Printfriendly

Tuesday, 2 February 2016

Customers desert Morrisons in droves once ParkingEye arrives

This post on moneysavingexpert describes how Morrisons has become a ghost town since ParkingEye began enforcement in the car park.

The transformation took less than a month; a once busy car park is now only half-full*

The in-store cafe which normally would be full up with about 100 people now only had 6 at lunch time.

The manager confirmed this was not unusual and that the store was often like this now.He explained that since ParkingEye started enforcement he has had many many complaints and lost many customers.

Prankster Note**

ParkingEye made it quite plain to everyone in the Supreme Court that if people didn't like their terms and conditions then they should park elsewhere. Consumers have apparently taken them at their word and have voted with their feet, at least at this store.

The Supreme Court ruled that having ParkingEye working the car park for profit was beneficial to retailers, but it seems this is not always the case. This store proves the opposite is sometimes true. Somerfield also found the need to get rid of ParkingEye, paying £300,000 to terminate their contract.  B&Q were even more desperate, forking out an estimated £400,000 to dispose of ParkingEye in a desperate attempt to stop the flow of leaving customers.

The plain fact is that it is not safe to park in a ParkingEye car park (even if you have got a watch). Their ropy technology and shoddy installations are apparent to The Prankster from the complaints he gets every day.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

* Half-empty for you pessimists
** This footnote is purely here as a tribute to Terry Pratchett



57 comments:

  1. And Somerfield never recovered, B&Q certainly isn't the busy place it once was and Morrisons near to Trouserfire Towers often has a remarkable resemblance to the Marie Celeste - ghostly, eerie, cold, frequently near empty and a profit line disappearing into the depths.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's been noted on a couple of forums that Morrisons will come out with the stock answer of "if a genuine customer has stayed longer than PE's artificial limit, then just inform the customer service desk and they will get the fake fine cancelled.
    All well and good, except you have to be a clairvoyant to know of this fact, as there are no signs in-store or in the car-park giving this information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been keeping track of what we need to park safely:

      A watch capable of displaying several time zones, including imaginary ones.

      A telescope to see the signs (with night vision).

      A crystal ball to scry the landowner appeals procedure.

      I can't wait to find out what we'll need tomorrow.

      Delete
  3. I can see the headline: "Morrisons discover that users of its car park were its customers after all".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Parking(sh)Eye(sters) homepage does brag of a "40% increase in space availability over a six month period", so in all fairness, they did warn you that they would drive your customers away.

    However, I'm not entirely convinced about the "25% increase in user satisfaction ratings when facilities are (mis)managed by Parking(sh)Eye(sters)". It's doubtful they would have got their ratings from Tripadvisor.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I got a ticket at B&Q when I was looking at a new kitchen and bathroom.

    I spent my £18,000 at Homebase instead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. B&Q will be delighted they paid eighteen big ones for an extra parking space ;)

      Delete
    2. £18,000 on a kitchen, you must be loaded and could afford the fine

      Delete
  6. I parked in a retail Park today. Site covered with maximum stay 2 hours or a parking ticket will be issued etc etc. I observed the rules and didn't get a ticket so I can't understand what the problem is unless I'm missing something? I was back within the two hours. If I was later than this I would have my self to blame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You haven't got a ticket today because they have up to 14 days to issue ANPR tickets. Just because you didn't break the conditions makes no difference to the parking companies - did you not follow the UKPC fake photograph cases?

      Delete
    2. If I get a ticket will let you know. Will keep fingers crossed then. I did follow the case your referring to but thought that was manual tickets.

      Delete
    3. I have 2 ParkingEye cases today where people visited twice and got a ticket for one long stay...and one case where the motorist visited zero times and was hundreds of miles away.

      Delete
    4. Wouldn't it help everyone by asking P E what percentage of errors such as the ones you've just mentioned occur on a month by month basis, surely it must be a fraction of a percentage? I still can't believe so many tickets are issued by mistake unless people are overstaying or doing something wrong.

