PDA

View Full Version : Having posted this, I probably won't come back to the thread . . .


Loose rivets
20th Feb 2015, 11:36
. . . I get too bloody angry.

BBC News - RAC: Millions in private parking penalties 'charged illegally' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31545417)

Blacksheep
20th Feb 2015, 12:46
I've been hit by UKPC twice in the Hatfield Aldi car park. I refused to pay both times on the grounds that the parking charge did not represent a fair estimate of the loss suffered by the land owner. I offered to pay for one whole hour for overstaying by a few minutes - as this had prevented the space being occupied for an hour, or part thereof, by another driver - which I claimed was a fair offer to compensate for any possible loss.

UKPC followed up with a number of letters designed to look like official documents and then came the debt collecting agency. I found by using Google Street View that the registered address of this "Debt Collecting Agency" was a residential address - a typical detached house in a housing estate. Companies House gave me the name of the sole director, who was a Solicitor of the Supreme Court. So I complained to the Law Society about her.

After this they switched to a different Debt Collecting Agency - also based in a residential property with a sole director. They threatened me with the bailiffs if I didn't pay up, so I asked for a copy of their Court Order - which they obviously didn't have - and told them I would see them in Court on any day they cared to name. I haven't heard anything further in either case and that was a couple of years ago now.

The "Parking Charge Notices" aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Just ignore them, there's nothing they can do except take you to the County Court claiming breach of an "implied contract". The court will only award damages equal a fair assessment of the losses suffered by the landowner. In most cases, the landowner will have suffered no loss at all. UKPC or any other parking control company are not the landowner, only an agent.

The end solution is "Pay on Exit". There is simply no justification for the "implied contract" nonsense of the "Pay and Display" rip-off operators.

Mr Chips
20th Feb 2015, 13:01
I've been hit by UKPC twice in the Hatfield Aldi car park
So having "offended" once, you did so again.
Why should anyone have any sympathy for you?

torot
20th Feb 2015, 13:12
These are often erroneously referred to as fines. This is incorrect as only the police or the courts can impose a fine. In addition the private parking company must prove that you read and agreed to the contract on their notice board. And finally they must prove who the driver was at the time. Despite what they print on their parking charge notice, you are only obliged to inform who the driver was if instructed to by a police officer or a court. Their tactics are little more than phishing and the DVLA is in a very gray area by allowing them access to their database of registered keepers. Best advice ever appeared on Watchdog a few years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3J-Xl6rSlk

MG23
20th Feb 2015, 13:16
So having "offended" once, you did so again.
Why should anyone have any sympathy for you?

Because parking in the UK is a huge ripoff, and the 'fines' are even more of a ripoff?

As mentioned, if they wanted people to pay for the time they stay, they'd charge when you leave, like most of the pay-to-stay parking lots do here. But that would cut their income, as they wouldn't be able to collect their 'fines' when you overstay by two minutes.

G-CPTN
20th Feb 2015, 13:26
Most parking administered by local authorities have 'penalty charges' for overstaying or parking outwith approved locations (this includes having wheels over the lines).

The penalties are intended to discourage those who would choose to ignore 'the rules' and park as they please, rather than those who inadvertently break these rules, but the result is often that everyone gets punished.

Capot
20th Feb 2015, 13:28
So having "offended"Let's stop right there, and remember that over-staying in a car park is NOT an "offence" in any sense.

Putting the word in quotation marks is a weasel way of admitting that; why use the word at all?

Mr Chips
20th Feb 2015, 14:09
Putting the word in quotation marks is a weasel way of admitting that; why use the word at all?
Because I couldn't think of the more appropriate word. Does it really matter in the context of an internet discussion? Why are you avoiding the actual point I am making.

Read again what Blacksheep posted. he has been caught staying longer in a car park than the time he paid for/was permitted to do. TWICE.

Once may be considered unfortunate, and accident. But twice?

What should Aldi (or whoever) do about people who apparently abuse the use of their private land?

airship
20th Feb 2015, 14:24
I've done that before too (started a thread and never come back to it).

I've even started a new thread when there was an older one already started on the same subject (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/556879-illegal-parking-enforcement-charges.html) too... ;)

Shaggy Sheep Driver
20th Feb 2015, 14:56
If you park in a 'pay' car park you enter a 'contract' to stay a max time period for your payment. If you over-stay, the car park owner is entitled to any subsequent loss. This includes your unpaid-for parking in lost revenue (the slot you occupy might have been re-sold for a minimum period had you not overstayed), and reimbursement of reasonable costs in pursuing you for the outstanding payment.

What they cannot do is levy an obviously unreasonable demand just because you overstayed.

So said the legal man on the Beeb today, as far as I can remember!

dazdaz1
20th Feb 2015, 15:03
To be fair, some supermarket car parks are taken an advantage of. For example Sainsbury's in Haywards Heath. People commuting into London parked up and left the car all day.

Eventually this was brought the attention of Sainsbury's. A company were employed to time all vehicles parking. Sorted out the commuters parking all day (free) in the car park.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
20th Feb 2015, 15:10
A catholic church in a nearby village has a large car park. The synagogue 50 metres away has none, as those who attend it are apparently supposed to walk there. They do; the 50 metres from the catholic church car park! :rolleyes:

Shack37
20th Feb 2015, 15:25
A catholic church in a nearby village has a large car park. The synagogue 50
metres away has none, as those who attend it are apparently supposed to walk there. They do; the 50 metres from the catholic church car park! :rolleyes:


Are some of the catholics being left without parking space?
Perhaps the priest and the rabbi have an arrangement.
More information needed methinks.

airship
20th Feb 2015, 15:29
Synagogue-goers use the car-park on a Friday. Church-goers use it on a Sunday. Or on shopping days...

Lord Spandex Masher
20th Feb 2015, 15:30
Because I couldn't think of the more appropriate word. Does it really matter in the context of an internet discussion? Why are you avoiding the actual point I am making.

