Breaking News: Government has announced the statutory Code of Practice, and Enforcement Framework

ihatetrump

The new code addresses at Paragraph 16 Incentive Schemes.

This is (rightly) directed at prohibiting Operators from incentivising their employees to issue as many PCN's as possible.

Unfortunately I recently lost my case in court to Napier Parking who operate a car park in close proximity to Milton Keynes station that is under a lease/management agreement with Milton Keynes Development Partnership LLP (an entity wholly owned by Milton Keynes Council). The terms/structure of that lease & management agreement are such that MKDP receive normal parking charges as their rent and Napier receive the income derived from PCN's.

So in this case, No PCN's, no income for the operator. In other words the whole bl***y arrangement is just an incentive scheme to issue PCN's 

I have little doubt that many (potentially even the majority) of landowner/PPC agreements are structured such that if the PPC is to make the operation viable then they have to issue PCN's - and as many as possible.

These types of quasi incentive agreements need to be outlawed, as does the practice of Local authorities circumventing the relevant land provisions of PoFA by setting up Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV's) to then enter into commercial agreements. 

bargepole

ihatetrump said:

The new code addresses at Paragraph 16 Incentive Schemes.

This is (rightly) directed at prohibiting Operators from incentivising their employees to issue as many PCN's as possible.

Unfortunately I recently lost my case in court to Napier Parking who operate a car park in close proximity to Milton Keynes station that is under a lease/management agreement with Milton Keynes Development Partnership LLP (an entity wholly owned by Milton Keynes Council). The terms/structure of that lease & management agreement are such that MKDP receive normal parking charges as their rent and Napier receive the income derived from PCN's.

So in this case, No PCN's, no income for the operator. In other words the whole bl***y arrangement is just an incentive scheme to issue PCN's 

I have little doubt that many (potentially even the majority) of landowner/PPC agreements are structured such that if the PPC is to make the operation viable then they have to issue PCN's - and as many as possible.

These types of quasi incentive agreements need to be outlawed, as does the practice of Local authorities circumventing the relevant land provisions of PoFA by setting up Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV's) to then enter into commercial agreements. 

What you have identified here, is precisely what is flawed about the whole private parking scenario.

In the vast majority of car park sites, the PPC will pitch their services to the landowner, on the basis that ''We'll solve all your parking problems, and it won't cost you a penny. We'll pay for the signs and equipment, you can keep the money from the pay machines, and we'll keep the revenue from the charge notices we issue to those who don't comply with the rules''.

This all sounds great, and is particularly attractive to property managers of NHS sites, who are on tight budgets. So up go the signs, and the landowner sees an immediate benefit in the early days, as rogue parkers are deterred from abusing the car park. But the PPC has invested significant sums in setting it all up, and needs to recoup their investment, and then turn a profit.

So that means that legitimate users of the car park, who have made a minor error such as underestimating the time they need, or not keying in their VRM properly, get hit with PCNs, which of course the PPC has an incentive to issue in as many instances as possible. Some of them have systems which are intentionally confusing, or designed to fail, in order to maximise those revenue opportunities.

All of these points have been conveyed to the policy advisors and Ministers at the DLUHC, and that is why the new CoP robustly addresses the failings of the industry, and places them in a strait jacket for operations going forward. Neil O'Brien MP, who spoke during the debates on the passage of the Bill, is clearly a man on a mission, and when he was announced as the Minister responsible for the parking code, that was effectively Game Over for the parking industry.

Snakes_Belly

Thank you Coupon Mad and Bargepole for all the work and effort you have put in to make this happen and to Sir Greg Knight for introducing the bill.

"The new code addresses at Paragraph 16 Incentive Schemes.

This is (rightly) directed at prohibiting Operators from incentivising their employees to issue as many PCN's as possible."

I bet that some of the employees have to telephone in each day with the number of PCN's that they have issued. The operator probably just sticks a ticket on a car hoping that the driver will just pay up and in some cases they will. I can think of a VCS case where the driver was not even parked in the car park. 

