Parking World

The Government Is the Problem

From JVH over at PT

For those of you unfamiliar with "housing estates" as they are called in the UK – they are usually made up of "semi-detached" houses, that is duplexes, that are positioned cheek by jowl on extremely narrow and curvy streets. The problem is that when cars park on those streets, it makes it almost impossible for deliveries, ambulances, fire trucks, and even trash collection. There simply is no room. In this case the residents petitioned the local government to do something and of course, little was done.

They took matters into their own hands and surveyed the cars that were parked there and found low and behold, that the cars primarily came from the very local authority they were asking for help. The residents want "no parking" installed in the area but I have another plan. The article infers that the government workers don't want to park in parking lots near their workplace. My guess is that is because it costs to park there and its free in the neighborhoods.

The solution – set up a residential permit area. If you have a resident permit, parking is OK, if you don't you get towed. Problem solved.

JVH

Someone disagrees

Charles DeBow, Parking Manager at State College, PA, Responds to my screed:

 I agree that the  free market should handle  this and I would rather see the market handle this than a government body. But, it just does not work that way in some cases.   I emailed you a couple weeks ago about Philly Council proposing legislation requiring private  lots to call the PD or the Parking Authority to issue a ticket before towing, it passed the other day.

Here are the minutes to the meeting where it was publicly discussed… testimony starts on 17.  Philly has regulated the towing and it still has a major problem.  The Lieutenant nailed it by saying that the tow company is "judge, jury, and executioner."  Yes technically the market would handle this, as the likelihood of the customer returning to that business is small,  but what about the $150 or so fine, the inconvenience of this single trip and the aggravation . Does that not warrant regulation?  

Now back to State College..just this morning I had a citizen in my office..quick rundown…drove car to laundry mat..loaded up 6 washers and went around the corner to get a bite to eat. In the meantime a Private Enforcement Person(don't know what to call them yet) comes, sees a car in the lot but no one in the laundry mat, issues ticket. Man comes back to find ticket, assumes it's  from my legitimate department, complains to me. I have no answer for him. He cannot appeal it and they do send them to collections. Would you risk a credit report ding for $15? No, so you pay it. Is that fair?  You argument is that he will not go to that laundry mat again, well in a place like State College where a few own a majority of the property, you don't have too many choices.  All I want is a fair process, the same process that the public demands my department to have. What would the public do if I closed my offices, provided just a p.o. box to pay, never returned a phone call and then told my officers that that all rules and regulations are not in play anymore, just write as many tickets as possible tickets? That is what they are doing.

I know we could argue this forever, but it's a good discussion. We claim on the public side that parking enforcement should be done to get compliance but yet we don't want to impede on the private lots right to make money. I  agree that in private pay parking lots the ability to issue a ticket is a needed tool. But it's the non-paying lots that cause the problems by the private firms and tow companies.  At least in a pay lot you can say you "didn't pay " or " you overstayed" .

I think the industry forgets that many of the people  on the public side of the industry deal with non-paying lot issues as much as the pay lots. If all parking was paid for then I would have a much easier job, because I could look at the guy sitting across the desk from me and say did you "not pay or did you overstay". CDB

Being the blogger I get to respond: The Laundromat issue isn't one with the company writing the citations, its for the company who owns the laundromat. It would seem that the exact problem would happen often. I understand that the laundry owner needs to protect his parking, but also he needs to protect his customers. It would seem the conversation would go like this: "I did six loads of wash, spent 12 bucks with you, went next door for a bite, and I got a ticket –What are you going to do about it?" The problem is that the lot is not properly controlled. What if I parked there with my wife, we went in to do our laundry. You parked there and went for lunch. The citation writer would see two people in the laundry, assume they were in the two cars, and you would have parked for free. The Laundry owner needs to get his act together. JVH

A Private Matter…Towing or Theft

Pete Goldin blogged below about the nanny state in Scotland considering "Regulating" what a person can do on their private property. In this case, it's how they run their private businesses, to wit, parking. There is outrage (Brits get outraged over everything, its like there is no mild pique or low anger, it's nothing or outrage.) over the fact that private parking companies are issuing tickets to people who don't pay or who overstay the amount of time they bought. And, shudder, they aren't regulated. They can charge whatever they want. OMG

My knee jerk reaction is of course, so what. It's their business and if they want to chase away customers by overcharging or by threatening them with fines, booting, and towing, so be it. What business is it of the government what a private firm does on its own land. It would seem to me that the free market should take care of this problem. A few stories in the local paper, a TV 'expose' and a couple of pickets and my guess is that the problem would be solved.

All that having been said, there is a limit. Most municipalities require that clear signage be in place so that people know what they are getting into. If you park at an airport and leave your car longer than a certain time, it's at risk of being towed and sold. There doesn't seem to be any outrage about that. There's the case Peter loves to tell of the woman who left her Range Rover on the street and returned two months later to find a letter with a check in it for £2500 and a note saying the local authority had impounded her car for illegal parking and sold the 50,000 vehicle for "what they could get" and enclosed was the remainder after fines and fees of £750 were paid. Where's the outrage there. Well, she was a tad piqued, but then…

In most cities in the US you can't tow a vehicle unless there is a clear sign noting that you will do so and a number you can call to find your errant ride. Seems fair.

Now about "ticketing," I just parked in front of a sign that says "You will be immobilized and charged £100 if you don't pay the fee." What do I expect to happen?

The outraged Scots, Pete, and Charles from PA are worried that there is no sign and that towing companies indiscriminately tow vehicles that HAVE paid or aren't breaking the rules. I suggest the police arrest the tow truck driver and charge them with Grand Theft Auto. A couple of those arrests should slow down the process. And Oh, if someone sends me a bill for parking on their property who says I have to pay it?

It's just difficult for me to believe that a parking facility owner would sanction improper ticketing or towing. They would be, it seems, the first to cry foul and call the cops when things were getting out of hand.

I just hate it when our first reaction to a problem is to pass a law.

San Francisco had this problem a few years ago. They went after the tow truck drivers. A couple of people accused them of stealing their cars. I think the problem went away after that.

Just Saying…

JVH

McHomer Simpson Rules

Highlands and Islands Airports limited run eleven of the smallest airports in the UK, in the Islands way up in the North of Scotland. They have a £1.1m hole in their budget and they are proposing to fix this by charging £3 a day for parking at some of their airports. The response to proposals to charge at Stornoway on Lewis from Comhairle nan Eilean Siar the local council is to propose to build a park and ride site presumably to compete with the airport. Now local councillors have condemned the airport's plans saying that it "would unfairly target local residents and businesses". Well Duh! You're on an island, who else is going to be parking at the airport except locals? Council leader Angus Campbell said the council should investigate a park and ride scheme with a shuttle bus, powered by renewable energy. OK; so the aforesaid council, which has just gone through a cost cutting exercise itself is going to spend magic money to stop the nasty airport charging to use a facility that only some of its travellers use. Inevitably if this happens the airport will cover the gap some other way; perhaps by charging the airlines higher fees that go on everyone's ticket, plus of course some extra admin costs. Doh! By the way did I mention that there was an election coming? Cynical Moi?

We can spell “Customer Service”!

Well it looks like Iceland has got its revenge on the rest of Europe for daring to ask them to pay back the money that they owe us when their dodgy banking system went pop. They turned on a volcano and closed Europe down for a week with a cloud of dust.

The whole European Meteorological community agreed that this dust could bring down planes, it's already happened before; and so planes stayed on the ground. We did of course have a regular feast of pontificating idiots including some people who run airlines, who knew better than the scientists and said the no-fly rule was unnecessary/bureaucratic/too cautious and planes should be allowed to fly. As far as I could see these weighty judgements were formed on the basis of knowing dam all about anything but not being afraid to express an opinion on that basis. I wonder if the airline boss who was so sure that there wasn't a problem would have been quite so keen to speak out if one of his planes had gone down.

Anyway, the customer service thing. BAA, who operates Heathrow, and other airports, and Gatwick and Luton, have all announced that they will not charge passengers for the extra parking that they have used. Indeed at one site staff apparently just waved drivers through without taking any payment at all. Did the airports have the right to charge? They certainly did but they can spell customer service, and didn't make a bad situation worse. Well done out there.

Thanks Dad!

Britain is a small Island with much of the infrastructure pre-dating the automobile and so parking in our cities is often a pain. This can be particularly galling when some special event such as a wedding or a funeral means that you want to be able to get a car right outside your house on a particular day at a particular time. Brighton resident Jonathan Brookes knew the problems and was determined that on his daughter's wedding day she would be able to step straight into her limousine for the drive to church.

 

His plan was simple. He mixed flour, water and yellow food dye and painted double yellow lines (no parking) on the street outside his home the morning of the wedding. It worked! The markings stopped anyone parking there and when the Limo pulled up the father of the bride was able to hand his daughter Louise straight into the Limo. I have no idea how many laws Mr Brookes broke, he probably could have got arrested under anti-terrorism laws since the mix "might have contained anthrax" but, good for you dad, good for you. The flour mix will wash away next time it rains and who can read this and not smile?

A Financial Crisis; You Think?

In the UK parking fines are set in bands, the highest being £100. Councils can apply to the government to set the fines level according to local needs. In Scotland Glasgow has just announced plans to go up from £60 to £100 bypassing the £80 band. Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh are set to follow. The City claims that the current £60 fine isn't enough to cover increases in the cost of equipment, staff salaries and fighting appeals. The City Council is already in trouble for not dealing with widespread abuse of disabled badges where hundreds of motorists park free using illegal badges but, with this latest move, the effluent has really hit the fan.