Read again what Blacksheep posted. he has been caught staying longer in a car park than the time he paid for/was permitted to do. TWICE.

Once may be considered unfortunate, and accident. But twice?

What should Aldi (or whoever) do about people who apparently abuse the use of their private land?

Ah Mr Chips. You, I suppose, are perfect enough never to make a mistake TWICE are you?

And yes, the use of the correct word does matter.

Shack37
20th Feb 2015, 15:47
Synagogue-goers use the car-park on a Friday. Church-goers use it on a Sunday. Or on shopping days...

Synagoguers use it on a Saturday surely, Mosquers on Friday and the catholics daily.

beaufort1
20th Feb 2015, 16:10
What is this paid parking? :confused:

Mind, we don't have traffic lights here either. ;) :O

Gertrude the Wombat
20th Feb 2015, 16:17
What is it about cars?


Nobody expects to be able to store any of their other possessions on other people's property (whether public or not) for free.

Gertrude the Wombat
20th Feb 2015, 16:18
Mind, we don't have traffic lights here either.
... and you can walk from one end of the island to the other in less than an hour (if you don't want to take the train).

Shaggy Sheep Driver
20th Feb 2015, 16:27
Yes, synagogue parkers on Saturday, catholics Sundays and all holy days. Shoppers every day!

There is no local mosque. Yet!

airship
20th Feb 2015, 16:29
My error Shack37. So it's Church-goers using the car-park on a Sunday and other shopping days; Synagogue-goers using it on a Saturday and shopping on the eve of the Sabbath and other shopping days; and if there's also a mosque in the area, mosque-goers using it on a Friday and other shopping days.

And more or less everyone using it all the days of the week when they can find a place. Presumably they will have the courtesy to at least put a cross on the dash-board with "thanks". And not making folks cross...

scr1
20th Feb 2015, 17:32
Anyone going to synagogue should not use a car. all should walk, except were they are unable to walk.

as is mrs scr1

Interested Passenger
20th Feb 2015, 17:41
could the DVLA be charged with aiding and abetting, as they provide the details to these crooks?

MG23
20th Feb 2015, 18:02
What is it about cars? Nobody expects to be able to store any of their other possessions on other people's property (whether public or not) for free.

Let's see. When I lived in the UK:

I, being a non-layabout, have a job. At lunchtime, I drive to the high street to do some shopping. The council have 'pedestrianized' it, because foreigners do that, so it's culture and stuff. I park in the car park and walk to and from the shops, but take two minutes longer than expected. I find a fifty pound parking ticket on my car.

I never go back, nor does anyone else who gets hit with a ticket, or gets fed up with having to pay a fiver in parking just to go to the shops.

The council complain that no-one other than layabouts go to the high street any more.

Most of the shops go bust.

Alternatively, over here:

I drive to the store. I park right outside the store. I do my shopping. I get in my car. I drive back.

beaufort1
20th Feb 2015, 18:45
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/556887-having-posted-i-probably-wont-come-back-thread-post8873915.html#post8873915)
What is it about cars? Nobody expects to be able to store any of their other possessions on other people's property (whether public or not) for free.


My original post although factually correct was intended in a light hearted way. Interestingly in Guernsey the island where I came from there is currently a huge heated debate about the introduction of paid parking. At present the only public parking where charges apply are at the airport.

This concept of 'free' is an interesting one. Most car owners/users pay tax, whether through direct taxation or through various duties on fuel etc...
Duty on fuel is not 'ring fenced' for public roads or car parks, and whilst no car licence tax is levied in the Bailiwick it has been transferred as a fuel tax in the belief that the user pays which is perceived as more fair.

Gertrude the Wombat
20th Feb 2015, 18:54
This concept of 'free' is an interesting one. Most car owners/users pay tax
As do the non-car-users. Why should they subsidise people who are so rich that they can actually afford to run cars?

(Yes I know that in some cases some good answers to this question can be formulated. But the question itself doesn't get asked very often.)

beaufort1
20th Feb 2015, 19:04
It is not just car owners that are expected to pay for parking, ordinary tradesmen with vans for example have to increase prices which are passed onto customers etc.. this is inflationary and affects car owner and non owner alike. The debate locally has been going around in circles for about two decades now. The local government passed in principle paid parking, but it faltered when the hourly rate couldn't be decided upon and then the cost of administering any charge made the decision making to be ' a can kicked down the road'. Recently the department in charge of such things was expecting the car owner to subsidise the bus service, using your argument, why should car owners be expected to subsidise a bus service they don't use?

Next Wednesday, local politicians will be debating whether to get rid of the concept of paid parking once and for all. Should be an interesting debate.

Gertrude the Wombat
20th Feb 2015, 19:23
why should car owners be expected to subsidise a bus service they don't use?
Me Sir! Me Sir! Please Sir! I know that one!

The conventional answer is that each bus takes several cars off the road, thus reducing congestion delays for those who choose to continue to drive, and that it's therefore not unreasonable for the drivers to be expected to contribute towards this benefit.

John Hill
20th Feb 2015, 19:27
Recent tectonic events have left large areas of our small town as vacant spaces.

One area has become a popular parking space but is now earmarked for future development. Meanwhile the local council decided in their wisdom to erect pay and display machines to make a bit of cash while waiting for the developers to get their project organised. Naturally enough the equally large vacant space across the street is now the parking space of choice while the P and D machines stand idle!

beaufort1
20th Feb 2015, 19:34
It's not as simple as that, for one there are not enough buses to cater for this simplistic plan and people lead busy lives, using public transport to get to work, then pick up children then go shopping and then getting aforementioned youngsters to music/sailing/dancing/scouts/football/netball sessions with all the paraphernalia that entails isn't going to happen. Couple that in with buses that don't fit due to their width down most local roads and local politicians are onto a hiding to nothing. Especially when the current proposals mean a subsidy of 2.50 per passenger journey.

