Parking stories in the News/media

Nellymoser

Since the Parking Code : Call for evidence closed I find the BPA seem to be putting some effort into implying DLUHC are  influenced by hearsay media reports. Maybe upset by their "Market failure" tag or realising their ability to easily influence gov is diminishing as provided evidence is now scrutinised.

The first BPA article is "Telling Stories Kelvin Reynolds on the art of spinning a good yarn"
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/434/42/

As you read you may find yourself like me echoing what Mr Reynolds mum sometimes said when he was young "Kelvin! Are you telling stories?"

Mr Reynolds certainly spins a yarn in this article....

• the Secretary of State is telling stories
• the press are telling stories, their opinion is completely opposite to that of the public
• much gov policy in the private parking industry is based on newspaper stories
• gov put forward newspaper stories in it's recent parking code call for evidence
• PoPLA is fully independent and fully accredited
• 4 out of 5 motorists are satisfied with the appeals service
• misleading parking signs are dealt with through auditing and sanctions

The writer goes on to say BPA is to again repeat their nationwide study Public Perceptions of Parking. If BPA want to determine what the public think just revisit your complaints. Accept the evidence and take remedial action.

Until the BPA do this the positive support Mr Reynolds seeks will not be forthcoming and the industry will struggle to shake off their government awarded "Market failure" label.

The second BPA article is 'DLUHC's opportunity to get it right'. Near the end the writer suggests "that policy does not proceed based on non-evidenced-based hearsay and misleading media reporting." I maybe wrong but I thought gov implementation of POFA was based on non-evidenced-based hearsay and misleading reporting by the BPA.
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/434/22/

Coupon-mad

Nellymoser said:

...I maybe wrong but I thought gov implementation of POFA was based on non-evidenced-based hearsay and misleading reporting by the BPA.

   Yes indeed.

That's how they misled the DFT and achieved 'keeper liability' as a farce of a shoo-in. And the BPA later admitted their figures were wildly 'wrong'.

Those were the days when the BPA was taken more seriously than anyone takes either of the ATAs now.  And IMO, their members' greedy, victim-seeking and aggressive conduct, and weak self-regulation, has lost their industry's credibility, so they can't complain.

The writer goes on to say BPA is to again repeat their nationwide study Public Perceptions of Parking.

I remember the questions in that!

It wasn't about private parking.
It wasn't about LA penalties either.

It mixed the two and just asked daft generic leading questions like:

"do you agree that parking management is needed?" 

Most respondents would of course say "yes" because they immediately think of traffic wardens and keeping streets clear.

Other questions were similarly skewed.

Let them repeat that, it'll be amusing!

Coupon-mad

Dodgy machines reportedly not recording payments made:

https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/23910637.shoppers-stung-parkhaven-car-park-fines-despite-paying/

How very clever (not to say sharp practice) if they know the machine connections are unreliable yet are still churning out PCNs.

Or is it just a case of old machines / negligence?

Whatever the cause, ParkMaven must be making a mint and the BPA must be so proud.

The retail park seems to think there is no problem. We beg to differ because you've almost certainly lost some customers forever.

This is how to support the high street, is it?

Coupon-mad

Just thinking again about the BPA's own funded 'Public Perceptions of Parking' drivel.

How exactly do they think people being asked leading and woolly 'do you agree?' questions isn't a steaming pile of hearsay? Hilarious.

Nellymoser

Coupon-mad said:

Just thinking again about the BPA's own funded 'Public Perceptions of Parking' drivel.

How exactly do they think people being asked leading and woolly 'do you agree?' questions isn't a steaming pile of hearsay? Hilarious.

The fact is public's perceptions of parking change when they receive a pcn and head down the correspondence/appeal road with the industry's services.

If the private parking industry is to ever discard it's "market failure" hat the BPA needs to recognise and ensure any future repeat of this study (or drivel) includes asking the public if and why their opinions on parking have changed.

patient_dream

Nellymoser said:

Coupon-mad said:

Just thinking again about the BPA's own funded 'Public Perceptions of Parking' drivel.

How exactly do they think people being asked leading and woolly 'do you agree?' questions isn't a steaming pile of hearsay? Hilarious.

The fact is public's perceptions of parking change when they receive a pcn and head down the correspondence/appeal road with the industry's services.

