the Appeals Charter shoots your arguments in the foot, don't you think?

Plus the fact that you have contracts where you cancel for a tenner when victims complain to the landowner. 

So, the break-even cost of issuing a parking charge and then cancelling it on first contact, is a tenner or less.  We know that's true from your contracts we've seen.  And the Appeals Charter shows that PPCs are happy to handle an appeal/complaint, and then cancel a parking charge for a 'nominal' £20.

The profits for the zero service you provide to consumers are enormous at £50 for the sake of 3 or 4 automated letters.

And to a lot of people, £50 is a lot of money but you don't understand what it's like to live like that.

ErinGoBrath

About time these 'companies' (sic) were hit with a massive windfall tax.

bargepole

The PPC business model is unique, in that they make no income at all from motorists who comply with the T&Cs, but actually rely on breaches of contract for all their revenue. It is, therefore, in their interest to make the signage and terms as confusing and unclear as possible, with payment systems designed to fail – the exact opposite of what the Government is trying to achieve.

The common practice of PPCs paying landowners a ‘bounty’, typically £10, per paid PCN is contrary to the whole ethos of the proposed Code of Practice, because it effectively incentivises landowners to sit back and wash their hands of parking management, leaving the PPCs to rinse motorists for as much as they can get away with.

Those contracts will become unsustainable under the new charge levels, and when they come up for renewal the PPCs will have to renegotiate, and perhaps charge the landowner an annual fee to operate parking management on their land. I have seen a contract, can’t remember whose, where the landowner pays £30k annually for the PPC to manage parking.

So maybe the key to all this is the landowners, who have been silent on this topic so far. The gravy train is hitting the buffers for them as well as the PPCs, and if they want fair and proper parking management on their sites, it comes at a price.

Snakes_Belly

"So maybe the key to all this is the landowners, who have been silent on this topic so far. The gravy train is hitting the buffers for them as well as the PPCs, and if they want fair and proper parking management on their sites, it comes at a price."

Or the landowners manage the car parks themselves.