DVLA - private parking consumer forum - minutes

[BankFodder]

http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/~/media/pdf/Consumer_forum/Consumer%20Forum%20Minutes%20-%20%20December%202012.ashx

 

Comments?

[johnjordan]

Seems to me the DVLA are trying to be on the side of the parking companies. Hope I'm wrong.

[Crocdoc]

The first thing that sticks out but comes as no surprise, is that the BPA seem to have taken the attitude that is our ball and we will decide who plays.

Nevertheless, even if independent representation is reduced to one member there is no reason why other individuals with an interest in this subject cannot make representation through the appointed person.

I also note barrier entry and egress has once again entered the debate, I appreciate that this method is not practical in all cases , however there are many sites nationwide where such a system could be adopted without any need to involve PPC's or the BPA. A fair charging policy could be introduced for overstays, which would solve the problem of land owners proving consequential loss.

 

Signage is another area of interest, as I am at a loss to understand how the BPA could grant dispensation to their members for a perid of 3 years to provide updated signage, surely a period of 3 months would be ample time.

 

In conclusion, it is early but it will be interesting to see how things progress

[DBC]

One thing that strikes me is about genuine pre-estimate of loss. Although this was discussed, it seems that no firm conclusions were made,especially as many PPCs can't seem to distinguish between running costs and real losses, and (more importantly) that any losses are those suffered by the landowner and not the PPC.

[Crocdoc]

One thing that strikes me is about genuine pre-estimate of loss. Although this was discussed, it seems that no firm conclusions were made,especially as many PPCs can't seem to distinguish between running costs and real losses, and (more importantly) that any losses are those suffered by the landowner and not the PPC.

 

I agree, although I think this was one of the reasons that the subject of informing people that they have recourse to the courts was raised. After all who are the BPA to set figures relating to this subject.

 

Without wishing to stray of the subject, I read a sign the other day in a Lidl's car park stating that all profits from Parking charges will be donated to an appointed charity

Far be it from me to deprive a worthy cause of a donation, Nevertheless it begs the question of how profit can be generated from genuine calculation of loss.

 

Still I suppose that It could be argued that this was only the first meeting and it will take time to address all the issues.

[DBC]

Some Tesco signs have that same notice about profits.

[peanutsallergy]

Whose side are the committee on?

"the introduction of local enforcement orders, enabling private land to be managed on statutory lines "

 

That would certainly cut through all the bull.

No doubt the government would make it exactly as every other public service now, and just farm it out to private companies.

Just give a sheriffs badge to the cowboys.

It would probably be the end of free parking, as it would mean a formal appeals procedure, and a proper body set up for it, plus the guarantee of some profit for them.

And of course more income for the government selling the contracts off.

And who's going to pay for all that?

Or the other choice, to put fences around every carpark, and put barriers in. Massive costs all round, but good money for the companies installing them, and then maintenance and repair contracts.

And we'll have to pay to park to fund it.

Or even both, and two sets of contracts the government can sell off, while putting parking costs up even more, and being able to say they're saving the world by being green and keeping cars at home.

[DBC]

Such a procedure exists in Scotland regarding disabled parking bays on private land. Under this act councils can be invited to take over the running of these bays and legally fine errant motorists. After two years or so the take-up of this scheme has been very low indeed because the PPCs don't want to lose this cash-cow.

 

Regarding barriers, most supermarket car parks do have fences or walls right round them,with one or two entrances, so they would just have to install barriers. This used to be the case in some car-parks, but they were removed after the supermarkets believed PPC propaganda about being able to "manage" car parks more efficiently.

[Surfer01]

If a supermarket introduces it, shop elsewhere!

[peanutsallergy]

Our local ones were removed as it used to cost to staff them, so that's 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, so say 3 salaries, plus sick cover, then maintenance and repair of the barrier, as it was reguarly vandalised, and also hit by the odd car, and as it was a shared entrance for the deliveries, it was fairly reguarly scraped off by the odd truck as well.

I doubt the supermarket managers were thick enough not to be able to work out what was happening in their own car parks, so I doubt the PPC convinced them of much in the end.

They probably just looked at the cost of running a barrier system, and decided it wasn't £50k to £100k a year well spent, as opposed to nothing from using a pay and display ticket machine and a PPC.

And it hasn't put anyone off shopping, as the car park is still full, as is the supermarket.

[peanutsallergy]

If a supermarket introduces it, shop elsewhere!

 

Ignoring the fact all supermarket car parks have similar PPC's, no one ever will.

 

People shop there for brand loyalty, convenience, price, number on the tills, loyalty, or just habit normally.

