Printfriendly

Sunday, 7 September 2014

The Grace Period is not a Free Parking Period

Following yesterday's blog post The Prankster has had an interesting email from Mr James de Savary, which he prints below as a right of reply. The Prankster will always allow parking companies the right of reply if they wish to take him up on this - simply email to prankster@parking-prankster.com.

In a nutshell, Mr Savary has pointed out, and The Prankster agrees, that the grace period is not a free parking period. It has a specific purpose which is to allow the motorist to park, acquaint themselves with the conditions of parking, and then choose to stay or leave. It is not a five minute free for all where a motorist can nip off to buy something, post a letter, or in general leave the car park to do anything else.

A motorist can choose to risk doing this, but then they also run the risk of getting a ticket.

The BPA code of practice states
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still
allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
The particular car park is used by many extremely short-stay visitors and so would suffer a significant loss of revenue if all motorists who wanted to nip into the shop for a few minutes decided not to pay the 40p charge. The attendant, who is uniformed, is therefore instructed to issue tickets to all motorists who leave without paying, and is also instructed to check all pay machines first and to make a detailed witness statement regarding the event.

The Prankster considers this to be reasonable behaviour.

Obviously in this particular case the accounts of motorist and attendant differ considerably. The Prankster advises whichever party is 'doing a Huhne' to reconsider and come clean.

Mr De Savary's email is reproduced below.

---

Further to your recent blog regarding the Parking Charge Notice issued in ’12 seconds’ that we issued, I just thought I would drop you a note to give you a little back ground to the car park and my involvement in parking. I want to make it clear that I am not against what you do and in fact I believe that ‘online publicity’ such as yours can help to improve the industry. The objective of this email is to introduce myself, give you some information on Jengers Mead and how we operate the car park. You can then draw your own conclusions and of course send me any of your comments should you wish!

I am not soft to negative publicity so this is not a pleading email, you will draw your own conclusions. I just want to bring some facts to light about Napier and how I run the organisation.

I first became involved in the parking industry after possessing a car park with a property that I owned. That car park was free and I was the unpopular individual who introduced charges! I was not happy with the service that I received from an operator at the time and decided that if we ran the operation ‘in house’ we could have greater control. So Napier was established. Since 2006 we have grown quite substantially and the main focus of my business is to purchase land in order to run a commercial public car parks.

Jengers Mead Car Park is a property that we have owned since 2007 (or thereabouts). The car park has about 20 or so ‘on street’ type spaces and a larger car park to the rear of the shops, there are various access roads that we also own.

The car park used to be free and then we introduced charges, which as I am sure you are aware is generally not popular. The car park is critical to the village and we have always recognised this and have tried to keep the charges as reasonable as possible.

We charge;
Up to 20 minutes – 40p.
Up to 1 hour – 80p.
Up to 2 hours - £1.20.
And so on up to about £3 a day.
Permits £120 a year.

I personally feel this is not excessive.

There are 3 pay stations prominently placed evenly through the car park. There are signs approximately every 3 spaces in the ‘on street’ type areas. It is a well signed location.

We have engaged with the local community partnership and I have also invested in refund vouchers for the shops and made funds available to do a ‘refund scheme’ where shoppers can get deals for example in local shops. The idea to encourage people to pay and to reduce the impact of the charges. Some have been willing to engage but for many the parking is not an issue, despite what you read online.

We get quite a bit of negative feedback because a large number of visitors are only visiting for a short period of time. Perhaps only a few minutes, say to buy a sandwich or post a parcel. And we do insist that people pay and display even for these short visits. However a number do not (not many), I think they think, oh I will only be a few minutes they wont catch me or I am not paying if I am going to be less than 5 minutes. My view is that our product is parking and we charge for this. We therefore issue a few tickets to people in relatively quick time.

However I want to be perfectly clear that if someone is reading the signs and decides to leave or is in the process of buying a ticket, we will not issue them with a Notice. We will if someone parks and then goes about their business (out of the car park). We do therefore fully comply with the BPA grace period element, and we have had this raised before both with POPLA and the BPA and the BPA have always been satisfied with position when a complaint occasionally arises. The attendant is uniformed and does not ‘hide’ he is not incentivised and to be honest I would love it if everyone paid and displayed and then I could move him elsewhere! However people don’t, they begrudge our charges and risk it. Many returning directly to their car with goods purchased and the excuse, oh I just went for change, getting in their car and driving off. Clearly trying to deprive us of the small parking fee that we are entitled to.

