Reports such as the one by WDR on questionable practices by individual private car park operators are rightly attracting attention. Anyone managing a site who is considering implementing car park monitoring themselves often asks the same question: is this an industry-wide problem, or a problem with individual providers? An objective assessment of what is justified in the criticism and how reputable providers can actually be distinguished. You can watch the report again here: watch the video
What is valid about the criticism
The problems repeatedly highlighted in such reports are real and well known within the industry: unclear or poorly visible signage, the automated mass issuance of contractual penalties without a case-by-case assessment, excessive payment deadlines, and aggressive debt collection practices towards vehicle owners, some of whom only learn of an alleged offence weeks later. These practices harm not only the drivers affected, but also the car park operators themselves, whose name and reputation are linked to the enforcement of parking regulations in question.
For operators, this is more than just a moral issue. Anyone who commissions a service provider that operates in this way is held liable in the public eye for that provider’s conduct, even if the actual process has been outsourced.
What such reports generally fail to show
What is often overlooked in the public debate is the diversity within the sector. Not every provider uses the same processes, and the shortcomings described cannot be generalised to every form of digital car park monitoring. Automatic number plate recognition is, in itself, neutral; it merely records when a vehicle enters and leaves a car park. What happens to this information is determined by the respective provider and their processes, not by the technology itself.
A system featuring documented case-by-case assessments, clear signage and an effective complaints procedure differs fundamentally from a system that automatically issues contractual penalties without any assessment. Whilst both may use the same underlying technology, the outcome for the individual driver and for the operator is completely different.
How to actually recognise reputable providers
- Signage that goes beyond the legal minimum and is clearly visible at all relevant entrances and exits
- A documented process involving case-by-case assessment, rather than the automatic mass issuance of contractual penalties
- Realistic payment deadlines and an accessible complaints procedure for vehicle owners
- A fundamental commitment to fairness that is reflected in the way processes are actually carried out, not just in the wording on the website
- Clear contractual provisions setting out who is responsible for which part of the process, including monitoring and enforcement
What this means for your decision
Operators considering digital car park monitoring should not be put off by public criticism of individual market players. What matters is which questions are asked during the selection process: How exactly does the monitoring work? Who reviews individual cases? What happens if a driver disputes a fine? A provider who answers these questions openly and with specific figures stands out from the very first meeting compared to one who merely makes general promises of fairness.
How Sevoria Parking works
Marko Guljelmovic, Managing Director of Sevoria Parking, sums it up as follows in a recent industry interview:
“There is currently a fair public debate in Germany about how private parking enforcement and private parking operators work. And we welcome this debate in principle, because Sevoria is designed precisely for operators who cannot afford negative headlines. For us, this means: signage that goes beyond the legal minimum, a documented case-by-case review as part of the process, and a willingness to waive unjustified contractual penalties. It’s about being open about what we do and how we do it, rather than operating behind closed doors, as some providers have done in the past. There is a right way to do this.”
This commitment is not just a marketing slogan, but part of our day-to-day process: we review disputes on a case-by-case basis and waive contractual penalties if it can subsequently be proven that they were justified. If you have any questions about our review process, we’d be happy to discuss them openly with you.