Anyway, I'm not going to regurgitate the bones of the main arguments that have been circling locally on here. For further live debates within our local government it is broadcast live next Wednesday on BBC Guernsey.

Gertrude the Wombat
20th Feb 2015, 19:42
Anyway, I'm not going to regurgitate the bones of the main arguments that have been circling locally on here. For further live debates within our local government it is broadcast live next Wednesday on BBC Guernsey.
As far as the kids are concerned, they can cycle round the island three times in the time it takes to wait for a bus! - yes I know Alderney has a hill, but all you need is the right gears.

rh200
20th Feb 2015, 19:45
Putting the word in quotation marks is a weasel way of admitting that; why use the word at all?

You do the crime you do the time. Words, law, legislation, contracts whatever, all [email protected] to try and maintain order in society so we can live with out trying to bash the sh!t out of each other in frustration.

I enjoy the stability our society gives us, I follow the rules, whether I believe in them or not. Of course, the less I believe in a particular rule and the lighter the penalty, the more I fly closer to the line.

Its no different to other marginal rules that have the potential to be abused on a massive scale, harsh penalties to keep the the one or two standard deviation of people from breaking it.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
20th Feb 2015, 19:53
Anyone going to synagogue should not use a car. all should walk, except were they are unable to walk.

They do. They walk from the catholic church 50m to the synagogue. Typifies the double standards of some religious folk, does that, but hey, that's what they do.

mg23 you must live in an area of low population. If UK town centres had no parking constraints the streets would be jammed with all-day parkers. There's no way you can rock up to a shop in a car and park outside.

You can on a small motorcycle, though. Which is why there is one one my fleet. :ok:

beaufort1
20th Feb 2015, 19:54
As far as the kids are concerned, they can cycle round the island three times in the time it takes to wait for a bus! - yes I know Alderney has a hill, but all you need is the right gears.

No, I was referring to Guernsey. The local public bus (singular) only runs in the Summer apart from taking school children the rest of the year. ;)

G-CPTN
20th Feb 2015, 22:07
If UK town centres had no parking constraints the streets would be jammed with all-day parkers.
Northumberland is a vast county, encompassing urban and extremely rural areas.
A decade ago, Northumberland was administered by District Councils, that had developed their own restrictions on parking in the respective 'service centres' over a number of years.
Some 'towns' had no restrictions or charges, whilst others had expensive charges (based on 'demand' and experience).

Then . . . we were forced into a Unitary Authority that would manage matters on a county-wide basis.

But - there were established inconsistencies - with charges in some locations greatly exceeding those in other regions. After all, that was what the District Councils had discovered what worked for them.

However, those paying high charges questioned why others were not paying for parking.

At this stage, the governing political party was Liberal Democrat.
Then there was an election.
The Labour Party hit on the idea of offering free parking for all in their manifesto - and they won the majority of seats on the County Council.

So, they decided to honour their responsibility and offered the town and parish councils the choice.

As a village that attracts tourists and 'rich' shoppers (including footballers' wives) we had developed a parking policy that includes a free unrestricted carpark on the outskirts of the village and time-restricted paid parking in the centre.
Even with the paid parking, there remained congestion, so, the last thing that we wanted was to introduce free parking. Furthermore, a survey of the shopkeepers said that nobody had complained about having to pay for parking (and, as stated, there is a free unrestricted carpark a short walk from the centre).

The nearby town, suffering from decreasing footfall in the town centre shops (and, indeed, many shop closures and empty premises) - due in part to supermarkets with free parking on the periphery of the town - decided to adopt the free parking - local businesses 'demanded' it.
Result? Absolute chaos!

Those working in the town, who had, previously, parking in unrestricted residential streets, now fill the large carpark with all-day parking by early morning (together with those who previously paid to park at the railway station and commute into the city), leaving no space for visitors. Therefore, those who might previously have visited the town centre for shopping now avoid the town.

The County Council had stressed that there would be no 'trial' of free parking with a return to paid parking (otherwise most would have voted for a free trial period).

We, in our village, are happy that we made the right decision (though we are considering extending the free unrestricted carpark to cater for increased demand from visitors - some, undoubtedly from the nearby town), whilst the Town Council are tearing their hair out and the town centre shopkeepers are complaining of a further-reduced footfall and even more shops are closing or facing financial ruin.

cockney steve
20th Feb 2015, 23:18
My late partner's daughter was using her car and decided to park in the empty Mecca Bingo carpark.....The first we knew, was when the partner got the threatening "fine" which would double if not paid within xx days.
I wrote one letter, demanding proof that it was actually her car that was parked there and to justify their charges. any further threats would be considered as extortion and harrassment and pursued through County Court..........
A pseudo "debt collection agency" from a similar box-number, and a couple of others were ignored.......about a year later, another "debt collection agency" from a similar box-number, attempted to collect....ignored.....about 3 years now, the car's long since gone, as have both mother and daughter.

There is a large church in Ashton Under Lyne which gets a good revenue from it's carparking in the otherwise unused grounds.
I boycotted Oldham for many years because of parking-charges. Their installation of a new ,grandiose tram-scheme, together with extensive remodelling of the Town centre, virtually destroyed many businesses, To remedy the situation, they suspended or limited all parking charges.....result, all-day parkers kept out but the 2-hour shoppers flocked back. (I've visited twice in the last 6 months, the first for over 20 years!)

VP959
21st Feb 2015, 07:44
One thing I've spotted here is that the clocks on the "pay and display" on-street machines are consistently 5 to 10 minutes out.

This nearly got me a couple of weeks ago, as I'd paid for 30 mins, stuck the ticket on display, and came back around 25 mins later to find a parking atendant waiting to write out a ticket.

Seems a good scam; get the machine to print an overdue time that's 10 mins early in the short stay zones, then "fine" anyone who doesn't spot that all the machine clocks * are wrong.