 

No one ever cares if the car park has a PPC that means they can drive in, find a space, and in the majority of cases drive out unmolested, as opposed to having to remember to keep the receipt handy, or grub around under the passenger seat to find your handbag, and then try to find it in your purse to show the "jobsworth" to raise the barrier. Well, unless it's the driver of the car in front doing it, then they tend to hate the barrier system.

 

I'm tending to favour the local enforcement orders, and not make them optional.

[Nev Met]

Since the DVLA meeting I have been engaged in correspondence with ANPRtech who, through their 'Park With Ease' system of parking management. have assisted the Lake District National Park to set up a somewhat radical but refreshing approach to private car parking management.

 

The director of ANPRtech (Jon) has recently given me authority (at my request) to disclose, into the public domain. a particular email in which he outlines how the Lake District National Park system is/will operate.

 

I know that sometime ago Jon tried to post the same on the MSE and got shot down in flames (which is a shame). Personally I think it is an excellent system and hope that the majority on here will see that it is a seismic change in the approach towards all car parking management where the incentive is solely focused on consumer compliance.

 

 

Hi Nev

 

I am still awaiting documentation back from our marketing company so I have jotted down some info below hope this is useful

 

After a period of using (name of PPC edited) in some of their car parks LDNPA realised that this was damaging to their reputation and their visitor numbers. They had a desire for a system that was more fair and friendly, but looking at the marketplace soon realised that such a system did not exist. They were also keen that they did not want to penalise customers, but instead drive compliance in their car parks

 

Park with Ease were approached by LDNPA to develop a friendly car park management system that provided the following:

 

· Multiple payment methods. In car park by cash/card , online

· Ability to pay both in advance or post parking event

· Ability to top up parking if not paid enough

· Ability to pay in 20 min chunks and only pay for the time used.

 

Utilising the above brief the park with ease system was born.

 

The system uses the ANPR to allow the customer to search for their own registration in a quick and easy way, within three touch’s of the screen payment can be made. All our terminals are multi language.

 

If a user chooses not to pay at the car park then they still have 48hrs to pay online via parkwithease.co.uk

 

Should after this period have elapsed the parking has not been paid, then LDNPA using DVLA data send a letter to the user informing them that parking was not paid for and requesting they pay for their parking plus a £20 admin charge. They then wait 28 days before sending a reminder letter.

 

The above system has increased payment compliance in the car park by 20%

 

It's early days so lets see how it pans out eh?

[DBC]

If you fail to pay straight away or after 48 hours, then the original fee plus that £20 is a fair and sensible charge. What about other "infringements", such as parking outside a bay or parking in the "wrong" sort of bay. How is that charge assessed?

[peanutsallergy]

Tourism is big business.

I think it has to be accepted some parking is a source of income.

(If you can't park inside a white line, compulsory re-testing? 17 years olds have to before they can pass)

[renegadeimp]

Not to mention it assumes the registered keeper of the vehicle is the "user" .

Edited February 7, 2013 by renegadeimp

[steveod]

If you fail to pay straight away or after 48 hours, then the original fee plus that £20 is a fair and sensible charge. What about other "infringements", such as parking outside a bay or parking in the "wrong" sort of bay. How is that charge assessed?

 

 

Why is £20 a fair and reasonable charge? It will be a profit not based on any loss and it's pure purpose will be to penalise for not paying the original amount. If £12 the banks, credit cards charge for overdrawing, exceeding limit etc is not fair or reasonable then this amount definitely is not.

[peanutsallergy]

Insurers can charge £50 for changing details online, so £20 sounds reasonable with DVLA fees, postage, and the actual physical letters, and the actual cost of parking.

The income is from daytrippers parking, then walking for the day. You're not going to get free in the Lake District, and I don't mind paying for a service where I can leave my car on a decent carpark, not a muddy field it'll slowly sink into.

Definitely worth an enforcement order for something like a national park otherwise, where the money is ploughed back into the upkeep of the carparks and paths.

[Surfer01]

Although there is an admin charge of £20 and it may be reasonable unless they can justify the £20 admin fee, it is a penalty and no one can impose a penalty on privately owned land.

[lamma]

Genuine pre-estimate of loss. The key question is - Who's loss ? From there things unravel.

[peanutsallergy]

Although there is an admin charge of £20 and it may be reasonable unless they can justify the £20 admin fee, it is a penalty and no one can impose a penalty on privately owned land.

 

I agree.

That's why I really like the idea to consider the introduction of local enforcement orders, and do it properly.

No bull, no messing about with a "loss", just a genuine penalty, backed by legislation, and I'm asssured of somewhere I can park my car and go walking, and accept I pay a fair charge for a day out.

