Airport.

[mad_manx]

3 hours ago, emesde said:

Thanks John .

So he must go round several times a day.....full time.... To ensure that someone booked in at 9am for 3 hours isn't still there  at 1pm. And one assumes that cars are coming and going all day parked for different amounts of time. I wonder why they don't use ANPR?   Even some hotels have been using it for years.Don't  Douglas use it in car parks?

How weird to go for a high tec  system and then use lots of Man power and pencils.

I don't know how effective the ones in Douglas are ..  I use the Shaws brow one  and the barriers are often removed  etc.   

I don't use it every day but have seen this  twice in  the last two weeks ..

[Gladys]

2 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

They are similar in the respect that there's a risk, bugs or no bugs. The risk that IOM Airport/DOI might not be getting what it is due, that's all I'm saying really. The fact that there isn't any indication doesn't mean it isn't happening or won't happen. What checks are in place (other than a bloke walking around with a clipboard)?

There is a risk of that, of course, but it's hardly another Horizon. 

[Dirty Buggane]

5 hours ago, mad_manx said:

I don't know how effective the ones in Douglas are ..  I use the Shaws brow one  and the barriers are often removed  etc.   

I don't use it every day but have seen this  twice in  the last two weeks ..

Yeah but the NPR will of recognised your number coming in and also when you leave, so if you have not payed big brother is not only watching you but taking notes. So that one day you nip in to go to the shop it will say you owe £42.50 and you ain't getting out till you pay. 🦝 closest thing with a Dick Turpin mask, what you goin to do.

[Happier diner]

19 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's partly force of habit I suspect.  They don't really think that anyone else, politicians or public, is entitled to know what they do.  They think we are all their servants and we should be civil about it.  It's actually getting worse under Cannan, even information that would have been supplied in the past is refused now.  For example last week they simply refused to answer a Written Question from Thomas within the time they should.  He had to put a question down in Tynwald to force them to do so and even then it was a simple refusal, though similar WQs have been answered without problem in the past.  Of course that was about how many civil servants are paid over £100,000.

But it's also because they assume that no one will or can look things up independently.  Possibly because they're not particularly keen on research themselves - they prefer to be presented with 'solutions' and don't think these need to be examined.  And a lot of them simply aren't that bright.  You advance in the Manx civil service by not asking awkward questions, especially not valid ones.

In this particular case there may well have been a special deal, but I doubt it was to IOMG's advantage because RingGo could have had extra setup costs to deal with the Isle of Man and the different patterns of parking used in airports may have needed adaptations.  That's even assuming that RingGo can't recognise a mug when they see one.

Surely,in order to comply with the financial regulations the DOI must have gone to tender for the service provision. 

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, Happier diner said:

Surely,in order to comply with the financial regulations the DOI must have gone to tender for the service provision. 

There are all sorts of ways round that and I don't recall anyone mentioning a tendering process - they just announced that were introducing RingGo in May 2022.  There was a lot of discussion earlier in this very topic at the time, with people pointing to all the potential problems.  

What seems to have happened is that the situation and the amount of money they were losing became embarrassing and they simply grabbed at whatever 'solution' they could impose quickly, without bothering to think it through.   I also suspect the decision was drive by the DoI parking people (who were empire-building) wanting to introduce the system and saw putting it at the Airport as a foot in the door.  It's also possible that they wanted to impose what they wanted before Cobb's appointment was announced and he had a say in the matter.

[emesde]

I think that's about right  May 2022 was not a good time for DOI.

Arter it was decided that the car park would reopen there seemed to be panic The annual income from the car park was around 600k. Suddenly they realised they had taken down the barriers etc and done no maintenance on the system over the 2 years the system had been dismantled.Obviously some cash would be needed to reinstall. Probably a small amount in relation to the potential income. But they didn't want to spend any money and so the lies started ,£250,000 to fix barriers, machines won't take Manx coins  etc.

That enabled them to put in a system at no capital cost. They then went on the offensive to try and convince people it was the way to go and the best possible system . Trial periods extended etc. 

This was the same time period when the minister stood up and said there had been no bus cancellations during the 2022 TT.  Lies became the norm.

It was then discovered there had been 177 cancellations. 

And people wonder why the DOI  comes in for so much criticism.

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

There are all sorts of ways round that and I don't recall anyone mentioning a tendering process - they just announced that were introducing RingGo in May 2022.  There was a lot of discussion earlier in this very topic at the time, with people pointing to all the potential problems.  

What seems to have happened is that the situation and the amount of money they were losing became embarrassing and they simply grabbed at whatever 'solution' they could impose quickly, without bothering to think it through.   I also suspect the decision was drive by the DoI parking people (who were empire-building) wanting to introduce the system and saw putting it at the Airport as a foot in the door.  It's also possible that they wanted to impose what they wanted before Cobb's appointment was announced and he had a say in the matter.

Well if there was no expenditure to be incurred, only income, and providing the estimated income was below a certain threshold then I guess they probably weren't legally obliged to go to Treasury or the AGs office for any approval.

The thing is... what are they doing with the income now? Are they using it to maintain the car park (doesn't look like it from the photos that Amadeus has uploaded) or is it just going into the general revenue account?

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

There are all sorts of ways round that and I don't recall anyone mentioning a tendering process - they just announced that were introducing RingGo in May 2022.  There was a lot of discussion earlier in this very topic at the time, with people pointing to all the potential problems.  