Every Notice issued is quality checked and if there was any underhand behaviour we would know about it. I am sure the odd mistake happens but rarely and if we are aware of a mistake the Notice is cancelled.

The parking attendant also makes a witness statement for each ticket issued so we know where the driver went, how long they were and any interaction with our attendants. This helps us greatly with appeals.

There are some who would say that we should give 5 minutes. However as the majority of users are only making a short visit this would cost us hugely.

Before we chose a pay and display system for this location we looked at a barrier solution, however that doesn’t work, there are too many rights of access and adjoining properties, deliveries etc… So not only are their operational constrains there are also legal issues.

We have had the likes of Parking Eye attempting to get their hands on it, they would have a field day given the number of people who get away with not paying. However I have opted for a chap on the ground from time to time. A softer approach perhaps. Please I am not keen on the ANPR systems at the moment.

In respect of the incident that you reported, I have tried to match it with our records and I believe given the timings that I have. The gentleman was looking to make a quick stop in order to get something for his eyes. I believe the Chemist or relevant shop is just on the ‘High Street’ he was only going to be a couple of minutes as posted on the forum.

Our attendant saw the man park walk past the pay station and out of the car park, he was not reading the signs or deciding to stay or go. He went about his business. He then returned directly to his car at 1512hrs got in his car and left at 1513hrs. He was gone a couple of minutes and it is highly probable that he completed his business as he intended. How he has stated it on the forum is not factually correct and he is simply trying to get an angle together in order to escape paying. After all I bet he paid for the eye ointment that he purchased. Before issuing the ticket the attendant checks to ensure there is no voucher or permit displayed he then checks the pay stations, signs etc… to ensure that someone is not purchasing a ticket. In this case there was no ticket displayed and the attendant had observed the driver leave the car park.

The 12 second parking period is only detailed on the ticket for the purposes of satisfying the Protection of Freedoms Act. It is as you are aware necessary for all Notice to Drivers to refer to a parking period, the Act does not specify the min or max. So it is just to tick that box in case a Judge scrutinises the relevant section. In reality the driver was probably parked for around 4-5 minutes and made no effort to read signs or pay, he simply left the car park on his own business and we issued him with a ticket correctly. I doubt anyone can agree that he found the 40p charge too much and decided to leave?

I have not set the business up to make a quick buck. We have made serious investments in the industry and want to do things the ‘right way’ in many areas we have created a car park where none existed and invested in derelict sites for the benefit of local areas. We park many thousands of cars and have lots of happy customers who find our facilities well run and good value. I am not out to have our operatives issue loads of Parking Charge Notices, if I was I would install ANPR and cameras at all our sites and have a healthy income from that. However we will issue them and enforce them if necessary.

I do find it discourteous when people park on our land, land that in some cases we have invested millions in and think they can get away without paying. Motorists should take a moment when parking to just look around and make sure they park correctly, especially if they are new to an area.

For your info we have had 36 POPLA appeals decided to date for Jengers Mead Car Park. Of those 33 were rejected (in our favour) and 3 were accepted. So we must be getting something right…?

I hope you have found this email of some interest and am always happy to engage on the topic of parking.

Yours sincerely

James de Savary
Managing Director
Napier Parking Ltd


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Saturday, 6 September 2014

Napier Parking issue ticket for 12 second stay. James De Savary and Mr Nicholas De Savary must take action

[Update 7-9-2014. Mr James de Savary has replied regarding this incident which should be read together with this blog]

[Update 25-9-2014 Napier cancelled the ticket]

This post on Pepipoo details how a motorist got a ticket even though they decided not to use the car park.

The motorist needed to shop quickly for one item, so on arriving at Jengers Mead Car Park, Billingshurst, he immediately checked the signs for the terms and conditions. The car park was operated by Napier Parking. This was his first visit as he was unfamiliar to the area. He decided the car park was too expensive for a short stay so returned to his car to find that a ticket was already being issued.

He explained to the attendant that he had decided not to park there but the attendant said the ticket was already issued and walked off.

