Leeway requested for honest parking mistakes

Some programmes need to be revised like Payment Protection Insurance, perhaps rather than shelved completely.

10:37 12 July 2013

Concern over the treatment of legitimate parking mistakes has spawned a little debate. Some feel the same mistakes are made by individuals, while others feel that the appeal process needs to be simpler and should be easier to understand. Probably no-one wants to entirely do away with the ticketing process, but many feel there needs to be more leeway where honest mistakes are concerned.

When the Payment Protection Insurance issue happened, some of the companies apologized and explained there had been confusion. Many people recognized the value of the insurance and did not want to do away with it entirely, but agreed the process for selling it should be modified. Here are a few of the modifications that were made to ensure customer satisfaction:

• Clearer guidelines—customers should now have clearer understanding of who qualifies to sign up for Payment Protection Insurance, and what circumstances might entitle them to file a claim. They should understand that there is usually a waiting period before being able to submit a claim, and the benefit is limited to a certain amount of time, typically twelve months.

 

• Improved sales—one of the biggest complaints regarding the Payment Protection Insurance situation was that customers felt they did not have an option and that it was required, or that they did not know the cost. The sales methods being used have been regulated so that customers are not pressured into a purchase by unrealistic company sales goals.

 

• Dispute options—when people began to question some of the Payment Protection Insurance amounts, there was a lot of media attention given, and as a result, many people are aware of their dispute options, which reduced the risk to the consumer.

 

• Financial awareness—many people now realize that they might never have benefited from the Payment Protection Insurance simply because they did not meet eligibility requirements, or because they did not have products that qualified for the protection.