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

Umkomaas

I'd find any numerical estimate produced by the BPA questionable, especially after the number of court cases they quoted in 2012, when misleading the Government, in the lead up to the introduction of PoFA! 

Half_way

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.

13 retail outlets, plus two eating establishments tells me that two hours is not an adequate amount of time to use the facilities on that site

Umkomaas

Half_way 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.

13 retail outlets, plus two eating establishments tells me that two hours is not an adequate amount of time to use the facilities on that site

I'm sure the Beavis case will have damaged retailer profits as few will dare to remain there longer than the 2 hour limit.  Shopping, browsing then stopping for a coffee/meal and chat are too risky I suspect.  Just get the flock out of there, pronto!

The_Slithy_Tove

Half_way said:

13 retail outlets, plus two eating establishments tells me that two hours is not an adequate amount of time to use the facilities on that site

But we all know that providing unreasonably short maximum stays (which sometimes get shorter without any notice) is all part of their business model.

Fruitcake

Umkomaas said:

I'd find any numerical estimate produced by the BPA questionable, especially after the number of court cases they quoted in 2012, when misleading the Government, in the lead up to the introduction of PoFA! 

Especially following last year's debacle when their assessors couldn't count to 14, nor understand the PoFA.

I wonder if a certain Ms Abbot has been doing the BPA's arithmetic. 

Umkomaas

I wonder if a certain Ms Abbot has been doing the BPA's arithmetic. 

The Di Ab olical mathematician!

Redx

Half_way 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.

13 retail outlets, plus two eating establishments tells me that two hours is not an adequate amount of time to use the facilities on that site

The retail park near me is managed by Parking Eye , has more than a dozen retail shops , restaurants etc and is twice that limit at 4 hours maximum stay , no return within 2 hours , site is owned by British Land

Some of my family stayed for 5 hours , shopping plus a meal in BHS , 8 years ago , spent about £200 on site , PCN NTK was cancelled after a bhs complaint plus copies of receipts included with the template appeal from here. One of 3 or more incidents that year that got me interested in this topic. Never lost one yet on a personal front ( but never had a private PCN issued to me )

Parking eye (twice or more ) , Excel ( twice or more ) , Jas parking , HIGHVIEW , to name a few. 😋😋

Snakes_Belly

Supermarkets in town centres are not going to have the same issues. Take Walsall for example. This was a decent shopping town at one time with many shops including independent retailers.

Over the last few years they have lost BHS and Marks and Spencer. The Old Square was full of independent retailers and Debenhams (which will be closing if it opens again). Now there is the odd pop up shop. The Saddler's centre is full of charity shops and TJ Hughes which is now a vaccine centre.

The Crown Wharf which was a newish part of Walsall (a parking hotspot) is also suffering with many shops closing. TK Max and
H & M have gone.

This is not just as a result of Covid. Some shops including Marks and BHS had gone before and so had many in the Old Square.

There is nothing to go there for now so anyone parking on a supermarket car park in this town is not likely to overstay.  
 

beamerguy

Fruitcake said:

Umkomaas said:

I'd find any numerical estimate produced by the BPA questionable, especially after the number of court cases they quoted in 2012, when misleading the Government, in the lead up to the introduction of PoFA! 

Especially following last year's debacle when their assessors couldn't count to 14, nor understand the PoFA.

I wonder if a certain Ms Abbot has been doing the BPA's arithmetic. 

Well the BPA have now come out ...... they support scammers and saying they are driving standards upwards is the biggest load of hogwash ?   Tragic company

AnotherForumite

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 🙄