* I checked 3, all were out by 10 mins.

Exascot
21st Feb 2015, 10:25
If you imposed parking fees here they would just park on the pavement as indeed I do when going to the post office.

In the UK I couldn't find a car space in one of these places. There were plenty of coach slots. One car was taking up third of one so I parked alongside leaving room for a third car. Seemed like a good idea and maximising profit for the company. No, a ticket. I had also paid for two hours but was only there for 55 mins.

After considerable correspondence they threatened to send in the bailiffs to remove property 'to the value of...'. We were only in the UK for a visit so I said to them you will need instructions to find our house. Leap on a jet and fly to ATH. Hang around a day or so for the next ship to Amorgos. After nine hours on the ship you will arrive. If you are unlucky you will arrive at the southern port. Low season there are no buses or taxis so you will have to walk through the mountains to the other port. If you are REALLY fit this will take 6 hrs going up to altitudes of 2,000'. From our port head straight up the mountain to the main village then down to the bottom of the gorge and straight up again on the other side. There you will find us and our property. This last sector should only take you an hour or so. To take our property please don't forget to bring a donkey as we do not have a road.

Never heard another thing.

racedo
21st Feb 2015, 12:05
Being working away from home for last couple of months so staying in various hotels / motels.

Once national chain charges 3 per 24hrs which given it is not really near anything I found was taking the P.
After 1st night staff members said, contractors generally come during the day after 9am and rarely at night and they said have told senior management that parking idea is dumb as annoys customers.

I decided no longer putting in any money to machine on basis that if I get a fine then complain direct to head office and suggest that instead on providing them with 1000 plus a month in hotel and accom benefit I will go elsewhere.

gingernut
21st Feb 2015, 19:32
I'm pretty sure that most people would agree that private landholders have a right to manage their land as they please, as long as they stay within the legal framework.

After all, how would you like it, if someboday parked their car up your drive and just left it there without your permission ?

More to follow, stupid computer keeps crashing :-)

gingernut
21st Feb 2015, 19:41
thing is, "legal framework" seems to mean something different to parking private companies, than it does to me and you.

Private parking companies, and their partners, the landowners, cannot "fine" you, and if you drive onto their land, (usually through invite), then you are not commiting an offence. The terms "fine" and "offence" concern themselves with crime and punishment.

Buying a two hour ticket whilst you attend hospital and overstating by (90 seconds) whilst your oncologist tells you that your cancer is incurable results in a 90 charge.

Effluent Man
21st Feb 2015, 19:43
You are right of course if it is a private drive or,for example a field. However if you make your private land look like a car park...

gingernut
21st Feb 2015, 19:53
It is only a charge, or a "speculative invoice" which is dressed up in a load of leagalease, with threats of "Court Action."

Most people who recieve one of these speculative invoices have had very little contact with the legal system, are so scared that they just pay it.

It's easy pickings for the private parking companies. Parking Eye made about 57million out of these folks last year.

gingernut
21st Feb 2015, 19:58
Sometimes, awkward bar stewards see it all the way through.....

here's my story. One of the highlights was when The Judge awarded my costs for attending the court, which included my parking. Please enjoy it as much as I did....

Man wins court battle against Parking Eye over 100 fine for CIRCLING car park | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2594413/Man-wins-court-battle-against-parking-firm-tried-fine-100-CIRCLING-car-park-without-stopping.html)

gingernut
21st Feb 2015, 19:59
One for the locals... Couple win their Fistral Beach car parking fight | Cornish Guardian (http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Couple-win-parking-fight/story-20849706-detail/story.html)

G-CPTN
21st Feb 2015, 20:11
caught without a ticket by an automatic number plate reader
How did they know that you hadn't got a ticket?

gingernut
21st Feb 2015, 20:21
how do you know that you need a ticket ?

Bottom line, is that these companies only make money through "defaulters."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that if you make the signs unlit and small, then you'd make more money. In our case, the signs were hid in sand dunes, where other signs warned "keep out of the dunes, snakes."

"A bizarre business model" according to a recent Court ruling.

G-CPTN
21st Feb 2015, 20:25
Quote:
caught without a ticket by an automatic number plate reader
How did they know that you hadn't got a ticket?

Yes, but did they have a camera monitoring the ticket machine?
Or, perhaps you have to record your registration?

Say again s l o w l y
22nd Feb 2015, 01:19
Anyone who pays a "fine" from a parking company that isn't sanctioned by the cops or council is, I'm afraid, a moron.

Getting a 100 fine from a company because you stayed 5 minutes longer in a McDonald's car park is of course mind bendingly silly.

Having had a fair few "fines" over the years for being a bad boy and spending a few seconds longer in the car park of a shopping outlet that deemed me worthy of spending my hard earned there, I have studiously ignorned each and every attempt to extort money from me by threat of non-enforceable legal action. Even after the law was changed...

My advice would be to simply ignore anything that wasn't a proper parking ticket from an actual traffic warden or Police Officer. Nothing will ever come of it, the vultures rely on a small percentage of utter fools who just pay up, they won't risk going to court with the people who might just scupper them with a judgement against them that would destroy their entire business model.

They rely on stupidity, don't allow them to profit from yours.

Krystal n chips
22nd Feb 2015, 06:21
" [I]Once may be considered unfortunate, and accident. But twice?

What should Aldi (or whoever) do about people who apparently abuse the use of their private land[/I

Indeed !....however, such piety does need to be quantified does it not ?

Hence, may I offer you.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCsNunGnqE0

gingernut
22nd Feb 2015, 07:31
Anyone who pays a "fine" from a parking company that isn't sanctioned by the cops or council is, I'm afraid, a moron.

they are not morons, they are usually people who have gone through life with no, or little contact with the legal system, and are suddenly bombarded with documentation (I like to call them speculative invoices) dressed up in legalese.

Ignoring is not the best option. Don't take my word for it, take a look at the daily court listings, these organisations do take people to court.