And if someone doesn't, they'll simply be paying more, and subsidising me in the long run, (providing the penalties go back to the National Park) not giving profits to a PPC.

 

win-win!

 

(I just hope the committee are reading this thread)

[Surfer01]

I agree.

That's why I really like the idea to consider the introduction of local enforcement orders, and do it properly.

No bull, no messing about with a "loss", just a genuine penalty, backed by legislation, and I'm asssured of somewhere I can park my car and go walking, and accept I pay a fair charge for a day out.

And if someone doesn't, they'll simply be paying more, and subsidising me in the long run, (providing the penalties go back to the National Park) not giving profits to a PPC.

 

win-win!

 

(I just hope the committee are reading this thread)

 

I gather you are all for legitimising the PPC industry and their crooked ways?

[peanutsallergy]

I gather you are all for legitimising the PPC industry and their crooked ways?

 

If you had read what I'd actually written, I've said several times the money should go straight into the repair and maintenance of the car parks, not into a PPC's pocket. And I've also siad I don't mind paying the landowner for the service he provides.

 

I gather perhaps you would object to any scheme that could stop you parking anywhere on private land, or put in any measure of control or responsibility, and would just to like to park anywhere, free, forever, regardless of the landowner or others trying to use the land?

 

If not, just complaining endlessly about the current system without any solution achives nothing, but if you have another alternative solution you would suggest to the committee I'm sure they would welcome any constructive solutions, as we would all like to see the end of PPC's.

 

In the meantime though, full marks to the committee for trying to move things forwards.

[Surfer01]

I most certainly would object to paying a parking fee to shop at some supermarket or retail outlet. I object to paying for parking on their land when I visit the NHS hospital because I do not have a choice and have been invited by the NHS onto their land which has been paid for by the taxpayer!

[peanutsallergy]

I most certainly would object to paying a parking fee to shop at some supermarket or retail outlet. I object to paying for parking on their land when I visit the NHS hospital because I do not have a choice and have been invited by the NHS onto their land which has been paid for by the taxpayer!

 

So what's that got to do with the Lake District National Park?

 

Did you not read the thread properly, and all the subsequent threads?

 

But if you have a suggestion for either the National Park, or your shopping or NHS parking you have just brought in, post them up.

I would doubt they're the same, as you quite rightly point out now, you don't have a choice as to whether or not you go to hospital, but you certainly have a choice whether you have a pleasant day out in the Lake District.

 

Then again, I'm sure you have a choice where you shop, so that's a sort of inbetween solution.

And whether or not non car owners should be subsiding my parking at hospital, if I don't pay their bus fare.

Personally, I'm happy if the NHS doesn't let me die, so arguing over a couple of quid seems petty after that.

But's that's a grey area, so I'm sticking to posting about a tourist area, and a quite clearly for profit car park in an area that in run as a business to make a profit from tourists. And considering all I spend there is normally in the car park, it seems a fair exchange to me.

 

I suppose there's three groups in this thread, the PPC's that want to milk every motorist at one extreme, the more vocal motorist that demands free parking and always available spaces regardless of the impact at the other, and the committee in the middle trying to come to a working solution that can be legally applied on the other two.

[Crazy Diamond]

No, I think Surfer's point is that if you introduce such legislation and legitimisation for the Lake District, then it opens the door to all kind of abuse for other places like hospitals and supermarkets, as it is the same rule for everyone, so one must wonder whether it's a risk worth taking.

 

One can also wonder whether there is an inherent right for someone to charge for people to park their car, anywhere on private land. After all, is the landowner declaring that income to the Inland Revenue? What are they doing to provide this apart from owning the land in the first place, and does that give them the right to then turn it into a business venture? I;m nit saying yes or no, I'm just throwing that in the pot, so to speak.

 

Of interest to me on the notes is this:

 

there was a specific request for the PCN to contain reference to the status of the charge (i.e. to declare that it is not a fine), the independent appeals process, and the fact that the charge may only be enforced by a court.

as it pretty much confirms what we've always said, and seems to be final nail in the PPC's coffin of dubious practices, no more pretending that these charges are something else than what they are. I LIKE that.

 

Also, someone posted higher up and said this:

 

Without wishing to stray of the subject, I read a sign the other day in a Lidl's car park stating that all profits from parking charges will be donated to an appointed charity

Far be it from me to deprive a worthy cause of a donation, Nevertheless it begs the question of how profit can be generated from genuine calculation of loss.

Yes, I noticed that a while back, Athena is the name of the PPC... thing is, they don't actually say what charity, so I do wonder about the truth in this, I'd love to know if someone has actually looked into it.

 

Oh, and I also think that £20 would be outrageous and punitive in nature.