I have seen this in the financial sector. The PPI debacle was a result of staff being targeted. PPI was not a bad product if sold to the right customer. The problem was that it was sold to customers who were not suited to the product.  Northern Rock was another case of overselling. Different from PPI more like overtrading. It all comes home to roost in the end but sad for some of the employees of Northern Rock who had taken out share options to save for their retirement.

daveyjp

bargepole said:

ihatetrump said:

The new code addresses at Paragraph 16 Incentive Schemes.

This is (rightly) directed at prohibiting Operators from incentivising their employees to issue as many PCN's as possible.

Unfortunately I recently lost my case in court to Napier Parking who operate a car park in close proximity to Milton Keynes station that is under a lease/management agreement with Milton Keynes Development Partnership LLP (an entity wholly owned by Milton Keynes Council). The terms/structure of that lease & management agreement are such that MKDP receive normal parking charges as their rent and Napier receive the income derived from PCN's.

So in this case, No PCN's, no income for the operator. In other words the whole bl***y arrangement is just an incentive scheme to issue PCN's 

I have little doubt that many (potentially even the majority) of landowner/PPC agreements are structured such that if the PPC is to make the operation viable then they have to issue PCN's - and as many as possible.

These types of quasi incentive agreements need to be outlawed, as does the practice of Local authorities circumventing the relevant land provisions of PoFA by setting up Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV's) to then enter into commercial agreements. 

What you have identified here, is precisely what is flawed about the whole private parking scenario.

In the vast majority of car park sites, the PPC will pitch their services to the landowner, on the basis that ''We'll solve all your parking problems, and it won't cost you a penny. We'll pay for the signs and equipment, you can keep the money from the pay machines, and we'll keep the revenue from the charge notices we issue to those who don't comply with the rules''.

This all sounds great, and is particularly attractive to property managers of NHS sites, who are on tight budgets. So up go the signs, and the landowner sees an immediate benefit in the early days, as rogue parkers are deterred from abusing the car park. But the PPC has invested significant sums in setting it all up, and needs to recoup their investment, and then turn a profit.

So that means that legitimate users of the car park, who have made a minor error such as underestimating the time they need, or not keying in their VRM properly, get hit with PCNs, which of course the PPC has an incentive to issue in as many instances as possible. Some of them have systems which are intentionally confusing, or designed to fail, in order to maximise those revenue opportunities.

All of these points have been conveyed to the policy advisors and Ministers at the DLUHC, and that is why the new CoP robustly addresses the failings of the industry, and places them in a strait jacket for operations going forward. Neil O'Brien MP, who spoke during the debates on the passage of the Bill, is clearly a man on a mission, and when he was announced as the Minister responsible for the parking code, that was effectively Game Over for the parking industry.

And of course the PPC that needs to make money deliberately choose really clunky systems to ensure the invoices can be generated.

Keypads for VRMs, systems where you need to say how long you have been parked, but the system starts with an initial fee you believe is what is due, systems which don't recognise double dips etc

The fact there are excellent systems which record entry, allow time for parking up and leaving and automatically calculate what is due are out there shows the use of clunky systems is deliberate.

Thrugelmir

Coupon-mad said:

No I am still a bit busy...but thanks for being the first in the industry to say that to me. 

Then you are still waiting I'm afraid to say.  

Time to take those blinkers off and view the world from a wider perspective. 

Trainerman

daveyjp said:

bargepole said:

ihatetrump said:

The new code addresses at Paragraph 16 Incentive Schemes.

This is (rightly) directed at prohibiting Operators from incentivising their employees to issue as many PCN's as possible.

Unfortunately I recently lost my case in court to Napier Parking who operate a car park in close proximity to Milton Keynes station that is under a lease/management agreement with Milton Keynes Development Partnership LLP (an entity wholly owned by Milton Keynes Council). The terms/structure of that lease & management agreement are such that MKDP receive normal parking charges as their rent and Napier receive the income derived from PCN's.

So in this case, No PCN's, no income for the operator. In other words the whole bl***y arrangement is just an incentive scheme to issue PCN's 

I have little doubt that many (potentially even the majority) of landowner/PPC agreements are structured such that if the PPC is to make the operation viable then they have to issue PCN's - and as many as possible.

