Parking stories in the News/media

Coupon-mad

Residential estates could almost all just stop using a scammer and put a gate or bollards in place instead. Some 60% of IPC sites are residential and most have no need for any parking knuckle-draggers.

So that would be the end of most of those unsolicited scams against residents.

As for other sites, maybe some major gyms, hotels, pubs, supermarkets and retailers will also decide your lot are more trouble than you're worth, eh?

It's only the protection racket "we'll look after all your car park 'problems' free, guv" that attracted them in most cases, IMHO.

You'll price yourselves out or only the better ones will survive. Perfect.

This is how the MHCLG could fix this 'market failure' that causes detriment to society. It's a wake up call. Get used to it, I say.

Car1980

If Parking Charge income is reduced, there would be NO surplus revenue from enforcement and the operator (be it a company or otherwise) would need to charge the landowner for their services.

But income is already reduced when signage isn't unclear, rules are fair and there is a genuine in-house appeals service etc. 

There is a base level for fair enforcement. The less fair you make things the more money you make.

If you're not making enough income at the base level because everybody is following *fair* rules and you have to charge the landowner, you've lost the contract and the flaws in your business model become all to apparent. But plenty will take your place.

And maybe the landowner has a light bulb moment that parking companies do naff all, puts up his owns signs and find that the same measly 1% of drivers break their rules and nothing much changes.

There is a retail park near me where everyone alights on the double yellow lines. The landowner doesn't seem too fussed and it hasn't occurred to them that red lines and bigger lines are needed. 

The industry has done well in persuading landowners they need them on their land because it's the "done thing." Enforcement is a buzz word. A glossy sales pack does the trick. Gullible landowners are as much a cash cow as the motorist, but even they aren't stupid enough to pay stupid sums and pass them on to tenants. Unless they take a cut, at which point we're back to unfair "enforcement".

kryten3000

Kaizen2024 said:

Simple solution is make the decisions made by the Single Appeals Service (when it comes) legally binding on all parties, with all ignored Charges and declined appeal cases (if no payment) fast tracked to auto judgment in favour of the operator (much like the LA process). There is no excuse for not doing so once regulation kicks in.

You'd love that, wouldn't you? Will parliament allow this? Highly Unlikely.

kryten3000

Jenni_D said:

Ignored charges can be for a variety of reasons - the main one being the PPC sending the PCN and all other communications to an old address. (i.e. not doing a trace until court claim time). Sending such cases straight to a default judgment in favour of the PPC would be a huge miscarriage of justice.

But as the PPCs will gleefully tell you, not having your V5C up to date could lead to a fine of £1,000 as if that somehow makes their demand for £170 legitimate.

The industry already benefits from the appalling keeper liability provisions (which they still manage to !!!!!! up), sending such cases to an automatic Default would be completely unacceptable.

Incidentally, although ignored council charges go to enforcement, there is a process to set the clock back in the form of an "out of time witness statement", which is free of any fees to the motorist.  What @Kaizen2024 wants is easy defaults which would cost the motorist over £300 to contest.

kryten3000

Kaizen2024 said:

Just thought..

If Parking Charge income is reduced, there would be NO surplus revenue from enforcement and the operator (be it a company or otherwise) would need to charge the landowner for their services.

The landowner would then need to find the funds from somewhere, which would in all likelihood result in the majority of motorists having to put their hands in their pockets one way or another; rather than the minority that do currently.

Examples:

Retail parks would need to increase the Service Charge for tenants (shops), who would in turn need to increase their prices or reduce outlets / move online (it is a fact that all outlets in a retail park have to jointly cover the maintenance costs of the site, which is often reduced via income from enforcement revenue) i.e the opposite of high street revival would occur.

P&D Car Parks would need to increase their tariffs, also negatively affecting the high street.

Residential Freeholders would need to increase their service charges for leaseholders. Again, it is a fact that all leaseholders must cover the costs of maintenance for communal areas and building; which is often reduced by enforcement revenue.

Or these locations could simply cancel their contracts, many of which are not required, for example:

Near me is the MK Dons Stadium and hotel (former venue of the IPC Conference!), on-site parking is operated by the owners of the stadium who have set themselves up as a PPC to cash in on supporters and visitor parking (it used to be free of charge).

Next to the stadium is Asda who use Parkingeye to manage their part of the site.

Next to Asda is IKEA who have no parking management company infesting their car park yet somehow people manage to park properly without the threat of a PCN and there's never a problem finding a space there.

There's also a retail park on the other side of the stadium which until recently had no parking management, but now has a max stay restriction.  Run by CP Plus I think.

The point is that everything worked just fine without any parking management in 3 out of the 4 areas.

Umkomaas

Near me is the MK Dons Stadium and hotel (former venue of the IPC Conference!), on-site parking is operated by the owners of the stadium who have set themselves up as a PPC to cash in on supporters and visitor parking (it used to be free of charge).

Wouldn't expect anything other from 'The Franchise'! They've already stolen a name!

Nellymoser

The new cabinet at Cornwall Council is set to scrap the planned sale of Cornwall Airport Newquay and the transfer of council-owned car parks to a private company.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyzllgkg2xo

Half_way

Parking companies as on the ones that generate traffic on here should not be referred to as operators

Castle

Nellymoser said:

The new cabinet at Cornwall Council is set to scrap the planned sale of Cornwall Airport Newquay and the transfer of council-owned car parks to a private company.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyzllgkg2xo

The private company being Corserv Solutions Ltd, which is 100% owned by Corserv Ltd, which in turn is 100% owned by Cornwall Council.

Coupon-mad

Castle said:

Nellymoser said:

The new cabinet at Cornwall Council is set to scrap the planned sale of Cornwall Airport Newquay and the transfer of council-owned car parks to a private company.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyzllgkg2xo

The private company being Corserv Solutions Ltd, which is 100% owned by Corserv Ltd, which in turn is 100% owned by Cornwall Council.

It's great news that the Corserv idea has been binned. This just leaves Ipserv being run this way.