Parking stories in the News/media

Half_way

There is a lot of anger pointed at the parking companies, and those who work for them, and rightly so as in my opinion they are scum.

But the real anger needs to pointed firmly at those who allow these so-called parking companies to operate on their land, if it is a small independant business/ small local charity organisation etc such as an independent shop/pub, village hall, the local girl guides, boy scouts etc then thats different to a chain pub/big supermarket chain/major landowner.

Car1980

Sadly the Parking Eye article is a gift to them.

A great way to spread the myth that parking companies can "just get" a CCJ against you and will.

Nellymoser

Ireland's shopping centre businesses withhold rent due to parking fees impact

https://www.ainvest.com/news/stillorgan-shopping-centre-businesses-withhold-rent-due-parking-fees-impact-2601/

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2026/03/07/stillorgan-shopping-centre-retailers-hear-no-change-being-considered-on-parking-fees/

Umkomaas

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81921147#Comment_81921147

Hopefully the MHCLG are looking closely at this 'bigger picture' of the impact of the out of control private parking sector. It's simply not just about the level of parking charge penalties!

patient_dream

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81921147#Comment_81921147

Does anyone know the law about parking companies in the Irish rebublic ?

patient_dream

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81919057#Comment_81919057

ParkingEye is a complete disgrace but what can we expect as members of the useless and not fit for purpose BPA.

WAKE UP Government and cull this mega SCAM industry.

Have they forgotten the British Gas story where old couple killed themselves due to the harassment of debt collection letter ?

This could easily happen in the clown parking industry with the junk sent out by parking companies, debt collectors and very dodgy legals. It's only a matter of time and the bosses of the rogue traders should serve time in prison

Coupon-mad

"Hopefully the MHCLG are looking closely at this 'bigger picture' of the impact of the out of control private parking sector. It's simply not just about the level of parking charge penalties!"

Agreed.

Why are the Government concentrating on the rabbit hole of 'the level of PCN' and not thinking outside that box and musing:

"what about fair parking management where the time limit is dictated by retailers (not by the protection racketeer) and the income for any third party operator isn't PCN dependent?"

ANPR in retail car parks - with time limits invariably controlled by the scammers and DESIGNED to catch the slowest (often disabled or elderly) shoppers - is ruining confidence in high street shopping.

Even in the Beavis case, some of the retailers hated the effect the inadequate 2 hour limit imposed by ParkingEye was having on customers.

The manager of the Matalan shop at that retail park was particularly angry as she was handling lots of complaints every week. But apart from sometimes being "allowed" to request the odd cancellation Matalan were powerless because ParkingEye and the site landowner were sitting pretty, sharing four figure sums weekly and clearly didn't give two hoots about retaining customer confidence.

Coupon-mad

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2179185/uk-high-streets-andrew-papworth/amp

The journalist lives in Crystal Palace land and he says:

"Yet even with nearly 400,000 people, Croydon is blighted by one cringeworthy problem that many struggling UK town and city centres share: rows of downtrodden, empty stores.

Speak to shoppers, and it seems to be the thing that makes them saddest. Residents in Peterborough, for example, told me they felt the loss of John Lewis and Marks and Spencer ripped the heart out of their city.

Even popular places like Cambridge, which attracts eight million tourists a year, are not immune. I recently went back to The Grafton Centre, where I spent many hours as a teenager. It is being redeveloped after the occupancy rate plunged to 50% and will never be a dedicated shopping mall again.

*******************************************^^*•

AI says:

"Ely is successfully bucking the national trend of declining high streets by offering, in many areas, free long and short-stay parking, which boosts visitor numbers to the city centre and attractions. This strategy provides a competitive advantage over towns with high parking charges, with many residents and visitors valuing the accessible parking options. 

Key Details on Ely's Parking:

• Accessible Parking: The city provides various free long-stay and short-stay car parks, making it convenient for visitors.
• Key Locations: Popular areas include Ship Lane Car Park, which is known for its proximity to the Riverside and city centre attractions.
• Visitor Benefits: The policy supports local tourism, including easy access to the Ely Cathedral and museums.
• While parking is generally free, users should note that time restrictions are in place and well-signposted.

It's not just us lot on this forum who are saying loud & clear that punitive & expensive parking regimes are killing the High Street.

I also found this June 2018 submission made to a Select Committee about what's causing the death of high streets (I don't know if the current MHCLG staff are aware of it and similar informed opinions to whatever Select Committee was calling for evidence):

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/91301/html/

"The Portus Review was interesting because contributions were invited from all sides, and a huge number were received.   More than 50% cited a lack of parking and the cost of parking as the main problem.   So the message from users of town centres and businesses struggling within them could not have been clearer:  sort out the parking!

Instead, Mary Portus produced a whole raft of suggestions, many of which may have been valid, but meant that the big message was lost.   The Government responded with a feeble competition, and the process predictably collapsed.   I well recall advising my Town Council not to participate in the Portus competition on the, I think, reasonable grounds that the cost of entering, by commissioning a video presentation, and compiling a report and submission, would be more than the likely return.

So let's not ignore the elephant in the room - let's begin with the biggest problem of all:  the lack of parking and the prohibitive cost.

PARKING AND THE COST OF PARKING

The administration of town centre car parks is normally performed by a team of officers within a local authority.   They are responsible for the general upkeep of the car parks, for pricing policy, and for the collection and enforcement of parking charges.   Generally speaking, these teams are under pressure to deliver maximum income to the authority they serve: in the case of Sidmouth, the authority is East Devon District Council, who get a return of approaching £3 million from their car parks across the District.  About a million pounds is derived from Sidmouth.

