Private parking penalties

[Kristofferson]

Mod note: Split from http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=112343

You never have to pay private parking "fines" so it's irrelevant anyway

 

[Hellfire]

Private parking 'fines' aren't fines at all. Only a court can issue fines. They are a charge to people on the somewhat dubious premise, that overstaying in a car park deprives the operator of revenue from other people. It's often used on motorway service stations where they try and levy these charges on people who go to sleep in their cars and overstay the 2 hour maximum, or whatever it is despite the fact there might be dozens of empty spaces.

The challenge to this is based around the premise that the car park owner/operator is not losing anything like the sum of money they claim via these so called 'fines.' It's also not clear that these 'fines' have any basis in law.

Of course some car park operators, notably those in the Lake District, have a system whereby ANPR cameras record your arrival and departure. If you pay for an hour, then come back to your car 20 minutes late, you have the opportunity to pay the additional parking charge via the machine before the camera records your departure. Of course, this civilised system means the car park operator will not gain as much income from these so called 'fines'.

 

[Kristofferson]

It's also worth noting that if you get a private parking ticket, lodge an appeal with the regulator. This way, the parking company get fined £30 by default. And obviously don't pay the charge. It's a nice way to give these muppets a middle finger.

 

[Yew]

Of course some car park operators, notably those in the Lake District, have a system whereby ANPR cameras record your arrival and departure. If you pay for an hour, then come back to your car 20 minutes late, you have the opportunity to pay the additional parking charge via the machine before the camera records your departure. Of course, this civilised system means the car park operator will not gain as much income from these so called 'fines'.

That seems remarkably fair and reasonable.


Personally I dont think motorway services should be allowed to charge for parking, it means people whom are tired, and may otherwise have a nap or rest in their car may be encouraged to continue driving when they are not safe to do so.

 

[bnm]

It's also worth noting that if you get a private parking ticket, lodge an appeal with the regulator. This way, the parking company get fined £30 by default. And obviously don't pay the charge. It's a nice way to give these muppets a middle finger.

The muppets care not one jot about getting the middle finger. The fee they have to pay to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals), at £27+VAT, is a drop in the ocean. Enough people pay the invoices on request or after losing the initial appeal to the company.

It's a numbers game. For all the times they lose at POPLA, or later lose in court, the Private Parking Companie (PPC)s are raking in charges from those who just assume they were in the wrong and pay up. Hundreds of thousands of these 'tickets' are issued every year. The vast majority pay up because they either believe they were wrong or don't want the hassle.

However, the whole systems may turn out to be a house of cards. There's a court case currently with the court of appeal that could have a significant effect on the business models of PPC. Their major income stream is from these Parking Charge Notices (PCN), not from parking tariffs or fees from landowners to manage car parks. PCNs are almost always issued for breaching terms and conditions displayed in a car park. This is seen in law as a breach of contract. After such a breach the correct remedy is to have the aggrieved party put back into a position they were in had the breach not occurred. Any financial loss should be a genuine pre-estimate of loss and not include a punitive element. £100 for a 5 minute overstay? £80 for not displaying a permit? £100 for going off site? And many similar cases. None can be seen as a genuine pre-estimate of loss and the PPCs fail at POPLA every time such a defence is given.

PPCs are shysters of the highest order, many being former clamping companies. They have no interest in actually managing car parks - that doesn't make enough money. So it's trumped up breach of contract charges issued in their thousands week in, week out. Followed by letter after letter demanding payment from the PPC and its debt collectors (often in house), with dire threats of court, credit ratings, bailiffs. All backed up by some of the most poorly though out legislation of recent years, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It's no surprise that the biggest player in the market, ParkingEye were taken over by Capita, one of the most avaricious and morally bankrupt companies out there. Perfect bedfellows.

As to that court case. Google ParkingEye -v- Beavis. If it goes against ParkingEye the whole house of cards could come crumbling down. And so it should.

 

[Deerfold]

Personally I dont think motorway services should be allowed to charge for parking, it means people whom are tired, and may otherwise have a nap or rest in their car may be encouraged to continue driving when they are not safe to do so.

They are all obliged to offer at least two hours of free parking for just this reason.

 

[87 027]

What is the deterrent then for parking on private land where you shouldn't e.g. blocks of flats, offices etc?

 

[bnm]

What is the deterrent then for parking on private land where you shouldn't e.g. blocks of flats, offices etc?

