Parking stories in the News/media

Cloth_of_Gold

Jenni_D said:

Money ... DVLA makes a pretty penny out of it. (Even though they deny it, £2.50 a pop for keeper details which cost the DVLA a negligible amount to furnish automatically via KADOE, amounts to a pretty penny. Yes, DVLA will have maintenance costs, but nowhere near what income it generates).

I've often wondered why is it is legal for the DVLA to provide information they hold on people, including their names and addresses, to private companies when it is simply a civil matter. John Lewis, for example, surely wouldn't be able to do this because of the DPA so why is it that the DVLA can? Obviously they can, but I don't understand why.

Coupon-mad

It was clarified by the ICO when challenged last year:
https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/documents/4020676/dvla-opinion-20220613.pdf

We don't agree with the ICO or the DVLA in the reasons for this, but it is a fact we are stuck with it unless a subsequent Government bans it.  Unlikely.

At least the Government is about to complete the final steps in regulating the rogue parking industry - yay - nearly there!

Mouse007

Shocking article in this month's edition of Which? magazine about how to appeal a parking fine. According to them a PCN from a Private Parking Company is a Penalty Charge Notice and they refer to it as a fine numerous times - I think a letter to the editor will be in order.

KeithP

Mouse007 said:

Shocking article in this month's edition of Which? magazine...

Yes, discussed briefly in this thread...
"Car Sharks" - Which? magazine article March 2023

Coupon-mad

Yep, more is shown here:

KeithP said:

Looks like the Consumers Association have found out about the private parking scene.
I won't repeat the whole article but it looks like many other newspaper/magazine articles on the subject.
Here's one story...

GXS told Which? "our signs are audited by the Independent Parking Committee".
The IPC hasn't been called that for many years. 
I wonder who got it wrong - GXS or Which?
GXS* also state "we have no way of knowing that a vehicle owner has paid for parking if an incorrect registration number is entered".
"No way of knowing"? What are they talking about?
Why do parking companies allow payment to be made for cars that aren't even parked? A rhetorical question - we all know the answer to that.

*GXS that well known Worthing conglomerate.
Here is the impressive entrance to their registered office...

[click on the image to go to GSV]

And I then raised the concern about Sam Younger at Which?  (the CA) and his reported conflict of interests.  It leaves a bad taste in the mouth:
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-11318569/amp/TONY-HETHERINGTON-boss-staying-quiet-parking-fiasco.html

Tony Hetherington says:

" I took a closer look at it. NSL is owned by yet another company, Marston (Holdings) Limited, which in turn is owned by another company, and so on and so on, through an amazing ten layers of companies until you get to the top of the tree, which is Free Flow Topco Limited. 

It has contracts with local councils and government agencies that include enforcing warrants, issuing warning notices, clamping, impounding, and disposing of vehicles. And last year its turnover was £255million. 

It claims that its Marston offshoot operates within an 'ethical framework' headed by an advisory group run by Sam Younger CBE. Who's he? Astonishingly, he is the chairman of consumer organisation Which? 

No, you have not misread this. Which? – the organisation that provides page after page of website advice about how to fight parking tickets – is headed by a man who works for a company that makes millions out of issuing parking tickets. 

So, I contacted Which? and invited a comment from Sam Younger. Did he believe the confusing layout of Marston's pay and display tickets met ethical standards? And does he believe it is fair that the time taken to consider an appeal would mean the penalty would double? 

...Sam Younger is at Marston so Marston's owners can boast that they must be ethically run because they have a top consumer champion on board. If Younger disagrees, why did he refuse to say so?"

Coupon-mad

Oh dear, poor ill-advised Darren & Kyrstie who run the King's Head pub in Rhuddlan, Denbighshire, North Wales, you have just made a massive and very expensive mistake:
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-pub-installs-high-26312182#comments-wrapper

So badly-advised is your unresearched decision to bring in a PPC with their ANPR 'technology' that I fear for your pub's future.  Even the journalists warns against it, by recounting how custom at the Three Loggerheads pub was pretty much ruined by ANPR, where (OF COURSE) the targets were the staff and customers.

This will cost you a fortune to buy yourself out, or be sued by your PPC for switching their cameras off.