These types of quasi incentive agreements need to be outlawed, as does the practice of Local authorities circumventing the relevant land provisions of PoFA by setting up Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV's) to then enter into commercial agreements. 

What you have identified here, is precisely what is flawed about the whole private parking scenario.

In the vast majority of car park sites, the PPC will pitch their services to the landowner, on the basis that ''We'll solve all your parking problems, and it won't cost you a penny. We'll pay for the signs and equipment, you can keep the money from the pay machines, and we'll keep the revenue from the charge notices we issue to those who don't comply with the rules''.

This all sounds great, and is particularly attractive to property managers of NHS sites, who are on tight budgets. So up go the signs, and the landowner sees an immediate benefit in the early days, as rogue parkers are deterred from abusing the car park. But the PPC has invested significant sums in setting it all up, and needs to recoup their investment, and then turn a profit.

So that means that legitimate users of the car park, who have made a minor error such as underestimating the time they need, or not keying in their VRM properly, get hit with PCNs, which of course the PPC has an incentive to issue in as many instances as possible. Some of them have systems which are intentionally confusing, or designed to fail, in order to maximise those revenue opportunities.

All of these points have been conveyed to the policy advisors and Ministers at the DLUHC, and that is why the new CoP robustly addresses the failings of the industry, and places them in a strait jacket for operations going forward. Neil O'Brien MP, who spoke during the debates on the passage of the Bill, is clearly a man on a mission, and when he was announced as the Minister responsible for the parking code, that was effectively Game Over for the parking industry.

The fact there are excellent systems which record entry, allow time for parking up and leaving and automatically calculate what is due are out there shows the use of clunky systems is deliberate.

As in my local hospital. You drive in, park. When ready go to terminal which calculates fee. Pay and leave. Simple and effective. For the reminder,  yes, absolutely, clunky systems , confusing and badly placed signs all part of the entrapment to generate money from misery. Glad the Government have seen through it and if these scammers do go out of business, that is a bonus !!

Umkomaas

Trainerman said:

daveyjp said:

bargepole said:

ihatetrump said:

The new code addresses at Paragraph 16 Incentive Schemes.

This is (rightly) directed at prohibiting Operators from incentivising their employees to issue as many PCN's as possible.

Unfortunately I recently lost my case in court to Napier Parking who operate a car park in close proximity to Milton Keynes station that is under a lease/management agreement with Milton Keynes Development Partnership LLP (an entity wholly owned by Milton Keynes Council). The terms/structure of that lease & management agreement are such that MKDP receive normal parking charges as their rent and Napier receive the income derived from PCN's.

So in this case, No PCN's, no income for the operator. In other words the whole bl***y arrangement is just an incentive scheme to issue PCN's 

I have little doubt that many (potentially even the majority) of landowner/PPC agreements are structured such that if the PPC is to make the operation viable then they have to issue PCN's - and as many as possible.

These types of quasi incentive agreements need to be outlawed, as does the practice of Local authorities circumventing the relevant land provisions of PoFA by setting up Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV's) to then enter into commercial agreements. 

What you have identified here, is precisely what is flawed about the whole private parking scenario.

In the vast majority of car park sites, the PPC will pitch their services to the landowner, on the basis that ''We'll solve all your parking problems, and it won't cost you a penny. We'll pay for the signs and equipment, you can keep the money from the pay machines, and we'll keep the revenue from the charge notices we issue to those who don't comply with the rules''.

This all sounds great, and is particularly attractive to property managers of NHS sites, who are on tight budgets. So up go the signs, and the landowner sees an immediate benefit in the early days, as rogue parkers are deterred from abusing the car park. But the PPC has invested significant sums in setting it all up, and needs to recoup their investment, and then turn a profit.

So that means that legitimate users of the car park, who have made a minor error such as underestimating the time they need, or not keying in their VRM properly, get hit with PCNs, which of course the PPC has an incentive to issue in as many instances as possible. Some of them have systems which are intentionally confusing, or designed to fail, in order to maximise those revenue opportunities.