      Delete
    5. Wouldn't it help everyone by asking P E what percentage of errors such as the ones you've just mentioned occur on a month by month basis, surely it must be a fraction of a percentage? I still can't believe so many tickets are issued by mistake unless people are overstaying or doing something wrong.

      Delete
    6. Don't listen to him Billy. Just because a company is built on lies and misinformation, it doesn't naturally follow that they will ignore you or provide false information. Why don't you go ahead and ask them and then get back to us? I for one will be fascinated by your reply.

      Delete
  7. Out of interest, just how accurate do you think ANPR cameras are?

    ReplyDelete
  8. not very ,, http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=104026

    ReplyDelete
  9. I can only speak for myself as someone who parks often I've never had a ticket on an anpr carpark. I would have thought 1 in 100,000 could have a technical error ie. Car blocking a number plate etc, but I don't know, that's a wild guess not based on factual information. I'm sure the parking companies would provide statistics if asked?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is very interesting. Parking companies track the error rate on their ANPR by matching cars in with cars out. If a car left but never arrived, or a car arrived then never left, this shows the plate was either missed or misread. They record this as a percentage - what percentages, as a man on the street would you think are
      1) Normal match rate
      2) Match rate at which the parking company realise that camera has an error and so should cancel all pcns that day
      3) Match rate at which you would say OMFG! If this is the real match rate these guys are jokers and this system should be banned

      Delete
  10. I have a fake number plate that I put on my car just before entering any private car park with ANPR..............Oh and the reg.Number? P155OFF

    ReplyDelete
  11. How would someone like Billy stumble across this site? Not exactly the kind of thing you enter into a search engine (unless you have fallen foul of one of the PPC's).... Just saying

    ReplyDelete
  12. I would pay no attention to Billy. He probably works for, or owns one of the big PPC's. It is like me entering 'farm tractor engine designs' into a search engine... Just because... Well I just thought I would!

    ReplyDelete
  13. What I find interesting, is when someone who sumbits a counter argument, they are accused of either working for a parking company or ridiculed which could be argued could reduce this sites credibility. This is an interesting site, but for it to to gain credibility, one must accept balanced views or opinions. My point is that again, I used a supermarket car park again today under anpr control, parked for half an hour ie. Observed their rules, and I can 100% guarantee I won't get a ticket. I use this car park almost on a daily basis,and have never received a parking ticket. I will let you know if I do though and report here. I'd report the matter to the store manager and surely it would be cancelled? My original point I was trying to make was what percentage of anpr tickets are actual technical errors? I don't know the answer to this, I would have thought very slim, but if this data was provided by parking companies, it could answer many questions. I have had tickets in the past, but only when I breach rules. I've never ever had one when I obey the rules. I don't breach car park rules anymore, but if I do, it's only myself to blame.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Still don't understand how you happened to randomly click on this site? There are millions (billions) of blogs to click on and you choose this one.
    The reason I did so, is because I have received two unfair tickets from PPC's in the past (both cancelled on appeal thanks to the excellent help from Pepipoo and parking prankster). One was a double dip and the other the signage was so small you would have had to carry around a magnifying glass and a set of 12 foot ladders. You appear to have received reasonably issued tickets in the past and, as you broke the rules you paid up. So how in God's name did you end up here?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I've been fortunate not to receive unfair tickets but I think this is down to obeying rules, though in fairness, I would be angry with myself if I do get a ticket again. The emphasis being angry with myself. I can't think of a car park where users of it genuinely don't believe any rules apply. All car parks have rules surely. As to how I got here, I read about the heavily publiced recent ruling, became intrigued and and found this site by chance. I have to admit I'm interested in Human nature and people's perception of fairness rather than parking related matters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Billy, I believe that you are a motorist and not a parking company plant. So please, what percentages, as a man on the street would you think are fair for
      1) Normal match rate (99.999%? 99% 90% 80%)
      2) Match rate at which the parking company realise that camera has an error and so should cancel all pcns that day?
      3) Match rate at which you would say OMFG! If this is the real match rate these guys are jokers and this system should be banned?

