Parking Code of Practice Consultation 2025 - now let's see what happens

Car1980

There is always the option of... sucking it up.

You run a car park. Virtually everybody pays. You suck up the money lost on those that don't and add 5% to the tariffs to cover it.

Like every single retailer in the country. Nobody likes shoplifters, but shoplifters don't usually accidentally shoplift by making a mistake (Richard Madely aside 😄)

If a car park collects 95% of possible revenue, increasing it to 110% through PCNs and losing that facility isn't a loss of 10%. 

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

Whether you believe it or not, it’s true.

A cash and card flowbird, IPS, Metric terminal with keypad entry is circa £4k and Cammax terminal is £15k min depending on configuration.

Your going off subject as the exchange was about the terminal exchanging/comparing data with the ANPR camera reads

It will also only search a 12 hour window as (Im told) there would be too much data to handle if the widow were larger.

p.s The Tesco software is bespoke and out of reach for most operators. Zatpark is effectively an off-the-shelf product and more affordable (but by no means cheap).

AFAIK, almost every PPC uses Unity5's ZatPark system already? It's the industry best standard and very adaptable. PPCs have flexibility offered by Unity5, for example, ParkingEye even have an extra option for appellants to request to pay at the discount.

‘Fuzzy matching’ is in use by most (not all) operators and works for minor keying errors but not where the reg is completely different (ovs).

Obvs. Thanks for confirming. But my question is: if most are using 'fuzzy VRM matching' why are they still getting DVLA data where partial VRMs are likely matchable, is it because they can get £20 so may as well scam people?

e.g.

ChirpyChicken

Yes @Coupon-mad the majority do now use the zatpark system. 
Its a decent product tbh and far more user friendly then a lot of the other systems used.
It is very adaptable and easy to use

delabc

No need for machines at all if they allow payment on their website or app simply by the motorist keying their VRN in after they have left the car park (preferably up to 3 days later like TFL for the congestion charge). Keying in errors on the website can easily be corrected if the VRN is not recognised. In the unlikely event of the camera recording the VRN incorrectly the PPC would not be able to obtain the keeper details from the DVLA anyway (or they would get the details for a completely different vehicle.

Coupon-mad

No need for machines at all if they allow payment on their website or app.

There is because not everyone has access to apps and websites. Older and poorer people should not be digitally excluded.

Kaizen2024

Coupon-mad said:

Kaizen2024 said:

Whether you believe it or not, it’s true.

A cash and card flowbird, IPS, Metric terminal with keypad entry is circa £4k and Cammax terminal is £15k min depending on configuration.

Your going off subject as the exchange was about the terminal exchanging/comparing data with the ANPR camera reads

It will also only search a 12 hour window as (Im told) there would be too much data to handle if the widow were larger.

p.s The Tesco software is bespoke and out of reach for most operators. Zatpark is effectively an off-the-shelf product and more affordable (but by no means cheap).

AFAIK, almost every PPC uses Unity5's ZatPark system already? It's the industry best standard and very adaptable. PPCs have flexibility offered by Unity5, for example, ParkingEye even have an extra option for appellants to request to pay at the discount.

‘Fuzzy matching’ is in use by most (not all) operators and works for minor keying errors but not where the reg is completely different (ovs).

Obvs. Thanks for confirming. But my question is: if most are using 'fuzzy VRM matching' why are they still getting DVLA data where partial VRMs are likely matchable, is it because they can get £20 so may as well scam people?

e.g.

Looking online, Euro don’t use Zatpark and not all software has this functionality.

It costs more than £20 to detect, process and issue a charge, then deal with the appeal and merchant costs; so I can’t see anyone deliberately seeking keying errors.

It’s much more preferable for the motorist to stop chatting, concentrate on what they are doing (or not ask their child to buy the ticket) and enter the correct reg.

ChirpyChicken

Correct
Euro use their own in house system

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Kaizen2024 said:

Whether you believe it or not, it’s true.

A cash and card flowbird, IPS, Metric terminal with keypad entry is circa £4k and Cammax terminal is £15k min depending on configuration.

Your going off subject as the exchange was about the terminal exchanging/comparing data with the ANPR camera reads

It will also only search a 12 hour window as (Im told) there would be too much data to handle if the widow were larger.

p.s The Tesco software is bespoke and out of reach for most operators. Zatpark is effectively an off-the-shelf product and more affordable (but by no means cheap).

AFAIK, almost every PPC uses Unity5's ZatPark system already? It's the industry best standard and very adaptable. PPCs have flexibility offered by Unity5, for example, ParkingEye even have an extra option for appellants to request to pay at the discount.

‘Fuzzy matching’ is in use by most (not all) operators and works for minor keying errors but not where the reg is completely different (ovs).

Obvs. Thanks for confirming. But my question is: if most are using 'fuzzy VRM matching' why are they still getting DVLA data where partial VRMs are likely matchable, is it because they can get £20 so may as well scam people?

e.g.

Looking online, Euro don’t use Zatpark and not all software has this functionality.

It costs more than £20 to detect, process and issue a charge, then deal with the appeal and merchant costs; so I can’t see anyone deliberately seeking keying errors.

It’s much more preferable for the motorist to stop chatting, concentrate on what they are doing (or not ask their child to buy the ticket) and enter the correct reg.

Wow. There goes the consumer blame again. Rather like that post on Linkedin where a certain somebody posted that pic of a rider falling off a pushbike in order to blame Hannah Robinson. She won her case, obvs.

Kaizen2024

Well, it’s either the terminals fault or the user; and the terminal will only do as it’s told… it’s clear who’s fault it is.

delabc

Coupon-mad said:

No need for machines at all if they allow payment on their website or app.

There is because not everyone has access to apps and websites. Older and poorer people should not be digitally excluded.

OK. Provide an alternative phone number for those without internet access, like TFL do. I'm just trying to suggest a way to eliminate all the PCN's issued for overstaying, faulty keying, faulty apps and generally cutting opportunities for the PPCs to gain the system. I'm just a newcomer here and must bow to all the experts' much greater experience in this fight.