The best option is to appeal to the parking bodies internal appeal people (POPLA), on the grounds that the 90 they are trying to trouser out of you, does not represent true loss. :-)

VP959
22nd Feb 2015, 09:15
The problem with the scams that have built up is really because the law doesn't seem to have caught up with this yet (but hopefully that may well change as a result of the cases due to be heard very soon, I hope).

It is perfectly reasonable to charge someone to park on land, whether the landowner is an individual, private company or the local authority. It's a pretty straight forward service contract, the offer is the right to park for a period of time, the acceptance is you parking in the space or buying a ticket and the consideration is the price you agree to park for the agreed time.

Where it gets problematic is with the companies, like Parking Eye, who have been set up specifically to exploit a contractual loophole and offer a service to car parking area owners when it comes to catching those who fail to pay or over stay.

There is no specific law that states what is "reasonable" when it comes to charging a penalty for someone who fails to pay or overstays their allotted time, which leaves companies like Parking Eye free to try and charge a very, large sum. As stated above they misrepresent the law, too, as this is a civil matter, not a criminal one, and every such case should be heard on its own merits. These companies try to convince those they target that what they are issuing are penalties under criminal law, which, although misrepresentation, is effective in getting those who don't understand contract law to pay up.

Legally, if you do fail to pay or over stay then the landowner (NOT the parking management company) has the right to bring civil proceedings for reasonable damages. My guess is that a civil court might accept that "reasonable damages" would be around the sort of fees for failure to pay or overstaying the allotted time set by the nearest local authority, so of the order of a few tens of pounds at most.

The important point here is that it should be the landowner, I believe, who instigates action. Usually the parking contract will be between the owner of the car and the landowner, not any intermediate management company, unless there are specific signs indicating that by parking on a managed car park or parking area you are entering a contract with one of these parking management companies.

No one has the right to park for free, and anyone has the right to charge for the right to park, even private householders who allow others to park on their drive (although doing this may have insurance implications).

The fundamental issue is whether or not these parking management companies are acting reasonably, both in their scale of charges and in the manner in which they go about trying to collect them. The overwhelming consensus seems to be that they don't.

This is far from being a new problem, though. I remember at least 30 years ago a friend being clamped for having parked on a bit of ground near to where he was doing some engineering work. It was late in the evening when he found his van clamped, and couldn't be bothered to try and get it unclamped, so just put the cutting torch on his Portapak and cut the padlock holding the clamp on, off.

The next day he went and bought an identical new padlock, checked there was no damage to the clamp and dropped the clamp and the padlock off at the clampers premises, telling them he was sorry, but he wasn't going to pay them a penny. They didn't even bother to write to him, probably realising that there wasn't a thing they could realistically do to get any money from him, and they couldn't really do anything about the damaged padlock as it had been replaced with an identical new one.

My guess is the publicity from the cases that are about to be heard will raise public awareness of these scammers and put an end to their game. Human nature being what it is, though, I am certain it won't take long for them to come up with another way of extorting excess charges for "services".

AtomKraft
22nd Feb 2015, 09:29
I've had three encounters with parking eye. On each occasion, I ignored their correspondence entirely.

On my three occasions, the letters eventually stopped.

I wouldn't describe victims of parking eye as morons. Gullible? Maybe.

Gertrude the Wombat
22nd Feb 2015, 10:57
Legally, if you do fail to pay or over stay then the landowner (NOT the parking management company) has the right to bring civil proceedings for reasonable damages. My guess is that a civil court might accept that "reasonable damages" would be around the sort of fees for failure to pay or overstaying the allotted time set by the nearest local authority, so of the order of a few tens of pounds at most.
A couple of quid for the lost income and a few tens of pounds for the cost of chasing payment seems reasonable, yes.

But consider: lots of people here, and all over the interweb thingy, advocate not paying the couple of pounds and writing all sorts of stupid letters in response and so on. Which means that the cost of collection can go up to hundreds rather than tens of pounds. And if some of these people never pay then those costs have got to be recovered from somewhere (the people who deal with the stupid correspondence expect their salaries at the end of the month) and the only way to recover them is to load them onto the people who do pay.

So, if you don't want this to happen, to you or to other people, the clever trick is not to leave your car on someone else's land in contravention of whatever contract they see fit to offer you.

Yes pay-and-display is a real pain, because of having to guess in advance how long your hospital appointment is going to be, or the queue at the barbers, or whatever. Which is why the parking business I was responsible for replaced all its pay-and-display systems with pay-on-exit, which basically means that any sort of excess charges become impossible.

But this costs lots of money for the equipment, and only works if it's a big enough site with suitable geometery (somewhere to put the barriers), and reduces income (entry/exit lanes, barriers etc take up space previously used for parking), and one could imagine that in some parts of the world some people would just drive through the barriers so they wouldn't last very long.

gingernut
22nd Feb 2015, 11:19
No-one is disputing that landowners have a right to charge for parking, or indeed, people abuse the privilege.

What is missing, is proportionality, and the current business model which relies on private parking companies profit being directly related to default.

The case law is quite clear, the errant parker is responsible for making good loss. What isn't clear, is how much this loss is. If, for example, you stay in an ALDI car park for 1 hour 35 minutes, instead of 1 hour 30 minutes, then what is the loss to the landholder- especially if you have spent that time in the store.

Ignoring Parking Eye was a reasonable tactic up until The Protection of Freedom Act in 2012. I do have the figures for numbers of cases brought to the County Court by Parking Eye somewhere. It is in the order of 10's of thousands. (things started to escelate around November 2012). Ignoring letters from Parking Eye is not now sound advice. Arguing at "POPLA" (the independent appeals service) is far more fun, as the case if totally winnable on the grounds of 90 not being a "genuine pre estimate of loss." And it costs Parking Eye 27 quid, even if they win.

I ignored my own advice, and ended up in the County Court. I obtained the accounts for Parking Eye, and estimated "loss" to be in the region of between 4 - 15.