      In other words, how accurate should ANPR be?

      Delete
    2. I am a motorist that uses many private and council run car parks, some Pay and display, one anpr one in particular where I buy my groceries, but in answer to your questions,

      1) in an ideal world there should be 100% accuracy, but technical errors are bound to be a fact of life with any technology. The Crux of the issue is how technical errors can be dealt with efficiently and swiftly by a parking company. I am well aware and it has crossed my mind that if a vehicle follows very close behind me while exiting an anpr car park, could the anpr system think I haven't left and think of me as an over stayer ? I would have thought it possible to design software that can eliminate that issue ie. If the car is never picked up as leaving a car park but spotted entering it, it's obvious that there is a technical error for example.

      As to what percentage is fair, this is subject to debate as everyone has there own definition on what is perceived to be fair or not. My perception could possibly change if I received a ticket from an anpr car park if I obeyed the rules, and a subsequent appeal was dismissed. This has never occurred. That's when it's unfair, but I emphasize "IF I OBEYED THE RULES"

      2) and 3) difficult one to answer unless there is a published technical error rate .... I'm sure if known errors take place, tickets won't be issued. If the technical error rate is an insignificant percentage and appeals are made that cancel a ticket promptly I would have thought this a reasonable trade off for the ability to park and find spaces. However, I do admit and imagine it would be highly frustrating receiving one in error.

      I think it boils down to if an error occurs, how swiftly and stress free the mistake is rectified without causing undue stress by a parking company.

      Delete
    3. Hi Billy. I notice that you say "I obey the rules". The PPCs also have have rules that they are supposed to obey but frequently don't. That is where sites such as this and others help the motorists. Do they have the legal right to impose a charge against the motorist? Are their signs legal with correct planning permission?. Have they followed the correct time scale? If EVERYBODY obeyed the rules then there would be no problem but it is a two sided affair.

      Delete
    4. Billy, sorry to go all Paxman on you, but can you answer the question. I just need 3 percentages.

      1) Are you saying you believe ANPR to be 100% accurate. If, not, what is your guess as to how accurate it is?
      2) If there is a potential problem with a car park, at what percentage accuracy should charges be voided for that day?
      3) At what percentage accuracy would you recoil in shock and ask for these systems to be scrapped
      You make think it hard to answer 2 and 3, but just start at 1%. If you think its fine for cameras to only correctly 1 out of 100 vehicles, out that as your answer. If not, keep adding 1 until you are comfortable

      Delete
    5. 1) I'm simply thinking anpr is highly as accurate based on the fact I use one nearly everyday. Ive never had a ticket ever on an anpr car park while obeying the rules, though I do admit to being consciousness that if a car blocks my numberplate from behind I have a problem.

      2) any inaccuracies should be obvious to a parking company ie. If a vehicle enters, but is not detected leaving (senerio above), that sounds to me like software should pick up the fact something is wrong. Whether that justifies cancelling all tickets for the day is probably not a balanced option unless say the time or date was incorrectly set for the period it was incorrectly set.

      3) I don't know how many cars use a supermarket in a week, but say, 50,000. If there was a 1% technical error rate that would be 500 cars a week, so I can't believe an error rate is as much as 1% or I could envisage a stampede of angry customers.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. Billy, sorry to go all Paxman on you, but I just need 3 figure. Not explanations or justifications. Now, based on your answers so far, can I assume the following.

      1) You believe that ANPR is accurate to about 3 in 50,000 (99.994%)
      2) no answer yet
      3) You would consider parking companies to be scamming the public if they knowingly used ANPR which had more than 500 in 50,000 errors (1% errors - ie was less than 99% accurate)

      Is that fair of me, or do you want to change the figures?

      Also, for question 2 you have said a parking company should not cancel all charges for the day if they get one error and I agree with that. But at what percentage of match errors should they cancel?

