A plea from the BPA

Snakes_Belly

"Its funny that they've not commented on the Home Working initiative, Clear Air Zones and striving for public transport/ cycling initiatives over driving which will have more effect on their business model than this new proposed bill."

I think possibly that some couples will go for one car instead of two especially if retired or WFH. They may buy an electric car and hire a car for long journeys. The cost of an electric car will have an impact and many will not be able to afford one at present.

Some cities like Nottingham and Birmingham have good tram systems running every 10 minutes. You would not want to use your car.  

Fruitcake

Pre-covid I used to drive to Bristol once a week and stay overnight in a hotel with free parking. The hotel introduced Smart Parking, and a charge to park. 
It is now cheaper for me to get two single train tickets than use my gas powered car.

Nine million PCNs issue in the year before covid means nine million people who will be seriously thinking about doing what I have done, let alone all the other reasons given by other posters.

Umkomaas

If this change will cost the economy £19.5billion, and given that PPC maximum income is just under £1billion (£850,000,000), wouldn't businesses paying for car park management to cover that PPC loss of just under £1billion, be such a good investment - spend £1 to save £19.50. Sounds a good investment to me. 

As part of the same equation, seems that the BPA never mention the real drain on the economy of £850,000,000 that their members leach from it. 

Funny that!

patient_dream

AND from that newsleter ........

Andrew Pester, BPA Chief Executive said, “We welcome the Parking (Code of Practice) Act and measures to introduce a single code, standards setting body and an independent appeals service. However, for this package of measures to be sustainable, there needs to be an effective deterrent to encourage compliance with parking rules and deter anti-social parking. Without effective parking management, places will become congested and inaccessible.”

£50 is an effective deterrent especially with household incomes being stretched more and more.

"effective parking management" ?  We are still waiting ... BPA car parks are not properly managed more of a cash cow

"places will become congested and inaccessible.”   ?   That comment is nonsensical

Le_Kirk

I've written it before and I'll write it again, where would the parking companies be if everybody paid for a ticket, displayed it, parked between the lines, didn't overstay, showed a permit when they should and didn't carry out all the other transgressions the PPCs make up and no PCNs were issued?  Their business model should be based solely around the revenue from ticket/permit sales.  If they cannot make a decent living out of that they should be in a different business!

Half_way

There seems to be some impression that the British Parking Association limited are not doing a good job, and are  not looking after the interests of the motorist and so on.

 However the BPA is not a regulatory authority ( somewhere someone has this in writing from them - if this response could be found it would be useful)  and it is not there the look after the motorist.

 Its a trade association , its there to look after the interests of its members, and its members are almost all  private businesses who make money from issuing private parking charges, it is not there to look after the interests of motorists, or even landowners

Codes of practice and even to an extent POPLA are all lipstick on a pig, there to give an air of fake responsibility - while they can be use to help overturning some parking charge notices, scratch the surface and underneath it is the BPA there to help its members make money.

As Le_kirk stated above, the perverse thing with the private parking industry is that its not about protecting landowners, or even improving parking, if everyone parked according to the rules then the PPCs would go out of business.

 The solution to this issue is to change the rules to suit the PPCS , so for a something like a hospital car park ( where people who use them will by and large not be in a good state) lets get rid of the easy to understand pay on exit and replace it with a complex guess how long you will need/guess what time you entered systrem.

 A large retail park with a few DIY stores, restaurants and cinema - lets stick a three hour limit on it so that if you are carrying out a big DIY project - or getting a new kitchen/bathroom etc then decide to visit the / one of the on-site restaurants and then see a film at the on site cinema you are bound to be more than 4 hours - profit for the PPC

 Maybe you have some printing to do, but there is a fault at the shop which means what should be a simple task takes a large amount of time, it would be waste of time, and journey to go then come back and a waste of resources ( fuel etc) on a needless journey - overstay profit for the PPC

And then theres the issue of ANPR Double dips, people who are disabled( aka protected characteristics) etc

 Any landowner that permits the use of discriminatory ANPR that can not identify if an occupant of a vehicle has a protected characteristic( idea inspired by a certain trev)  should face action over the actions of their agents that being the the parking company - and anyone on the receiving end of such should use the fact that their systems are discriminatory and the landowner is liable as a complaint .

 Likewise with a double dip

Umkomaas

Codes of practice and even to an extent POPLA are all lipstick on a pig, there to give an air of fake responsibility - while they can be use to help overturning some parking charge notices, scratch the surface and underneath it is the BPA there to help its members make money.

The BPA mantra at one time used to include the phrase, 'putting the motorist at the heart of our thinking'.  Seems to have disappeared. 

Funny that.

Coupon-mad

Where's @Thrugelmir and @AnotherForumite when a relevant thread calls?

Half_way

Umkomaas said:

Codes of practice and even to an extent POPLA are all lipstick on a pig, there to give an air of fake responsibility - while they can be use to help overturning some parking charge notices, scratch the surface and underneath it is the BPA there to help its members make money.

The BPA mantra at one time used to include the phrase, 'putting the motorist at the heart of our thinking'.  Seems to have disappeared. 

Funny that.

I think that phrase still rings true, screw the landowner as the motorist =££££'s for our members - so lets screw the motorist as well

Snakes_Belly

Motorists who get tickets from supermarket car parks should respond with their feet. 

If you shop regularly at a supermarket you may be spending £100.00 per week. That is £5200 per year. If I got a ticket and they would not cancel it there is no way that they would get any more of my business. Over five years that is £26,000.

I don't know why supermarkets employ PPC's. They could easily manage it themselves.