All of these points have been conveyed to the policy advisors and Ministers at the DLUHC, and that is why the new CoP robustly addresses the failings of the industry, and places them in a strait jacket for operations going forward. Neil O'Brien MP, who spoke during the debates on the passage of the Bill, is clearly a man on a mission, and when he was announced as the Minister responsible for the parking code, that was effectively Game Over for the parking industry.

The fact there are excellent systems which record entry, allow time for parking up and leaving and automatically calculate what is due are out there shows the use of clunky systems is deliberate.

As in my local hospital. You drive in, park. When ready go to terminal which calculates fee. Pay and leave. Simple and effective. For the reminder,  yes, absolutely, clunky systems , confusing and badly placed signs all part of the entrapment to generate money from misery. Glad the Government have seen through it and if these scammers do go out of business, that is a bonus !!

As much as we battle against them here, I must say that the APCOA system at the Birmingham Dental Hospital was great on visits there. Drive in past the ANPR camera and park up. Go to your appointment, then at the end of your visit, located in the hospital exit foyer is the payment terminal, type in your VRM, up pops a largish screen photo of your vehicle (and VRM plate clearly shown) at the ANPR entry point, confirm it, then the parking price is shown. Pay by cash or card. 

On one occasion when the machine was 'playing up', not taking cash, APCOA had a staff member at the machine helping people with any problems.  Now if UK parking was all like that there would be no need for the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, no need for the BPA/IPC in their current formats, and probably no need for this forum. 

Wouldn't life be so much more simple?

Fruitcake

Umkomaas said:

Trainerman said:

daveyjp said:

bargepole said:

ihatetrump said:

The new code addresses at Paragraph 16 Incentive Schemes.

This is (rightly) directed at prohibiting Operators from incentivising their employees to issue as many PCN's as possible.

Unfortunately I recently lost my case in court to Napier Parking who operate a car park in close proximity to Milton Keynes station that is under a lease/management agreement with Milton Keynes Development Partnership LLP (an entity wholly owned by Milton Keynes Council). The terms/structure of that lease & management agreement are such that MKDP receive normal parking charges as their rent and Napier receive the income derived from PCN's.

So in this case, No PCN's, no income for the operator. In other words the whole bl***y arrangement is just an incentive scheme to issue PCN's 

I have little doubt that many (potentially even the majority) of landowner/PPC agreements are structured such that if the PPC is to make the operation viable then they have to issue PCN's - and as many as possible.

These types of quasi incentive agreements need to be outlawed, as does the practice of Local authorities circumventing the relevant land provisions of PoFA by setting up Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV's) to then enter into commercial agreements. 

What you have identified here, is precisely what is flawed about the whole private parking scenario.

In the vast majority of car park sites, the PPC will pitch their services to the landowner, on the basis that ''We'll solve all your parking problems, and it won't cost you a penny. We'll pay for the signs and equipment, you can keep the money from the pay machines, and we'll keep the revenue from the charge notices we issue to those who don't comply with the rules''.

This all sounds great, and is particularly attractive to property managers of NHS sites, who are on tight budgets. So up go the signs, and the landowner sees an immediate benefit in the early days, as rogue parkers are deterred from abusing the car park. But the PPC has invested significant sums in setting it all up, and needs to recoup their investment, and then turn a profit.

So that means that legitimate users of the car park, who have made a minor error such as underestimating the time they need, or not keying in their VRM properly, get hit with PCNs, which of course the PPC has an incentive to issue in as many instances as possible. Some of them have systems which are intentionally confusing, or designed to fail, in order to maximise those revenue opportunities.

All of these points have been conveyed to the policy advisors and Ministers at the DLUHC, and that is why the new CoP robustly addresses the failings of the industry, and places them in a strait jacket for operations going forward. Neil O'Brien MP, who spoke during the debates on the passage of the Bill, is clearly a man on a mission, and when he was announced as the Minister responsible for the parking code, that was effectively Game Over for the parking industry.

The fact there are excellent systems which record entry, allow time for parking up and leaving and automatically calculate what is due are out there shows the use of clunky systems is deliberate.