What seems to have happened is that the situation and the amount of money they were losing became embarrassing and they simply grabbed at whatever 'solution' they could impose quickly, without bothering to think it through.   I also suspect the decision was drive by the DoI parking people (who were empire-building) wanting to introduce the system and saw putting it at the Airport as a foot in the door.  It's also possible that they wanted to impose what they wanted before Cobb's appointment was announced and he had a say in the matter.

Oh no there are not. There are only very defined reasons and an exemption has to be obtained and sign off by the Chief Financial officer. To lie would be a crime

As far as I know they are

1. You can prove that the supplier offers the best value

2. Its an emergency

3. There is only one supplier

4. There are intellectual property rights that prevent tendering

I cant see how it would meet any of these conditions

[Happier diner]

31 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Well if there was no expenditure to be incurred, only income, and providing the estimated income was below a certain threshold then I guess they probably weren't legally obliged to go to Treasury or the AGs office for any approval.

The thing is... what are they doing with the income now? Are they using it to maintain the car park (doesn't look like it from the photos that Amadeus has uploaded) or is it just going into the general revenue account?

One way or another they are paying Ringgo unless the only transfer of monies is between the parkers of the vehicles and Ringgo

It would sound very dodgy

[Andy Onchan]

8 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

One way or another they are paying Ringgo unless the only transfer of monies is between the parkers of the vehicles and Ringgo

It would sound very dodgy

But IOMG is a net receiver of all of the transactions isn't it? Otherwise what's the point in doing it?

I thought Ringgo received the cash from their customers (the car owners/drivers), deduct a % for handling the transaction and then remit the net amount to IOMG. 

The only thing that seems dodgy is if IOMG (including DOI) didn't go out to tender to see who else is out there that would accept a lower % commission for collecting the dosh. That's the dodgy bit. 

[John Wright]

53 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

But IOMG is a net receiver of all of the transactions isn't it? Otherwise what's the point in doing it?

IoMG is the gross receiver. In other words all parking payments via the app ( or phone or information desk ) are paid direct to IoMG, not RinGo, as I understand it.

Ringo then invoices IoMG monthly at 10p per transaction and about 3%.

There was no capital cost, no equipment, to tender. Unless RinGo charged for setting up the fee structure and area, which I very much doubt. Plus there’s no ongoing maintenance.

57 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

thought Ringgo received the cash from their customers (the car owners/drivers), deduct a % for handling the transaction and then remit the net amount to IOMG. 

As explained above it’s the other way around.

58 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

The only thing that seems dodgy is if IOMG (including DOI) didn't go out to tender to see who else is out there that would accept a lower % commission for collecting the dosh. That's the dodgy bit. 

Let’s say there are 200 parking transactions per day, that’s £20. 365 days a year make £7300. And based on parking fees of approx £600,000 it’s ££6000 per one percent.  So around £25,000 to RinGo. I don’t think there’ll be anyone does it for less. Even if there is, it’ll be marginal.

[Happier diner]

7 minutes ago, John Wright said:

IoMG is the gross receiver. In other words all parking payments via the app ( or phone or information desk ) are paid direct to IoMG, not RinGo, as I understand it.

Ringo then invoices IoMG monthly at 10p per transaction and about 3%.

There was no capital cost, no equipment, to tender. Unless RinGo charged for setting up the fee structure and area, which I very much doubt. Plus there’s no ongoing maintenance.

As explained above it’s the other way around.

Let’s say there are 200 parking transactions per day, that’s £20. 365 days a year make £7300. And based on parking fees of approx £600,000 it’s ££6000 per one percent.  So around £25,000 to RinGo. I don’t think there’ll be anyone does it for less. Even if there is, it’ll be marginal.

I think its the full value of the contract over 5 years so a tender would be required .Only if its only £25,000 in total (over 5 years) then the DOI would not have to go to tender but would still have to go to quotation on the Government portal.

There are many other providers

[John Wright]

Just now, Happier diner said:

I think its the full value of the contract over 5 years so a tender would be required .Only if its only £25,000 in total (over 5 years) then the DOI would not have to go to tender but would still have to go to quotation on the Government portal.

There are many other providers

Yes, lots, and they all have their tariffs available so you can compare. It’s a take it or leave it fee.

[Happier diner]

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Yes, lots, and they all have their tariffs available so you can compare. It’s a take it or leave it fee.

I guess in which case they could apply for exemption based upon "You can prove that the supplier offers the best value"

 

[Andy Onchan]

32 minutes ago, John Wright said:

IoMG is the gross receiver. In other words all parking payments via the app ( or phone or information desk ) are paid direct to IoMG, not RinGo, as I understand it.

Ringo then invoices IoMG monthly at 10p per transaction and about 3%.

There was no capital cost, no equipment, to tender. Unless RinGo charged for setting up the fee structure and area, which I very much doubt. Plus there’s no ongoing maintenance.

As explained above it’s the other way around.

Let’s say there are 200 parking transactions per day, that’s £20. 365 days a year make £7300. And based on parking fees of approx £600,000 it’s ££6000 per one percent.  So around £25,000 to RinGo. I don’t think there’ll be anyone does it for less. Even if there is, it’ll be marginal.

I stand/sit corrected. The receipt does have two VAT numbers on it, one for the operator and the other for Ringgo themselves. 

In any event the income IOMG is receiving is clearly not going into the maintenance of the car park, as the photos uploaded by Amadeus prove.