Had a hoot in Court, the case was scheduled for 4 hours, Parking Eye sent along an advocate, (which must have cost a fair bit), the bacon butties in the court canteen were brill, and the Judge listened patiently to the 2 dozen or so points I put to him, and ruled in my favour.

He awarded me costs, and I'm sure I detected a little smirk when he reminded me that it must have cost me to park on the day, and awarded me an extra 3 quid for the ticket.




Here's a list of what Parking Eye get up to...

http://parking-prankster.********.co.uk/2015/02/parkingeye-still-scamming-motorists-at.html

gingernut
22nd Feb 2015, 11:22
woops, link not working.

This is from the blog of The Parking Prankster....


The Prankster has identified the following bad practices and dodgy tactics (http://parking-prankster.********.co.uk/2014/08/parkingeye-dodgy-practices-exposed.html)used by ParkingEye. Here is a reminder.



Pursuing cases when motorists break down, are injured or suffer medical emergencies
Pursuing cases against mothers who overstayed due to breastfeeding
Pursuing cases against disabled motorists who need more time to shop
Pursuing cases against elderly motorists who need more time to shop
Pursuing cases against motorists who are unable to leave the site due to congestion
Pursuing cases against motorists who were unable to appeal because they were in hospital and seriously ill
Installing sites without cameras on all entrances and exits, and then pursuing motorists for overstays if they left via an unmonitored route
Installing sites where the cameras do not record all entrances and exits of vehicles, and then pursuing motorists for overstays when two visits were made
Pursuing motorists for very short overstays, well within an acceptable grace period
Shortening parking periods to the detriment of retailers to increase their income
Aggressively pursuing tickets against the wishes of retailers served by the car park
Using inappropriate and hard to use technology coupled with confusing signage to target hospitals to generate vast income to the detriment of patient
Failing to take reasonable steps to mitigate transgressions by motorists
Providing false information to judges, including in the Beavis case
Charging motorists for POPLA, which the government has stated must be free to motorists
Using the Protection of Freedom Act to pursue keepers to court when they knew the land was not covered by the Act.
Charging motorists over 1 million in solicitor fees which were not actually incurred, making their court filings one of the most profitable part of the business
Providing landowner witness statements to court without the knowledge or permission of the witness by using photocopied witness statements
Providing landowner witness statements to court and POPLA containing information ParkingEye knew was not within the knowledge of the witness
Providing contracts to judges, including HHJ Moloney in the Beavis case, which had pertinent information redacted
Sending motorists false information to make them think they have no chance in appealing the ticket to POPLA
Providing outdated and misleading information on their web site
Not even bothering to defend large numbers of POPLA cases, causing motorists time and expense for cases ParkingEye knew they would not win anyway
Providing false information to POPLA in order to win cases
Pursuing through the court system even though they knew the motorist was neither the keeper or driver and was therefore not liable
Pursuing their own customers for huge penalty clauses when they try to get rid of them
Filing thousands of court cases without sending a letter before claim compliant with practice directions, or in some cases, without sending any letter before claim at all
Filing huge, complicated documents in court, in violation of the prime objectives of the courts in terms of proportionality to the sums involved. A typical filing will be over 50 pages with 30 or more case references.
Filing large numbers of documents after the filing deadline and without paying a fee
Complaining when motorists file after the filing deadline and asking the court to charge the motorists a fee
Refusing to reply to reasonable requests for information from motorists to allow them to defend their case
Filing false information in witness statements written by their employees including documents referred to by the witness statements
Filing deliberately misleading information in court documents, which while factually correct are not relevant, or are couched in terms to deliberately mislead
Ploughing on regardless with court cases, despite having lost all known similarly defended cases, causing defendants distress and expense.
Providing false information to and deliberately deceiving their own customers
Failing to properly quality check parking charge notices sent out
Pursuing cases where the landowner stated by ParkingEye in documents provided to court, was not the actual landowner and did not have the right to allow parking
Using signage to create entrapment zones in car parks, so that although coverage is sufficient in some areas, it is not in all
Getting CCJs by sending all the paperwork to the wrong address, and only establishing the right address once the CCJ is in place
Using dubious sales techniques such as over-estimating the value of equipment they are providing for free
Breaking government guidelines at hospital car parks

This list is not exhaustive, even if it is exhausting.

Finally it is of course a matter of record that the second hearing in ParkingEye v Beavis was called off because of a hoax phone call to their counsel, David Altaras. This delay enabled ParkingEye to get the counsel they really wanted, Jonathan Kirk. HHJ Moloney stated that the hoax phone caller had intimate knowledge of the case and was able to fool David Altaras that he was ParkingEye's witness, Alex Cooke. We can only speculate who made the hoax phone call. Only a few people knew that Alex Cooke was a witness, and even fewer know what his voice sounds like. However it has been reported that police traced the phone used to make the call and arrested two people. These people were released without charge following sterling work by members of Jonathan Kirk's chambers

Gertrude the Wombat
22nd Feb 2015, 12:03
If, for example, you stay in an ALDI car park for 1 hour 35 minutes, instead of 1 hour 30 minutes, then what is the loss to the landholder
Worst case probably no more than 150 (turnover), and that would be unusual.

Scenario: car park is full, someone else turns up wanting to shop at Aldi during those five minutes, fails to find somewhere to park, goes and does the family shop at Tesco instead. You could I suppose stretch this and say that that customer has been lost for life, which is worth 7k/year, but I can't see a court accepting that.

Scaled up, of course, that's a real problem, which is why retailers usually don't want car parking to be free all day where there's a scarcity - they need turnover. Retailers would love city centre car parks to be free for the first two or three hours and then ruinously expensive thereafter. Trouble is you can't run a parking business on the very low income that would result from such a regime - multi-storey car parks wear out and cost millions to refurbish or even more millions to replace.

gingernut
22nd Feb 2015, 13:47
Worst case probably no more than 150 (turnover), and that would be unusual.