If the private parking industry is to ever discard it's "market failure" hat the BPA needs to recognise and ensure any future repeat of this study (or drivel) includes asking the public if and why their opinions on parking have changed.

You are so right, the BPA is in itself a market failure which includes the copycat IPC
The simple fact is that government were duped back in 2012 and they will probably keep on being duped

Nellymoser

https://www.jamesdavies.org.uk/news/further-call-evidence-uk-government-proposes-new-nationwide-system-make-paying-parking-easier
Attachment at the end gives access to the MP's full response to the Call for evidence.

His response is reassuring but concerning he feels the vast majority of PPCs existing conduct is fair and appears to fall within their existing code. Surely if the problem was only with a minority it would have been addressed quicker with simple actions. 

Coupon-mad

I am glad to know some MPs made the effort.

He didn't answer the Call for Evidence questions specifically, but any consumer-focussed response is good.

And IMHO, the DLUHC surely know the score by now, about the true extent of the rot.  It's not like certain members of the Steering Group haven't told them often enough!

Coupon-mad

Wilko worker scared of multiple 'fines' (and this article reveals that recently-defunct Wilko even wasted who knows how much money earlier this year paying £170 LBCs for workers):

https://metro.co.uk/2023/11/11/ex-wilko-employee-chased-15-parking-fines-losing-job-19809230/amp/

The article says she had 2 paid off by Wilko to 'protect their staff from distress'.  How many more did deluded idiots at Wilko pay to VCS?

What is wrong with retailers, that they can't see the bigger picture and see what ex-clampers do to their business, staff and customers?

YOU DON'T PAY AN 'OUTRAGEOUS SCAM'!

But sadly, Wilko did. God knows how many?!

It looks to me from this article, that VCS had a hand in Wilko wasting money out of their tills, just before going into administration.

The IPC must be so proud... this is parking management is it?  Jeez. 

A representative from Vehicle Control Services Ltd said:

‘The Abbey Walk Retail Park Car Park has a maximum stay period of 2 hours which is monitored by ANPR cameras. 

‘An agreement exists with our client to exempt certain car park users from the maximum stay, on the condition that the vehicle registration mark is provided in line with an agreed process.

‘In this instance no such exemption request was made. We are satisfied the Parking Charges were correctly issued and will communicate with Sandie Hickman directly to attempt to resolve matters.’

Yeah yeah yeah... you would say that, VCS. Come on. YOU KNOW SHE WAS A WILKO STAFF MEMBER. TIME TO SHUT UP.

But no.

Your version of what the IPC like to call 'debt resolution' (LOL) is to add £70 a pop to Sandie Hickman's already inflated PCNs (adding OVER EIGHT HUNDRED QUID for a debt demand or LBC that can/should cost c£1.50).

Clearly extortionate, and IMHO there isn't a hope in Hell of the DLUHC letting this (multiple add-ons) continue.

We all know that VCS will aggressively sue her over all twelve unfair PCNs (and unless she or a member if her family remembers how to Google and finds us here, she won't know how DAMN EASY it is to defend and win).

Come on Sandie Hickman: come here to MSE.

Coupon-mad

Whichever waste of space dodgy ANPR-wielding PPC is ruining shoppers' confidence at The Lanes Shopping Centre should be kicked out, IMHO:

https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/23912398.carlisle-shopping-centre-car-park-temporarily-re-introduces-tickets/

The Lanes Shopping Centre, Carlisle - you are named and shamed.

"The shopping centre, which has a multi-storey car park on Lowther Street, has re-introduced its ticketed parking system weeks after it had had its new parking system installed.

This re-introduction of parking tickets comes due to initial teething problems with the new ticketless ANPR system and the need for further 'enabling works'."

Ahem. That is HOPELESSLY tone deaf. 

The main problem you now have isn't the unreliable VRM system and you certainly shouldn't be 'enabling' it. Jeez.

The problem is you, being deluded enough to let a PPC loose with ANPR 'fines' which will UNDOUBTEDLY lose some customers forever.  And you won't even realise what this is doing to the retailers until it's too late.

Stop enabling the PPC! Kick them out asap.

According to the BPA and IPC, this is 'parking management'.  They must be so proud.