Coupon-mad

Yet another publican has made the same ill-advised mistake and even worse, this guy is reported as actually BLAMING his enraged ex-customers for sending him nasty emails re the £100 rip-off fines he has caused by signing up with a custom-killing ANPR parking firm:
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/23303771.cottage-inn-haxby-receives-nasty-emails-enraged-customers/

Named and shamed, and IMHO likely now boycotted by a sizeable % of the regulars:

The Cottage Inn, Haxby, York - landlord Chris Atkin is the one quoted as blaming his customers instead of realising what he's done...

Oh dear. That's the end of business for that pub, then, unless he wakes up, smells the coffee and sacks or pays off the PPC for tens of thousands.  

Doesn't look like he's even worked it out yet...he's fuming about one star TripAdvisor reviews from GENUINE CUSTOMERS instead of realising what the actual problem is, and so angry is this publican at the WRONG PEOPLE that he thought he'd go to the local paper to rant before his customers did!

The paper reports:

"...after receiving one such email from a Fiesta owner who said he would go to the Press, calling it “absolutely disgusting” he was ticketed for attending a wake at the pub, Chris decided to contact the paper first.

A recent customer also told Tripadvisor they were “absolutely enraged” to be ticketed after attending a wedding party for 90-minutes, saying they saw or received no warning."

Don't worry Chris, soon you won't have any event bookings, if you don't see sense, realise what the scammer is doing to your reputation & custom and dump the PPC to crawl back under their stone.

Coupon-mad

A similar deluded, ill-advised decision, IMHO, has been made by the Conservative Club at Shipley:
https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/23276537.amp/

I think we've mentioned this one before and originally the scheme (ParkingEye, I think) was refused Planning Permission due to 'visual clutter'.

The usual application went in, with the standard template wording suggesting that the car park was 'abused' (wot, no boy racers this time?!).

Of course, no-one bothers to question if that's actually true... 

Even worse, it's now been approved by Bradford Council because ParkingEye have minimised the visual clutter ( = reduced the signs).

Fewer, smaller & less prominent signs, you say?

That's alright then...kerchiiiing!

Coupon-mad

Morrisons (in fact ParkingEye whose name appears on these applications) reportedly failed in an attempt to get Planning Permission in 2017 for the ANPR system at the Faversham store, and now they are trying again but the locals are not happy:

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/faversham/news/amp/morrisons-install-prison-camp-anpr-cameras-without-permiss-281531/

Of course, it seems that the cameras haven't been taken down in between...never mind the refused Planning Permission.

The Parking Prankster wrote a memorable blog a few years back from a ParkingEye ex-employee mole who apparently explained what he called the company's 'rape & pillage' approach:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/parkingeye-employee-reveals-their-rape.html?m=1

The ex-employee mole reportedly told the Prankster a few years back: 

"Some installations were expected to cause trouble simply because of the client's expectations. These were known as the "rape and pillage" installations. Bang them in, make as much money from the first several weeks to cover costs, and if problems occurred, try and win the client around. If that didn't work just pull it out and/or sue the client for breach of contract."

Now of course (if true) that's talking about operations pre-2016, so one sincerely hopes that the approach by BPA and IPC members to ANPR installations is much more ethical now...?

It needs to be.

Coupon-mad

Civil Enforcement Ltd are now infesting Holme Beach car park near Hunstanton, Norfolk: 
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23300715.holme-beach-car-park-anpr-camera-now-gone-live/

Wonder what the phone signal is like there, at blowy and isolated Holme-next-the-Sea, eh?  That'll make it hard to pay on arrival...

Could soon become another no-go beach car park just like Llangrannog that has been "ruined" by One Parking Solution, according to all known published accounts by visitors and locals alike.

The BPA must be so proud.  It's the latest in a string of previously popular locations where people are likely to be ripped off by AOS members to the tune of £100 for daring to have a nice day out at a beach.

I believe that Tower Rd and Fistral Beaches (Newquay) were notoriously 'raped & pillaged' by a series of unfair ANPR moneymaking companies over the years and so was a beach car park in Devon. where Minster Baywatch reportedly had one dodgy machine and a fluctuating phone signal, according to the one-star TripAdvisor reviews.

I think Holme-next-the-Sea near Hunstanton can now look forward to the same TripAdvisor reputational slide and boycotting.  Time will tell.