The Prankster believes this is a realistic cost of pursuing the charge, given the costs of the unpaid ticket, DVLA costs, postage, etc.
There may be some legal loophole available to allow motorists to wriggle out, but frankly, for the sake of £12 any motorist would have to consider whether it was worth the time and effort to avoid payment.
The motorist could of course pay the Parking Ticket Appeals Service £16 to take care of the ticket on their behalf. The Prankster believes the appeals service would be silly not to pay £12 and pocket the £4.
Total Parking Solutions have no incentive in this situation to issue vast numbers of tickets. Indeed, as they are likely to make a small overall loss on issuing tickets, they have every incentive to create a car parking system which makes it as easy as possible for motorists to comply.
The Prankster notes that in the Cambridge Test case held recently, HHJ Moloney wondered what level of charge was necessary to deter motorists from breaking parking conditions.If a charge of £50 or even £10 was sufficient to deter, he mused, then a charge of £85 would almost certainly be a penalty.
ParkingEye tried to argue there would be parking chaos if they were not allowed to charge £85.
It seems like Total Parking Solutions and Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust feel that a charge of £12 is enough to encourage motorist to obey the parking requirements, and that chaos will not ensue.
The system will be going live in around 3 weeks on one site and once tested will be rolled out to the remaining healthcare centres.
The Prankster sees this as an important test case, and if landowner, motorist and parking company are all happy, a sustainable model for car parks in the future.
Other operators offer their services for free to landowners, or even pay to be allowed to enforce parking. This leads to the situation where the operator tries to issue as many tickets as possible, creates systems which are artificially hard to comply with, and labyrinth appeal systems which are unfair to motorists. This leads to dissatisfaction not only from the motorists, but also from the retail outlets themselves as they lose business to other places with less draconian parking enforcement regimes.
As an example of a system which is hard to comply with, The Prankster chooses today not to mention ParkingEye, whose hard to operate systems have been detailed before, but instead highlights Premier Parking Solutions. At Hull Docks they operate a system where the motorist has to display two tickets in their car window. The tickets have no adhesive backing.
The Prankster has seen many complaints on forums where motorists have either only displayed one ticket, or have had a ticket blown off the window onto the floor.
Premier Parking Solutions argue that motorists must display both tickets.
"This is essential in order to prevent more than one car using the separate ticket and sales receipt to try and show payment."
This is false reasoning. Premier Parking Solutions are under a duty of care to motorists and the landowner to mitigate losses. If the systems of two tickets is not working, then they are not allowed to milk this for all this is worth, but instead should explore alternative solutions. The Prankster suggest using a system which only issues one ticket, or to simply require the ticket to be displayed and not the receipt. Many other car parks successfully do this.
Premier Parking Solutions also state the following.
Tickets without an adhesive back are not a hindrance to parking. They are used by many councils and private companies alike including Humberside council and are industry standard.Hull Dock, like any coastal location, is likely to be more windy than your average car park. If Premier Parking Solutions have problems with tickets in this location then an adhesive back is indeed something they should be looking at. Using two tickets doubles the chance that one will blow to the floor.
This is a prime example of Premier Parkng Solutions trying to discharge responsibility by hiding behind the regulations, while in reality coining it in from motorists. Small changes are all that are needed, but of course, this will reduce their income from charges and hit their profits.
The Parking Prankster