      To define things, an error is a vehicle going in but not coming out, or vice versa. Remember also there will always be some errors because motorbikes only have one plate, so will only be detected in one direction (not that that stops parking companies from charging motorbikes who had 2 visits as if they had one long stay)

      Delete
    8. 2) sorry, I may have interpreted you previous question incorrectly.... If I've interpreted it correctly this time, the answer is:

      I suspect this is what the appeals process is about. If a parking company discovers an error it should be picked up by them if they have sufficient mechanisms in place. If any slips through the net because of error, how I understand, there is an appeal process, then an independent further appeal via popla or the IPC. It's somewhat Grey and unreasonable to set a percentage threshold to cancel all parking tickets issued on one particular day on the basis of an odd technical error taking place, unless a major technical error took place that could put doubt the validity of all tickets issued on a particular day ie. Incorrect dates, times, lighting failure having an impact on anpr cameras.

      Point 3) It depends on your definition of the word 'scam'. I don't believe a parking company intentionally sets out to do this, but using a hpyerthetical example based on errors per 50,000 cars on an anpr system, if 1% was subject to error, that equates to 500 or 26,000 errors per year which I find too high a value to think is the case. I would have reasonably assumed as a layman that if this degree of error took place on a busy car park, even if if you scaled down the 50,000 example, authorities would not stand for this.

      Point taken on your motorbike example if there is only one number plate. Do you find anpr is an issue with these and do parking companies have safeguards in place to deal with this scenario?

      Delete
    9. Billy, sorry to go all Paxman on you, but this is like getting blood out of a stone.

      We are defining an error as a car leaving but not arriving and vice versa. We are not defining an error as issuing a parking charge incorrectly. This is where I think you are getting confused. So of those "26,000" errors a year, a parking charge will only be issued where there are two errors to the same motorist on the same day/next day. The more errors that occur, the more likely it is to happen.

      So to clarify your answer to question 2, parking companies of course know there are huge numbers of errors every day, in every car park. Somehow, this does not, as you have expected, resulted in them cancelling charges.

      So, for goodness sake, please just give the figures for 1,2,3 WITHOUT the waffle.

      At that point, for which I have been patiently waiting, I can finally reveal what the real figures are, and you will realise what a great rip-off this whole thing is.

      Delete
    10. I don't wish to hold up the figures that Jeremy Pranxman is after as his thumbs are nearly crippled with RSI as it is but as for your motorbike query, the following blog might prove useful (after you have cobbled some figures together),

      http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/parkingeye-targets-motorbike-riders.html

      Delete
    11. I think I've explained as much as I believe how I see it, I think until there are hard facts as to the actual percentage of technical errors occur that may take place on anpr systems , it's anybody guess, however:

      I still can't understand how technical errors in excess of really miniscule amounts can occur on anpr sites because it would surely render private car parks unusable and this is something I don't see. Even a modest 500 cars using a car park a week with a 1% error results in 5 cars being issued with incorrect tickets per week which seems really excessive and unworkable.

      My local supermarket seems always to function correctly with a reasonably busy and free flowing parking facility, which I use on a regular basis without undue worry.

      I will let you know if I receive one in error though.

      Delete
    12. I think I've explained as much as I believe how I see it, I think until there are hard facts as to the actual percentage of technical errors occur that may take place on anpr systems , it's anybody guess, however:

      I still can't understand how technical errors in excess of really miniscule amounts can occur on anpr sites because it would surely render private car parks unusable and this is something I don't see. Even a modest 500 cars using a car park a week with a 1% error results in 5 cars being issued with incorrect tickets per week which seems really excessive and unworkable.

      My local supermarket seems always to function correctly with a reasonably busy and free flowing parking facility, which I use on a regular basis without undue worry.

      I will let you know if I receive one in error though.

      Delete
    13. 2) sorry, I may have interpreted you previous question incorrectly.... If I've interpreted it correctly this time, the answer is:

      I suspect this is what the appeals process is about. If a parking company discovers an error it should be picked up by them if they have sufficient mechanisms in place. If any slips through the net because of error, how I understand, there is an appeal process, then an independent further appeal via popla or the IPC. It's somewhat Grey and unreasonable to set a percentage threshold to cancel all parking tickets issued on one particular day on the basis of an odd technical error taking place, unless a major technical error took place that could put doubt the validity of all tickets issued on a particular day ie. Incorrect dates, times, lighting failure having an impact on anpr cameras.