As in my local hospital. You drive in, park. When ready go to terminal which calculates fee. Pay and leave. Simple and effective. For the reminder,  yes, absolutely, clunky systems , confusing and badly placed signs all part of the entrapment to generate money from misery. Glad the Government have seen through it and if these scammers do go out of business, that is a bonus !!

As much as we battle against them here, I must say that the APCOA system at the Birmingham Dental Hospital was great on visits there. Drive in past the ANPR camera and park up. Go to your appointment, then at the end of your visit, located in the hospital exit foyer is the payment terminal, type in your VRM, up pops a largish screen photo of your vehicle (and VRM plate clearly shown) at the ANPR entry point, confirm it, then the parking price is shown. Pay by cash or card. 

On one occasion when the machine was 'playing up', not taking cash, APCOA had a staff member at the machine helping people with any problems.  Now if UK parking was all like that there would be no need for the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, no need for the BPA/IPC in their current formats, and probably no need for this forum. 

Wouldn't life be so much more simple?

Southmead Hospital in Bristol has a similar system, but it is run by the hospital trust, not outsourced to a PPC, and it won't let you pay if you enter an incorrect VRM. The ANPR camera is at number plate height and takes images on entry and at the exit barrier, from about 2 metres away.

The downside as with all ANPR systems is that it doesn't record parking time, which is not helpful in the new car park next to the main new building as it can take a long time to find a space some days.

Whilst I am here, I would like to draw your attention to a new Announcement at the top of the forum from MSE Towers.

ihatetrump

@Umkomaas

As much as we battle against them here, I must say that the APCOA system at the Birmingham Dental Hospital was great on visits there. Drive in past the ANPR camera and park up. Go to your appointment, then at the end of your visit, located in the hospital exit foyer is the payment terminal, type in your VRM, up pops a largish screen photo of your vehicle (and VRM plate clearly shown) at the ANPR entry point, confirm it, then the parking price is shown. Pay by cash or card. 

On one occasion when the machine was 'playing up', not taking cash, APCOA had a staff member at the machine helping people with any problems.  Now if UK parking was all like that there would be no need for the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, no need for the BPA/IPC in their current formats, and probably no need for this forum. 

Wouldn't life be so much more simple?

I had a similarly (almost) pleasant experience recently with the Flowbird parking app that is used by Rushmere Country Park (a great place to visit just north of Leighton Buzzard btw). ANPR is used to record your visit as you enter - download the app and record your vehicle reg  and then when you're ready to leave the app matches the entry time to your vehicle and tells you the charge - just pay and then the barrier on exit recognises your reg, matches your payment and lets you leave - simples!- no queues at pay machines fumbling for coins or credit cards and entering reg number - all done in app.

My only gripe was the 4G reception was poor and making my payment failed - pressing the call button on exit they allowed me to exit anyway, I followed up with email and got the following reply:

Firstly, let me assure you that we do not issue fines for non payment of parking at Rushmere so you won’t be getting any nasty surprises. Rather than arranging payment we’d just say next time you are at the park please make a donation at the Visitor Services centre, we have donation boxes or you can pay by card at the till.

An honorable organisation operating a great and effective parking system - and not a scammer in sight!

cambi0

Wonderful news and a credit to all on this forum who have put in so much time and effort, I am indebted.

The only small sadness is for the inevitable redundancies of parking firm employees who for the most part will be 'normal' people who are just doing what they are told to make a day's wage.  I hope they can gain employment in a constructive sector rather than this parasitic one.

As for the parking companies, well aside from the significant reduction in income, it appears a rather hefty investment will be required in terms of camera equipment and associated IT infrastructure to comply with what is actually now defined as parking, rather than just passing an unsigned entry/ exit ANPR camera. My heart bleeds.

I do chuckle to myself that had I not been issued a PCN that was subsequently overturned by popla, I wouldn't have found this forum and the consultation (which I filled in in very angry and exasperated language), alongside multiple complaints to my mp. So in a way thanks to the PPC for pointing me in the direction to help dig your grave.