This is almost all profit, as the costs of administering a car park are low.

So it is a cash cow, and a very important cash cow.   £3 million per annum is sufficient to employ around 100 of the 500 staff who work for EDDC.    We are currently living through a period of reduced resources for local authorities, and in the case of EDDC, a new headquarters is being built at a total cost of approaching £20 million.   So car park income is vital.

It is probably fair to say that EDDC's needs for cash outweigh any consideration for the well being of the District's town centres.

It is therefore all but inevitable that the charging regime they choose will be designed to maximise the returns from their car parks, and not to optimise their usage, or benefit town centre businesses.

From time to time, the Government urges councils to use car parks for the wider benefit of everyone, but my impression is that these exhortations are simply ignored.

So, there is an inherent conflict between the administration of car parks by local authorities and the optimum functioning of those car parks.

Inevitably, car park usage is not optimised to benefit users, or businesses, or to reduce congestion  and other traffic problems.

Charges are determined by 'what can we get away with?' rather than 'what is the appropriate charge for this car park?'

This problem is compounded by a failure of many authorities to understand how users respond to price changes.   Most council staff and councillors think that if prices are increased, income will rise as a result.

Often, they think that if prices are increased by 10%, then income will rise by 10%.   This is not the case.   Car park charges are undoubtedly subject to the Laffer Curve, and are essentially a 'bell graph'.

At some point, when charges are increased, it is certain that income will decline.  Locally, we have had many illustrations of this effect.

Eight years ago, EDDC increased parking charges by 17.5% and expected a 17.5% increase in income.  In fact, only a 2% rise in income was achieved, and usage of our car parks fell by 15.5%.

The increase in income for the authority was £60,000, but the impact upon the District's town centres was very significant:  probably a total decline in takings of £5 million, and a loss of about 70 jobs.  In one car park, Manor Road, Sidmouth, the daily charge was raised from £3 to £10, and income actually fell.  People simply would not pay such a high price.

…

Conclusions:

 The administration of car parks should be reformed to disincentivise local authorities from seeking to maximise income at the expense of the communities they serve.

This might mean removing car parks from the control of LAs and handing them to local community trusts who could use the income to support local causes and projects.   Such trusts would be instructed to charge whatever best serves the local population, users and businesses.

 Basic education should be provided to any administrator so that they are aware of the relationship between supply and demand and the operation of the Laffer Curve.

 Car park design should be overhauled.   Software should be made available, and guidance provided.

Central government should finance a number of schemes to illustrate how car park design could be improved.

…

A particular irritation are car park information boards, where it can take quite a time to find the charge, which is the only information that users are seeking.  In East Devon, these boards are festooned with logos and spurious material.

Signage is often subject to information overload.  Signs are too large and too complicated, so the essential message is lost.  Logos should be avoided, and an emphasis placed upon clarity and simplicity.

…

A REALISTIC APPROACH TO THE MOTOR CAR

Another tricky area! It is often said that policy departments in local authorities include an artificially high proportion of environmentalists.  Today, it could be argued, we are all environmentalists, and it is fair to say that some of the arguments put forward by the 'environmental lobby' are now standard policy.  And quite right too.

Business people are suspicious, however, that this has developed into a hard, unwavering anti-car approach.   Pot holes go unrepaired, roads are not dualled, and car parks are not provided, because 'we don't want to encourage cars'.  Everyone should cycle to work!

Conclusion:

 We need a more sympathetic and realistic approach to the motorist.  This does not mean an abandonment of environmental targets or principles, but it does involve an acceptance than most journeys for the foreseeable future will be made by road."

 

Coupon-mad

I thought - on a recent thread - that the DVLA said BPAM couldn't get DVLA data?

Aren't they dormant or in administration?

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/cambridge-woman-considering-selling-car-33483265.amp

Cambridge woman considering selling her car because of 'unfair' parking fines charges at her own home

A spokesperson for Bridge Parking & Asset Management (BPAM) which is the parking company who issued the fines said: “PCN’s may be issued to a vehicle for parking not in accordance with the displayed terms and parked in the same location every 24 hours."

Nadia has appealed and made complaints about the fines, as she believes them to be unfair.

She has found the situation “extremely stressful”, and said that she is anxious to travel by car to and from her own home because she is concerned about receiving another fine when she returns.

Nadia said: “I am actually considering selling my car, because I haven’t got an option.”

Nadia said she left her car in a designated spot for a week because she "can’t run the risk of coming back and not being able to park anywhere”.

In response to these claims, BPAM added: "Bridge Parking & Asset Management (BPAM) only operate on private land and under the current code of practice issued by the BPA. We are audited to ensure compliance is maintained and only issue PCN’s in a fair and precise manner."

She has reached out to MP Daniel Zeichner about her situation.

MP Zeichner said: “After Ms Mullins‑Hills approached me about her situation, I contacted the parking company in question to raise the concerns she highlighted and to ask that they review the circumstances in full. I recognise the worry this has caused her, and I will continue to stay in touch with her while the issue remains unresolved.”

Coupon-mad

Alarm bells about yet another Council installing ANPR in a car park:

https://guildford-dragon.com/feature-council-revenue-to-increase-as-guildford-parking-incorporates-anpr/

Hope they know they are not allowed to use it for PCN issuance off-street. Banned by the Deregulation Act 2015 and quite right too.

Time will tell.