Parking Code of Practice Consultation - now EXTENDED - closes Friday 26th September

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.

Car1980

Kaizen2024 said:

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.

That's preying on human error though.

It's like me saying you owe me £100 because you failed to place an apostrophe in the possessive word "terminal's".

Kaizen2024

Not really, as I have not agreed to either use the correct punctuation or pay a charge. If I had, I would either not type anything or be more careful. 

And If the forum were to incur costs as a result of my poor punctuation (can’t think of an analogy for admin, software, DVLA and postage costs); I would feel it only fair that I contributed towards those costs as it was my bad not the forums i.e why should the forum pay for my mistake.

P.S no one is ‘praying on human error’, there is no profit in the £20 🙄

Car1980

"I wouldn't make an error if I knew I must not make an error" isn't really how the world works though is it?

And exposing yourself, as a business, to a constant threat of incurring costs doesn't sound a great business model. 

You're either losing money because of motorists' stupidity, breaking even despite their stupidity or making money from their stupidity. 

Which is it?

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

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.

Not true.

But let's stay on topic please.

Le_Kirk

Kaizen2024 said:

Basically, it’s never going to happen.

But it already does, my local hospital, the railway station and a large car park in the centre of town!

ParkingMad

Kaizen2024 said:

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.

Terminal issuing ticket before user has finished entering VRM.

https://youtube.com/shorts/FthD--xZARw?feature=share

Thorndorise

Castle said:

Le_Kirk said:

I made the point that the PPC knows the VRM of every car in the car park, otherwise they wouldn't be able to ask DVLA for keeper details and should therefore, at their PDT or payment app stage be able to match a VRM with the details input by the motorist and, if different, do not allow the motorist to continue until the VRM is corrected!  Of course, that way no PCNs can be issued!

This assumes that the VRM was correctly recorded in the first place by the PPC's ANPR camera; it is also possible that the vehicle was missed entirely when it entered.

I've seen plenty of sites that actually use proper ANPR with video capture that allow you to enter your VRM, then the matches to the closest (ideally yours) with the image...that removes the issue with them not checking - and I don't really think too onerous on the user either?

Just a thought - I don't but Kaizen's comment that the terminals are few and far between or prohibitively expensive (it's not like they haven't got stacks of cash to 'reinvest' into sites is it)!!!