Barriers.

But they don't make money.

 

[87 027]

Not always feasible though. I don't care about the fine, I just want to stop nuisance parking!

 

[cjmillsnun]

Not always feasible though. I don't care about the fine, I just want to stop nuisance parking!

The little retractable bollards would do the job. The rightful user of the space has a key that will allow the bollard to drop.

Something like this.. http://www.barriersdirect.co.uk/par...516?shopping&gclid=CISWkoOf8cMCFWTItAod_GIA5w

 

[Agent_c]

What is the deterrent then for parking on private land where you shouldn't e.g. blocks of flats, offices etc?

What I would suggest you do, is get the owner(s) together, put up a sign that says "Public Parking - £500 per minute. Resident parking free" at the entry. Record all users by webcam and start sending letters....

Perhaps its alittle disproportionate though...

 

[MikeWh]

The little retractable bollards would do the job. The rightful user of the space has a key that will allow the bollard to drop.

Something like this.. http://www.barriersdirect.co.uk/par...516?shopping&gclid=CISWkoOf8cMCFWTItAod_GIA5w

Thanks! Now I keep seeing ads for retractable bollards at the top of every forum page.

 

[Bald Rick]

PPCs are shysters of the highest order, many being former clamping companies. They have no interest in actually managing car parks - that doesn't make enough money. So it's trumped up breach of contract charges issued in their thousands week in, week out. Followed by letter after letter demanding payment from the PPC and its debt collectors (often in house), with dire threats of court, credit ratings, bailiffs. All backed up by some of the most poorly though out legislation of recent years, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It's no surprise that the biggest player in the market, ParkingEye were taken over by Capita, one of the most avaricious and morally bankrupt companies out there. Perfect bedfellows.

As to that court case. Google ParkingEye -v- Beavis. If it goes against ParkingEye the whole house of cards could come crumbling down. And so it should.

I was on the brink of paying a Parking Eye charge for overstaying a (very poorly advertised) time limit in a retail site car park. For some reason I googled it and found a whole host of information on the Martin Lewis Money expert website on the legalities (or otherwise). Appealed via POPLA and Parking Eye didn't even contend the appeal.

I strongly recommend that anyone who receives a Parking charge notice for parking in a regular free car park on private land, appeals.

 

[miami84]

The muppets care not one jot about getting the middle finger. The fee they have to pay to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals), at £27+VAT, is a drop in the ocean. Enough people pay the invoices on request or after losing the initial appeal to the company.

It's a numbers game. For all the times they lose at POPLA, or later lose in court, the Private Parking Companie (PPC)s are raking in charges from those who just assume they were in the wrong and pay up. Hundreds of thousands of these 'tickets' are issued every year. The vast majority pay up because they either believe they were wrong or don't want the hassle.

However, the whole systems may turn out to be a house of cards. There's a court case currently with the court of appeal that could have a significant effect on the business models of PPC. Their major income stream is from these Parking Charge Notices (PCN), not from parking tariffs or fees from landowners to manage car parks. PCNs are almost always issued for breaching terms and conditions displayed in a car park. This is seen in law as a breach of contract. After such a breach the correct remedy is to have the aggrieved party put back into a position they were in had the breach not occurred. Any financial loss should be a genuine pre-estimate of loss and not include a punitive element. £100 for a 5 minute overstay? £80 for not displaying a permit? £100 for going off site? And many similar cases. None can be seen as a genuine pre-estimate of loss and the PPCs fail at POPLA every time such a defence is given.

PPCs are shysters of the highest order, many being former clamping companies. They have no interest in actually managing car parks - that doesn't make enough money. So it's trumped up breach of contract charges issued in their thousands week in, week out. Followed by letter after letter demanding payment from the PPC and its debt collectors (often in house), with dire threats of court, credit ratings, bailiffs. All backed up by some of the most poorly though out legislation of recent years, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It's no surprise that the biggest player in the market, ParkingEye were taken over by Capita, one of the most avaricious and morally bankrupt companies out there. Perfect bedfellows.

As to that court case. Google ParkingEye -v- Beavis. If it goes against ParkingEye the whole house of cards could come crumbling down. And so it should.

This post is a very good summary of the current state of play. My wife got an invoice from Euro Car Parks for overstaying by ten minutes. (ANPR detection). Appealed with a template letter and that was that. :roll:

 

[maniacmartin]

Just be careful of following the usual appeals tricks at railway car parks, as many are on railway and governed by Railway Bylaws.