It's never been demonstrated.

VP959
22nd Feb 2015, 14:26
gingernut wrote:

It's never been demonstrated.

That's the real problem. Every single case will be different. A supermarket could, possibly, use the extreme argument that they lost a customer (although frankly I think that would be very hard to prove, as I think they would need to show that there were no vacant spaces at all in their car park at the time).

On the other hand, a car park at a pleasure spot could only really argue that their damages were the lost parking revenue, plus a modest fee for enforcement action. It would seem very hard to make a case for charging more than a few tens of pounds normally, I think.

Each of these claims would have to be dealt with by the civil court as a damages claim, and as such only things that could legitimately and reasonably be classed as damages could be included. The supermarket case is probably at the most extreme end, as Gertrude the Wombat has mentioned, but that is I think beyond reasonable for 99.99% of these cases.

The bottom line is that it is perfectly reasonable to apply a penalty charge for someone who parks and fails to pay, or parks for longer than they have paid. What is not reasonable is then trying to extort very large sums of money by way of penalty charges - they can only be proportional to the value of the loss, plus admin costs in collecting them.

galaxy flyer
22nd Feb 2015, 14:59
In the US, they just tow your car away. Simples. That or no charge for parking as they are not willing to penny pinch paying customers for doing business.

GF

gingernut
23rd Feb 2015, 17:27
The POFA (2012) brought a swift halt to towing/clamping in the UK.

No-one I've spoken to disputes the fact that parkers do have to be regulated, but it can seem to be an excuse for private parking companies to print money.

Good luck Barry.

gingernut
23rd Feb 2015, 17:45
Round up here.... http://parking-prankster.********.co.uk/2015/02/parkingeye-v-beavis-whats-it-all-about.html

Blacksheep
23rd Feb 2015, 18:16
Read again what Blacksheep posted. he has been caught staying longer in a car park than the time he paid for/was permitted to do. TWICE.

Once may be considered unfortunate, and accident. But twice?

What should Aldi (or whoever) do about people who apparently abuse the use of their private land?Let's deal with this by stating the full situation. The Aldi supermarket is located on a development. The developers continue to own the land on which the car park is situated. UKPC runs the car park and there is a One Hour Free Parking clause in place as long as a ticket is displayed. On the first occasion we went first to the "Open All Hours" general store round the corner to buy things that Aldi doesn't stock, then into the supermarket and returned to the car about three minutes after the free ticket expired. The attendant was still there and I offered to pay for an hour to cover the excess, but he refused. Aldi couldn't intervene - the manager said she had been ticketed herself for overstaying her Aldi staff allowance.

On the second occasion, the nearest machine was out of paper, so was the next one. At the most distant there was a queue, including a woman who was confused about the rule. When I returned to the car with my ticket there was already a PCN on the windscreen - for not displaying a ticket!.

There will not be a third occasion, as we no longer shop at Aldi. It's just too much hassle. ASDA has parking control on their car park, but they run it themselves without ticket machines and the free allowance is a more reasonable two hours.

As the recent 'Horizon' Investigation revealed, the attendants are on a bonus scheme - the more tickets they issue, the more they earn. (Even though this is contrary to the British Parking Association rules and could in theory result in expulsion.) Could this bonus scheme have anything to do with the paperless ticket machines, and the very fast ticket issuing business I wonder? The attendant would know exactly how long it takes to walk to the far end and back, especially when there's a queue as well. The plum job for these people is the Hospital Car Park. No one knows how long they will have to wait, so it's either feed the meter for six hours on arrival or risk losing your place if you're called while you return to the car to buy more time.

There really is no excuse for not having 'Pay on Exit' as used by reputable Car Park operators such as National Car Parks. They get an honest income and though setting up the machines is a cost, they then do not have to pay a Ticket Warden - or his bonus.

As for sympathy, I neither need it nor care what anyone thinks. UKPC operates beyond the law of contract and I simply will not pay anyone a single penny they are not entitled to. I made a reasonable offer and UKPC refused to accept it, so that's the end of the matter.

Gertrude the Wombat
23rd Feb 2015, 19:01
The plum job for these people is the Hospital Car Park. No one knows how long they will have to wait, so it's either feed the meter for six hours on arrival or risk losing your place if you're called while you return to the car to buy more time.
Our hospital is slightly more reasonable. It's pay on exit, but if you're a patient and it comes to more than four hours then you only pay for the first four hours.

gingernut
23rd Feb 2015, 19:30
Oncology units are rich pickings for these Private Parking Companies.

Nasty :-(

VP959
23rd Feb 2015, 20:28
Our hospital used to be pre-pay, which resulted in a large number of complaints about penalty charges (for the simple reason that many had no idea how long they would be there for). The thing that caused them to switch to "pay on exit" was the large number of people who started parking on adjacent roads, causing a real nuisance and a great deal of congestion.

After a year or so of lobbying by the local press, two things changed. Parking outside A&E became free (subject to needing a free exit ticket from A& E to get out), Oncology and dementia assessment parking became free (same system as A&E) and general parking became pay on exit.

Overall it seems fair and a great deal less stressful when visiting someone and you have no idea how long you will be there.

gingernut
23rd Feb 2015, 20:32
Daily Mail.... NHS hospitals and patients hit by 'cowboy' parking wardens | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2709056/NHS-hospitals-patients-hit-cowboy-parking-wardens.html)

gingernut
23rd Feb 2015, 20:34
MacMillan... Macmillan Cancer Support bosses join Mail's fight to rid Britain of the scourge of car parking pirates | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2711384/Cancer-charities-Stop-bullies-Bosses-join-Mail-s-fight-rid-Britain-scourge-car-parking-pirates.html)

Flying Lawyer
23rd Feb 2015, 20:58
Re the Beavis v Parkingeye case mentioned earlier.