The driver's own watch read 15:08 on entry to the car park - he checked it because he was worried he was late for an appointment. The ticket was issued at 15:09:19 and the attendant first observed the car 15:09:07 - a stay of 13 seconds.

This is clearly against the BPA Ltd code of practice.
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still
allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
The Prankster therefore suggests the motorist contacts the BPA and his MP to complain, as well as appealing to Napier once he gets his Notice to Keeper. The BPA can be contacted on aos@britishparking.co.uk.

Jengers Mead Car Park, Billingshurst is owned by owned by Jengers Mead Car Parking LLP, which is owned by Mr James Nicholas John De Savary and Mr Nicholas Charles De Savary. The owners of Napier Parking are also Mr James De Savary and Mr Nicholas De Savary.

The Prankster has no idea who these two gentlemen are, but if their idea of running a legitimate car parking operation is to allow a grace period of 18 seconds then they are obviously disreputable shysters up to no good. It seems they have form for allowing their parking attendants to ignore the BPA code of practice. In August 2013 one ticket was issued after 9 seconds and the driver was banned from further use of the car park after disputing the ticket. Another driver thought the attendant must have been hiding behind a hedge. A disabled driver was issued a ticket having left the car for 3 minutes - not enough time to buy a ticket and return.

This local shopkeeper is well aware of the car park's reputation.

Mr James De Savary and Mr Nicholas De Savary will therefore be well aware of the predatory practices of their attendants - or if they are not, should be. The Prankster therefore eagerly awaits the news that the attendant and all people involved in issuing these tickets and deciding appeals will be disciplined.

If not, then the Prankster questions whether they are fit and proper people to own and run a car parking company. We could for instance, compare them to the likes of David Taylor, who used to own ParkingEye, Simon Renshaw-Smith of Excel Parking or Kevin MacManus of AS Parking.

Oh wait...it looks like they have all the right qualifications after all.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster






Friday, 5 September 2014

More Hospital woes. John Simpson from University Hospital of North Staffordshire insults disabled patients

The Parking Prankster has seen this report from the Stoke Sentinel.

One criteria for qualifying Blue Badge is that walking more than 50 yards causes pain. The disabled parking bays at University Hospital of North Staffordshire are indeed less than 50 yards from the hospital entrance...but there are no ticket machines near the disabled bays. Motorists are then faced with a walk of over 100 yards to get a ticket and return to the car. One motorist reports so many machines are out of action he often has to walk half a mile. This obviously cases great problems for disabled drivers.

When asked to comment on the problem Director of Corporate Services, John Simpson made this fatuous remark;
We now allow blue-badge holders to park for an extra 30 minutes free of charge to allow for increased journey times to and from hospital buildings and there are an additional 23 disabled car parking spaces.
We have to balance the needs of patients, visitors and staff – and 20 per cent of our public spaces are dedicated to blue-badge holders.
A particular blight in this country is the increasing numbers of bureaucrats and politicians who think they can get away with pre-canned remarks which have nothing to do with the question asked or problem posed. Allowing Blue-badge holders extra time does nothing to alleviate the problem. Nor does allocating more spaces. The problem is (stated in words as short as possible for John Simpson's benefit); the hospital is making disabled drivers walk too far. (Sorry about 'hospital' and 'disabled' John; I couldn't find suitable shorter words). The Prankster regards John Simpson's remarks as an insult to the intelligence of his customers; the patients.

If John Simpson is worthy of his job (The Prankster does not want to judge him on one ill-considered remark) then he will doubtless do something about the actual problem rather than spouting meaningless hot air.

The Prankster suggests one or more of the following:

1) Suspend all charges on disabled motorists until the problem is solved
2) Or, actually comply with the new government guidelines and provide free parking for disabled motorists
3) Supply new pay machines sited at the disabled bay
4) Or move the existing pay machines to the disabled bay
5) Provide park-by-phone and/or park-by-app at no extra cost so that disabled motorists with phones/smartphones can pay without leaving the car. Put the signage at the disabled bays at a low height.
6) Provide pay-by-pc at no extra cost so that disabled motorists with computers and internet access can pre/post-register and pay at home either before or after parking. Put the signage at the disabled bays at a low height.

However, the Prankster notes the whole scheme seems to be pay-and-display which is wholly inappropriate for hospitals anyway.