 

[bnm]

Just be careful of following the usual appeals tricks at railway car parks, as many are on railway and governed by Railway Bylaws.

And the PPCs (and the odd TOC) managing such car parks use all the usual underhand tricks to obfuscate the legislation and attempt to get the money from parking 'contraventions' for themselves, rather than use Byelaw 14 and take people to court where the government gets any fines imposed.

If a Registered Keeper of a vehicle gets a Notice to Keeper after a Parking Charge Notice is given in a railway car park then they should get the issuer to give a clear and unambiguous statement in writing confirming what legislation they are using. If 'Protection Of Freedom Act 2012' or 'Keeper Liability' are mentioned at any stage of the process then the PCN could be relatively easily challenged. Railway Car Parks are nearly always covered by Byelaw 14 and therefore are not 'relevant land' for the POFA 2012.

If Byelaw 14 is being used then challenging a ticket can be a little harder, but not impossible. Specialist advice from the likes of forums.pepipoo.com should be sought.

Northern use their 'administrative charge' trick of sending out demands for £80 for alleged contraventions of Byelaw 14 in lieu of taking people to court. Another underhand tactic. "Pay us £80 or we'll take you to court". :roll:

 

[Kristofferson]

I feel it should also be said that council issued parking tickets are fines and should be paid.

 

[pitdiver]

There appears to be some activity at the moment regarding car parking "fines" issued due to the use of ANPR cameras in Local Authority owned car parks either operated by the local authority or my a private company. Apparently councils have been told that that the ANPR cameras are not a sound basis for evidence so they cannot and should not be used as such. The police only use them for identifying car numbers they always have to stop the vehicle and speak to the driver. This happened to my wife a few years ago.

 

[bnm]

I feel it should also be said that council issued parking tickets are fines and should be paid.

They are decriminalised fixed penalties, not fines. Only a court can impose a fine. They are also appealable to the issuing authority in the first instance and then an independent body, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal in England and Wales, and the Parking & Traffic Appeals Service specific to Greater London.

Pay by all means if you are 100% certain you are in the wrong, but do ensure things like signage, road markings, terms and conditions, the details on the Penalty Charge Notice, etc. are all correct. For example, if a council has incorrectly painted or signed on-street parking bays you could win an appeal.

 

[Carlisle]

I was on the brink of paying a Parking Eye charge for overstaying a (very poorly advertised) time limit in a retail site car park. For some reason I googled it and found a whole host of information on the Martin Lewis Money expert website on the legalities (or otherwise). Appealed via POPLA and Parking Eye didn't even contend the appeal.

I strongly recommend that anyone who receives a Parking charge notice for parking in a regular free car park on private land, appeals.

I know at least a couple of people who have followed much of the online advice and totally ignored Parking Eye PCNs and ended up with CCJs so I guess as long as our court system merely rubber stamps these fines then Parking Eye etc will continue to coin it in,presumably the convenience of ANPR technology make this buisness much more lucrative than in the past

 

[JoeGJ1984]

I had the idea that the general advise given to people receiving tickets from PPCs is to just ignore them; you will usually get a few letters, and then they stop, and only once in a blue moon take anybody to court.

 

[Antman]

Just be careful of following the usual appeals tricks at railway car parks, as many are on railway and governed by Railway Bylaws.

That seems remarkably fair and reasonable.


Personally I dont think motorway services should be allowed to charge for parking, it means people whom are tired, and may otherwise have a nap or rest in their car may be encouraged to continue driving when they are not safe to do so.

But drivers who overstay can pay before they leave. If unlimited free parking was allowed then drivers would pull in and find it full and nowhere to park.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I had the idea that the general advise given to people receiving tickets from PPCs is to just ignore them; you will usually get a few letters, and then they stop, and only once in a blue moon take anybody to court.

That does generally seem to be the way of things

 

[Bald Rick]

I had the idea that the general advise given to people receiving tickets from PPCs is to just ignore them; you will usually get a few letters, and then they stop, and only once in a blue moon take anybody to court.

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

You must not ignore them, as the process gets more difficult the further along you go. And once you get to CCJ it has the potential to be quite serious.

However if you follow the appeal process, and appeal on the basis that the penalty charge is not relative to a Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss, then after a couple of months and a few exchanges of correspondence you will be ok. Note this only applies to parking that is normally free (ie no loss) and on private land.

 

[Bevan Price]

Personally, I think that no "private" organisation should be allowed access to vehicle registration & owner details. If they want to restrict parking, use a gate or barrier, or a human being.

 

[richw]

There appears to be some activity at the moment regarding car parking "fines" issued due to the use of ANPR cameras in Local Authority owned car parks either operated by the local authority or my a private company. Apparently councils have been told that that the ANPR cameras are not a sound basis for evidence so they cannot and should not be used as such. The police only use them for identifying car numbers they always have to stop the vehicle and speak to the driver. This happened to my wife a few years ago.

A local Tesco has ANPR, and you get given a code with your receipt, and you have to use a machine with the code and registration. The identification of regsitartions is shocking. Type in my registration for example sometimes it has given me 6 different images and other time none at all. When you type in your reg it shows you pictures of all the cars it thinks might be yours.

 

[jon0844]

The system at Potters Bar station is like that. Enter your registration and you'll maybe see your car, maybe not. Or you see a range of cars and, again, you might be there or might not.

The images are always poor quality. I wonder what the resolution is of the camera taking the photos? Obviously they can't (optically) zoom in too much which would improve things, so seem to take a very wide angle photo and that means a pretty pathetic resolution. They must be awful in certain lighting conditions/weather, or if a plate is dirty.

I do prefer car parks where you can pay on an app (no ticket on display to tell anyone you're not coming back for days) and add on time without having to return to your vehicle if plans change. In effect, you can make sure you always pay the right amount (never too much, never too little) and not get punished. The car park operators that do this, if the law is ever changed, will not be the ones potentially made to refund people for ridiculous £90-150 fake fines.

I noticed recently that AGA even charges you less to pay via an app than at a machine. Previously I recall using an app and paying by card online had a premium. That's a step in the right direction.

 

[Mojo]

I noticed recently that AGA even charges you less to pay via an app than at a machine. Previously I recall using an app and paying by card online had a premium. That's a step in the right direction.

Absolutely; I have always considered it strange that many car parking facilities that offer pay by phone then go on to charging a "convenience fee." I have put this down to the fact that they are often provided by a third party which I guess has to make a profit, and the fact that the car park operator doesn't pay them (enough?) Given there must surely be a cost in buying and maintaining parking ticket machines, as well as emptying them of cash, replenishing the tickets, and dealing with cases where a customer has put money in, but no ticket is dispensed.

The South Gloucestershire Council car park at Parkway (Bristol) station offers a fairly impressive discount; it's £2.10 per day for payment by phone or £5.60 if you buy a ticket at the machine in the car park (which takes card payments only). This compares with Great Western's car park which charges £7.60 for paying at the machine or £7 for paying by phone. Not a bad saving for a three or four minute walk; nice to councils competing with private companies!

 

[PermitToTravel]

Personally, I think that no "private" organisation should be allowed access to vehicle registration & owner details. If they want to restrict parking, use a gate or barrier, or a human being.

How do you/other posters in this thread feel about TOCs being allowed access to passenger name and address details, out of interest?

 

[Antman]

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

You must not ignore them, as the process gets more difficult the further along you go. And once you get to CCJ it has the potential to be quite serious.

However if you follow the appeal process, and appeal on the basis that the penalty charge is not relative to a Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss, then after a couple of months and a few exchanges of correspondence you will be ok. Note this only applies to parking that is normally free (ie no loss) and on private land.

Well I know people who have simply ignored them, they have had a few letters and that's it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Personally, I think that no "private" organisation should be allowed access to vehicle registration & owner details. If they want to restrict parking, use a gate or barrier, or a human being.

So what should supermarkets do to enforce a 2-3 hour limit? If they don't enforce it then people will park there all day and there will be no spaces for customers.

 

[jon0844]

My Sainsbury's has barriers, which makes it quite easy. Don't pay - don't leave!

I get given a smartcard from a machine on entry, and can have it programmed to give me free exit if I have paid £10 or more in store (actually, I think it might even be just £5 now) and leave within two hours.

The rates aren't actually that bad beyond that, and if I did park all day (the car park also has the lights above to show free spaces, which is good) and spent £5/10 then I'd get a discount.

All seems like a fair way to do things, than sting you for being 3 minutes late with a 'bill' of £90, reduced to £50 if paid early.