      Point 3) It depends on your definition of the word 'scam'. I don't believe a parking company intentionally sets out to do this, but using a hpyerthetical example based on errors per 50,000 cars on an anpr system, if 1% was subject to error, that equates to 500 or 26,000 errors per year which I find too high a value to think is the case. I would have reasonably assumed as a layman that if this degree of error took place on a busy car park, even if if you scaled down the 50,000 example, authorities would not stand for this.

      Point taken on your motorbike example if there is only one number plate. Do you find anpr is an issue with these and do parking companies have safeguards in place to deal with this scenario?

      Delete
    14. I don't know haw Paxman has the patience
      So,
      1) 99.994
      2) A major technical error
      3) 99%

      Care to put a figure 'on major technical error' so we can finally finish this off

      Delete
    15. Can we just have halfway between 1) & 3) only I've lost the will to live also. That along with one more blow by blow account of how delicious the cakes were at the local supermarket yesterday might just finish me off.

      Delete
    16. Good evening.... the point I'm making is it has to be a miniscule percentage. How could even a small car park operate with even 1% of technical failure. There would be caos.

      Apologies for the delay, on a lighter note I'm having a heavy two to three weeks ahead of me....

      Delete
    17. The reason this is not correct is that an error does not result in a parking charge. It just means a vehicle was missed coming or going. If anything, this means a motorist might get away without a charge, if they overstayed. So parking companies don't care too much if they miss 1% of cars. In fact missing as little as this would be the holy grail. On some sites they miss a lot more than this. The trouble comes when a car visits twice and an error occurs both times. Then the operator thinks the vehicle was there for a long time and issues a PCN

      Delete
  16. How accurate are ANPR systems?
    Hmmm, let me see now. Lets just say they ain't perfect.
    And i'm working on one yet again tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Billy. ParkingEye, which relies on ANPR for 99% of its business, issue circa one million data requests to the DVLA per annum. You can be sure that the majority of these turn into Notices to Keepers. PE themselves report that 65% of tickets issued are cancelled on or after appeal. That means 650,000 motorists have had to deal with the work and anxiety in appealing their tickets, which clearly were not justified in the first place! Every time you park in a PPC operated car park, you run the risk of a ticket - whether you 'obey the rules' or not. Good luck!

    ����

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wow, I knew it was bad but 65% cancelled? They harass the vulnerable i.e the elderly into submission, many people must have paid after receiving so many letters threatening Legal action and, for those who make it that far, settling when the court papers arrive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it 65% cancelled or 65% cancelled on appeal?

      There is a difference.

      Delete
    2. 65% cancelled on appeal. To be a difference though, you would have to assume there is a difference between the circumstances of the sample set of people who appeal and people who don't.

      Delete
  19. 65% cancelled on appeal , which means that in 65% of cases no offence was committed , so why did the DVLA hand owners details out , when people had not committed any "offences"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's actually worse than that alan. PE admit to cancelling 65% but then of the remaining cases that make it to POPLA, around half of those are allowed. Obviously some appellants will cave in and pay after a PE rejection but I believe it can be reasonably assumed that around 80%ish of demands are without merit.

      As for the DVLA, 30 pieces of silver is the answer you are looking for.

      Delete
  20. No, 65% cancelled on appeal can also consist of mitigation where a parking company or council may cancel as gesture of goodwill ie. If I overstated, which is my fault, but I then appealed on grounds such as "my auntie died", "I took longer than I thought due to my dentist taking longer than he said he would" stand a chance of cancelled on mitigation. I've had a ticket cancelled using genuine mitigating grounds which pleasantly surprised me. The point I'm making is these are not technical errors, but cancelled through gesture of goodwill. That doesn't mean 65% of cases cancelled consisted of "no offense committed" I would have thought.