So...

7) Scrap pay and display and move to a pay on exit model.

As it seems STAND are gearing up to sue the hospital, John Simpson could save a great deal of money by implementing one or more of these steps.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


Burton Hospital FoI cock-up. They want to make it clear ParkingEye is gouging patients at £420,000 a year

This rather panicky email went out from Burton Hospital, probably as a result of the Prankster's previous blog and the resulting media attention.

Further to our response to your FoI request regarding a list of suppliers whose total invoices totalled more than £25,000 in any one month of 2014, it has come to our attention that we released the wrong information in our response.  After reviewing all the information, we can now confirm that our parking contractor's invoices amount to less than £7,000 a month.   We apologise for the error and any inconvenience caused.
The revised figures pan out as follows

£7,000 a month leads to the motorist being gouged for £35,000 a month, or £420,000 a year.

This of course is still a sizable chunk of money, and does not change any of the underlying premises. Had the Prankster stated that initially that motorists were being gouged for £420,000 a year, the problem would still remain. The Prankster is therefore happy to repeat the concerns:

The government has stated it does not want hospitals to use Parking operators who provide their services for 'free' and this hospital shows why. Vulnerable motorists are being gouged at an alarming rate.
Burton hospital signage has been described as especially confusing. These figures show why. It is of course an advantage for ParkingEye to confuse motorists because this means they can issue more parking charges. It is perfectly possible to run a hospital car park without confusing motorists but this would generate little or no revenue for ParkingEye. Bristol Eye Hospital is a perfect example of this where an FoI request showed no tickets were issued for overstays in a three month period. ParkingEye would go bankrupt if were constrained to operate in a fair manner as exemplified by this hospital.
Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Wednesday, 3 September 2014

ParkingEye make over £1.5 million a year from patient misery at Burton Hospitals

[Update 05/09/2014 Burton Hospital's admit to cock-up when they released FoI figures]

A FoI request has revealed that ParkingEye are invoicing Burton Hospitals at a rate of over £25,000 a month. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. The FoI request also states this is a VAT only invoice, which means that ParkingEye are issuing invoices to motorists at the rate of over £125,000 a month or £1.5 million a year. As the FoI only states the invoices are over £25,000 a month the true figure could be even higher.

The government has stated it does not want hospitals to use Parking operators who provide their services for 'free' and this hospital shows why. Vulnerable motorists are being gouged at an alarming rate.

Burton hospital signage has been described as especially confusing. These figures show why. It is of course an advantage for ParkingEye to confuse motorists because this means they can issue more parking charges. It is perfectly possible to run a hospital car park without confusing motorists but this would generate little or no revenue for ParkingEye. Bristol Eye Hospital is a perfect example of this where an FoI request showed no tickets were issued for overstays in a three month period. ParkingEye would go bankrupt if were constrained to operate in a fair manner as exemplified by this hospital.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Tuesday, 2 September 2014

Picture of the Week - opportunity for entrepreneur

Parking spaces are at a premium at Chorley Towers, headquarters of notorious firm ParkingEye as well as other companies. Cars are all over the place, on the pavements, in disabled bays without blue badges and double parked. The landowners have missed a trick by failing to employ ParkingEye to clean up the mess.



No doubt a budding entrepreneur can cash in on the situation. They could probably make a few grand a week just from issuing tickets to cars parked in disabled bays. The Prankster is of the opinion that blue badges are not valid on private land and that the Equalities Act 2010 also applies to people without blue badges. However, POPLA does not seem to agree with him so a few well-placed signs stating only blue badge drivers can park in disabled bays should start the ball rolling.

Interested opportunists should contact pinkus.co.uk to place their bids.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Normal Service Will be Resumed

The Prankster is away for a while helping to improve animal accommodation at the Ham and Miao shelter. (Ham is equivalent to 'woof' and has nothing to do with pigs!)

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Romanian-Rescue-Dogs-Support-Scotland/1380540758884810

Internet access may be slow and flaky so emails may take a while to respond to - normal service will be resumed as soon as possible!

Donations for building materials will no doubt be gratefully received by the organisation (paypal Romaniandogsscotland@outlook.com) although The Prankster has no great talent for building, having once unwittingly created a fountain in his living room,and will probably be consigned to the more menial tasks.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster