Parking Charge Notice at Decathalon

[MobileB]

The law on this is quite simple.

 

Let's use the £500.00 charge.

 

If it includes a £10.00 breakfast then the amount is reduced.

 

If it includes a £30.00 for cleaning then the amount is reduced. Etc.

 

So basically they are allowed to charge (sue) for the amount they have lost. This applies to car parking exactly the same.

 

Free parking = nothing

 

Paid for parking = amount they have lost - (perhaps) £1.00.

 

The rules are exactly the same.

 

As you are presuming that the hotel is full and therefore allowed to recover their revenue, plus recovery costs, lets say that free parking space was being used by someone who could have shopped in a store but did not do so because the space was full. Does this mean that the store can recover their lost revenue - at some stores this could run into thousands!

 

All a bit pointless this because I have read pages and pages on this stuff and no one ever convinces anyone!

[Kevin Watts]

A lets say that free parking space was being used by someone who could have shopped in a store but did not do so because the space was full. Does this mean that the store can recover their lost revenue - at some stores this could run into thousands!

 

That is actually a very good point indeed, it is the stores at the shopping centre who lose the revenue yet it is the car park operator who benefit from the revenue generated by the errant motorist.

 

Perhaps a fairer system would be that the car park operator gets the revenue from the initial contract plus the revenue from the pay and display whilst any 'fines' (don't shout, you know what I mean) that are gathered in are shared out between the stores (minus the bare bones costs of collecting them).

 

That would 'incentive-ise' the parking company to concentrate their efforts on making sure the motorists park correctly.

[MobileB]

That is actually a very good point indeed, it is the stores at the shopping centre who lose the revenue yet it is the car park operator who benefit from the revenue generated by the errant motorist.

 

Perhaps a fairer system would be that the car park operator gets the revenue from the initial contract plus the revenue from the pay and display whilst any 'fines' (don't shout, you know what I mean) that are gathered in are shared out between the stores (minus the bare bones costs of collecting them).

 

That would 'incentive-ise' the parking company to concentrate their efforts on making sure the motorists park correctly.

 

You are making an assumption that it is the operator who is gaining. The operator must be working on behalf of the landowner, how do you know that the landowner is not on some sort of revenue share?

[Kevin Watts]

You are making an assumption that it is the operator who is gaining. The operator must be working on behalf of the landowner, how do you know that the landowner is not on some sort of revenue share?

 

Quite simply I don't, but even so, if the landowner is on a 'revenue share' almost all of these private car parks are at shopping centres where the landowner rents the store units to various businesses. Therefore the problem remains, it isn't the actual stores who are being compensated for the loss of trade.

 

I've got to admit, I've done quite a bit of research over the last few days about this (having been 'mauled' on this forum) and the whole private parking business no longer sits comfortably with me.

[strikerPaul]

I have received a PCN from Excel for staying slightly over the apparent permitted time. However I was in Decathalon for all of this time buying a bike etc and forgot about the time. Has anyone else had this problem here? Also doesanyone know who is the landowner for this car park? Is it Decathalon? Any help would be appreciated as I am furious about it

 

The fact of the matter is that it is a free car park for those using Decathlon, therefore, no losses have been incurred, certainly not by Excel. Therefore under contract law, which covers the whole private car park arena, Excel are entitled to NOTHING.

 

Id personally write to them telling them this, and inform them officially that any further correspondance, other than that of a court summons, will be treated as criminal harrassment.

[Lockjaw]

lets say that free parking space was being used by someone who could have shopped in a store but did not do so because the space was full. Does this mean that the store can recover their lost revenue

 

No.

 

HTH

 

I have read pages and pages on this stuff and no one ever convinces anyone!

 

Are you sure? This:

I've got to admit, I've done quite a bit of research over the last few days about this (having been 'mauled' on this forum) and the whole private parking business no longer sits comfortably with me.

 

 

looks to me like an, admittedly rare, example of a poster who is open minded enough to ask himself why people are 'mauling' him, able to ask himself if, maybe, his position isn't as clear as he thought it was and then to do the research to clarify it for himself.

 

Maybe you should have a go.

[MobileB]

I'm not getting any further involved! I've said my bit. I just hate it when people park in bays reserved for blue badge holders and then boast they are just graffiti on the tarmac. I find anyone who can do this deserves everything that gets thrown at them.

[ChrisT70]

I'm not getting any further involved! I've said my bit. I just hate it when people park in bays reserved for blue badge holders and then boast they are just graffiti on the tarmac. I find anyone who can do this deserves everything that gets thrown at them.

 

blue badge parking abuse and disabled bay abuse is nothing to do with the excel debate though and should deffo be stopped. excel on the otherhand should not be allowed to rip off any other motorists by excessive invoicing in anyway.

[dawny1970]

That's a poor example, they wouldn't charge you 'extra' for cleaning the room because a) it doesn't need cleaning and b) the charge would simply be the initial charge of the room in any event.

 

As regards the Escel quote from the judge, they (Escel) would be able to show that if a person paid upon immediate receipt of the ticket then their costs are x amount, whereas if they have to do all the chasing and contact the DVLA then their costs will be y amount.

 

I doubt very much whether their charges are a matter of National Security and I'm sure that Escel will publish them to show that they are indeed legitimate and stop everyone speculating and complaining!

 

cost to get details from dvla £2.50, cost of 4 or 5 threatening letters £3, there you go, thats the cost to these parking invoice companies

[Walkley Dave]

I just hate it when people park in bays reserved for blue badge holders and then boast they are just graffiti on the tarmac. I find anyone who can do this deserves everything that gets thrown at them.

 

I am complete agreement with you that disabled parking spaces should be reserved for disabled people. Until she died I drove a disabled mother around and when challenged people the usual reply was "No-one was using it".

 

But unfortunately the markings are indeed graffiti - they have no meaning on private land.