    What I am referring to is specifically technical error ie. Where a ticket is issued due to an anpr making a mistake, or a traffic warden not noticing my pay and display voucher if I clearly display it (which I make sure I do when using a pay and display car park). If a technical error is made, then a subsequent appeal is made which is then not cancelled by a parking company or council, I agree that would be unfair. I would simply like to know what percentage fall into this category ie. If 50,000 cars use a supermarket carpark, does 2 or 3 result in technical errors where a parking ticket could be issued even though the driver was obeying the rules? I suppose it's difficult to get this statistic, but surely a parking company would have this data I would have thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not write and ask them rather than posing the question here? Get it from the horse's mouth!

      Why don't you respond to the Prankster's questions? Please afford him the courtesy of a reply seeing as you are posting on his blog site.

      Delete
    2. private parking Cos DO NOT do mitigation , they are only there to rob people

      Delete
  21. Here's my story Billy. Might make you rethink...
    I parked at lunchtime on a Saturday in an Aldi close to where I live.
    Around seven hours later I realised I had forgotten something, so popped to Aldi again. Having been harassed by a PPC in the past, I have seen a number of double dip cases on Pepipoo, so was extra cautious.
    On both visits, I can assure you there were no vehicles anywhere near me, so Parking eye would have recorded me in at 1pm and out at 1.15pm and in at 7pm and out at 7.10pm. All approx of course.
    So knowing all of this I kept the receipts I would normally have thrown away, just in case. Both receipts were for under ten quid.
    So sure enough a week or so later I get a letter from parking eye telling me I had overstayed my welcome by about 5 hours or so. I am doing this from memory so bear with me!
    I wrote to PE explaining what had happened and that the driver (I learnt never to name yourself as the driver) had visited twice. I gave the approx times and said I had kept the till receipts.
    I told them to check and they will clearly see what had happened.
    Letter received back rejecting my claim. No mention of the two receipts. I mean wouldn't it be normal to say 'please send the till receipts'? Nope, nothing!
    Now I will admit that I didn't send the receipts as I wanted to see how they would react, knowing I could go to Aldi HQ and get it cancelled.
    When I spoke to Aldi (actually Google Aldi parking eye and Facebook- if you want to see some angry ex customers of Aldi) they were very apologetic and critical of PE. 'This is a massive headache for us'. They even set up a special dept to handle PE claims.
    So I sent the receipts to Aldi and they confirmed in writing that PE would cancel the ticket. Despite asking Aldi to chase PE, I have never had their official written confirmation, so the Aldi letter is safely stored away with all other important documents (Last will and testaments etc). The reason for this is I am pretty sure when Aldi cancel the agreement with PE and they will as soon as they have a break option, maybe sooner, then PE will drag this up again and will probably take me to court.
    The strange thing is that the store in question has no need for PE. It is not close to train stations or the High Street and there are plenty of places to park, for free, in surrounding roads any time of the day. Madness.
    Now imagine I wasn't aware of the issue and had thrown the receipts away (both paid cash so no proof of Purchase). Or if I was elderly and was scared into paying despite doing nothing wrong?
    These guys are crooks and have no morals!

    ReplyDelete
  22. A complaint to DVLA , that PE have unlawfully asked for your details is called for , along with the other 65% of PE harassed customers ,

    ReplyDelete
  23. Not all Morrisons use Paeking Lie, ours uses Euro Parking. I saw their van on the forecourt the other day, and was intrigued by the advert on the back - Let us Manage, Lease or Buy your car park - now why would a profitable store sell their car park?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I had a ticket from PE for a Morrisons store in king street Aberdeen I was there to see a charity client of mine and took ill in their cafe.
    I put in an appeal on frustration of contract as I suffer from Colitis and am diabetic and gave them a signed doctors statement connfirming my ilnesses.
    They completely ignored my appeal and asked for proof of purchase and got the fine over 35 days later and no local planning for signage displays, its day light robbery.

    ReplyDelete