Let's just look at the reasons given for the rise. Increases in the costs of equipment and salaries; hmm; equipment maybe, but by two thirds, I think not. Since the little problem with the banks salaries have barely moved so that might justify a couple of percent, no more. The cost of appeals? Stop issuing bad tickets and people will stop appealing them. More pertinently Robert Booth, Glasgow City Council's director of land services, said:"The deterrent isn't what it used to be. It is something that has to be increased."Perhaps this is true but perhaps dealing effectively with the disabled badge problem first (a crime and one for which the courts could seize the offender's vehicle) might just sit better with the tartan army. Oh by the way the four councils mentioned above made about £15m from parking tickets last year.

Getting away with murder (almost)

From Peter Guest:

An American who has lived in the UK for 12 years is just about to have a new experience. He is going to jail for three months. James Hudson parked his car in Northampton recently. When he returned his payment had run out and local parking attendant Tomasz Cegielski was writing him a ticket. According to the evidence given in Court Mr Hudson then swore at Mr Cegielski and threatened to kill him before getting into his car and knocking the parking attendant down and then driving off, leaving the parking attendant knocked out with a bleeding head and swollen ear.

Mr Hudson was sentenced to three months in jail after admitting to dangerous driving and failing to stop after an accident where injury was caused. It seems to me that yet again the motorist got off lightly for a serious attack on a public servant which could have so easily ended up much worse. Why no prosecution for the assault, why no prosecution for the injury? It seems as if the technical and lesser motoring offences took precedence over the attack on Mr Cegielski, it's just wrong.

A Private Matter

The Scottish government is currently deciding whether to raise parking fines from £60 to £100, and many Scots are outraged. But this fine increase applies only to public parking. I think penalty's for parking violations on private land should outrage the UK public even more.

"If you park on private land without permission (or stay longer than you paid for, for example, in a shop car park), you might get sent a notice telling you to pay a parking fine," explains adviceguide.org sponsored by the Citizen Advice Bureau.

"This might look like an official fixed penalty but it isn't one," the site continues. "It's a notice that they intend to take you to court for trespassing, and will offer to let you pay some money to settle the case out of court. This isn't a criminal matter."

Part of the problem may be a confusion between public and private parking penalties, and some private parking companies are taking advantage of this confusion.

"Private car parks certainly do make penalty charges - it is unregulated activity and is a bit of a scam," explains Paul Watters, Head of Public Affairs of the UK's Automobile Association. "It's considered a private matter - civil law - a contract you enter into by seeing signs when you enter a private car park. Penalties can be up to £120."

"Our general view is that the punishment should fit the crime and often it is way in excess of that – especially in private car parks," Watters adds.

"It's not the ability of private companies to issue tickets in itself that's a problem, more the almost entirely unregulated, unstructured system which puts unnecessary power in potentially unscrupulous hands," says Martin Lewis on MoneySavingExpert.com. "Even where the company whose land your parking on is legitimate, often they employ third-party management firms to run their car parks, with apparently little scrutiny of their methods."

While there is currently no independent appeal process for parking fines on private land, the UK government is considering a parking appeals panel – which did not make it into the recent Crime and Security Bill. There has been some progress, however, because the bill now requires licensing for clamping companies operating on private land. Progress, but not enough.

"While there is a clear need for parking enforcement on private land to deter unsociable parking, it is vital that operators are working in a reasonable and transparent manner, which is what these measures will deliver," says Patrick Troy, Chief Executive of the BPA.

"We look forward to working with the next government to implement a robust appeals process that will guarantee a fair and straight-forward channel for the motorist and the operator alike," Troy adds. "We are, however, disappointed that the Act does not go further and introduce an appeals service for the whole sector including companies who ticket unfairly."

Let's see some more outrage out there!

 

Pete Goldin

From Point A to Point A

I am following up my last blog on carsharing in Australia with another interesting point, brought up by Cristina Lynn, Managing Partner, Parking Consultants International.

"I was talking to a potential customer of this service, and he was telling me that from his research the biggest issue he has with the carsharing companies is that you have to drop the car back to the original collection point," says Lynn.

Lynn points out that some carshare customers, like commuters for example, may only want to use the car to get from point A to point B. She say it would make more sense to allow the user to drop off the car at point B, rather than have to park the car for a period of time and then take it back to point A.

"This would then mean you don't have to pay for the rental while the car is parked – as well as the parking fee!" Lynn adds.

This made a lot of sense to me, so I checked into it. Turns out the carshare companies have given this concept a lot of thought, but it is not a simple issue.

"One-way trips is of course something that has been considered from the early days," says Gregory Giraud in Members Relations at Flexicar, one of the leading Australian carshare companies. "It does make a lot of sense, however, it is complex and challenging to implement. We'd need several parking spaces at the same location and a complex booking system to be able to juggle between bookings, members, locations and cars, but also some staff to relocate cars on a daily basis."

My guess is that solving this parking issue will be critical to the growth of carsharing in Australia.

Pete Goldin