Barry Beavis has taken his case against ParkingEye to the Court of Appeal. The hearing is at the Royal Courts of Justice tomorrow.

In a nutshell, Mr Beavis seeks a ruling that because ParkingEye can only sue him for breach of contract, it can only sue for the its actual loss and not for 'punitive' damages.
The case arose from an overstay of the 2-hour limit at a retail park Chelmsford resulting in a Parking Charge of 85.

According to various reports on the internet, the Judge at Cambridge County Court ruled in favour of ParkingEye on the basis of 'commercial justification' (not actual loss) but, again according to internet reports, apparently suggested his decision should be reviewed by the Court of Appeal so that the relevant law could be clarified.

COURT 72
Before LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division
LORD JUSTICE PATTEN and
SIR TIMOTHY LLOYD
Not Before half-past 10
APPEAL
B2/2014/2010 Parkingeye Ltd 40 Eaton Avenue -v- Beavis.
Appeal of Defendant from the order of His Honour Judge Moloney, dated 19th May 2014.

Not Before half-past 10 actual time depends upon what time the previous case finishes.


Cambridge County Court judgment (http://nebula.wsimg.com/8bc2fd992ffc9ff3697c488fd4583721?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF2 28A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)

gingernut
23rd Feb 2015, 21:32
Commercial Justification seems to be a new entity that evolved when Judge Mahoney, who is a "big wig" in the lower courts, seemed to get a little tired of Parking Eye cases clogging up his court in the South East of England.

All private parking cases, so far, have been heard in the County Courts.

The County Court system is a little .....ermm "twee." It is possible to ask ten County Court Judges to rule, and get ten different rulings. In statistical terms, the rulings are valid (ie what the Judge says go's), but not reliable, (ie ten different opinions.) And o course, they are not binding.

Judge Mahoney, (who ruled on the Parking Eye vs Beavis) case, is the equivalent of a "Prefect" in school. He's persuasive, but he's not the headmaster.

Tomorrow, we're going to the Head.

Is that a fair synopsis Flying Lawyer ?





And then we get to the division of the powers. I always fancied being a lawyer, but the

Shack37
23rd Feb 2015, 21:48
Commercial Justification seems to be a new entity that evolved when Judge Mahoney, who is a "big wig" in the lower courts, seemed to get a little tired of Parking Eye cases clogging up his court in the South East of
England.

Gingernut
I think that should be Judge Moloney

gingernut
23rd Feb 2015, 21:55
Apologies, I should know, His Honour Judge Moloney is, of course, his correct title.

"HHJ Moloney stated that if a charge looked like a penalty, quacked like a penalty and swam like a penalty, then it was probably a penalty. "

Flying Lawyer
23rd Feb 2015, 22:57
Is that a fair synopsis Flying Lawyer ?No.

Adopting your school analogy ....

The Judge is the Headmaster.
The Court of Appeal are the Board of Governors.

You are correct that:
- a decision about a matter of law made by a Judge in a particular case is not binding upon other Judges, although Judges in lower courts should regard it as persuasive;
- what the Court of Appeal says about a matter of law (whether unanimously or by a majority) is or becomes the law - unless/until subsequently changed in a later case by the C of A or (in rare cases) reversed by the Supreme Court.



FL

superq7
23rd Feb 2015, 23:40
Got a ticket for parking over this dropped kerb, fair enough it was close to a junction and I've paid the fine but I was unaware it was illegal, taught me a lesson.

http://i59.tinypic.com/j5h79i.jpg

VP959
24th Feb 2015, 07:57
Got a ticket for parking over this dropped kerb, fair enough it was close to a junction and I've paid the fine but I was unaware it was illegal, taught me a lesson.

I wish I could get someone to enforce this particular parking offence. Our drive is within 5m of a road junction, and has a dropped kerb. People regularly block our drive and park too close to the road junction and I regularly complain to both the police and the local highways department.

The police are understandably too busy to bother about it and the highways people just send me a standard letter that Highway Code article 243 states that you must not park within 10m of a junction or blocking access over a dropped kerb.

I've asked for double yellow lines on this short stretch of road (as this happens several times every week and prevents access to our house) and each time highways say they cannot put double yellow lines there as there is already a parking restriction in place in the Highway Code...................

gingernut
24th Feb 2015, 07:58
My own personal case didn't seem a good use of the legal system.



Drove round a car park for 31 minutes looking for a space. idn't find one. Have used the car park previously so knew parking charges applied.
Parking Eye claimed they wrote to me asking for 90- it became apparent that Parking Eye were having problems with their post, as I was able to evidence with a copy of correspondence between them and their postal agents.
Parking Eye issued legal proceedings against me, by this time they wanted 179 (which included a 50 solicitors fee-they issue 1-2000 claims a week, and at the time employed 1 solicitor- how much must she be on?)
I didn't relish the thought of going to court, and asked for mediation, Parking Eye refused initially.
Parking Eye opted for mediation when I pointed out that they were being unreasonable.
Was able to calculate their "Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss" through Freedom of Information Act DVLA data and Parking Eye Accounts-a conservative estimate was 5, I offered a generous estimate of 15
Parking Eye refused, and continued County Court Action.
They sent a trained advocate for what turned out to be a four hour case.



I've not really had any exposure to courts etc, I always thought that a robust legal system was designed to prevent people having to be dragged through the courts.


A complete waste of everyones time, (and Parking Eye's money), but sometimes you've gotta sock it to the bullies.

Blacksheep
24th Feb 2015, 09:56
That "Commercial Justification" idea ought to come up against the concept of "Action in Restraint of Trade". The activities of the Parking Pirates discourages people from doing business in the vicinity of the particular car park involved. I'm sure Aldi loses a lot of potential business in Hatfield.

cockney steve
24th Feb 2015, 10:27
@superq7, post#74
I'm assuming the kerb in question is in the bottom right of your picture.....As someone has already pointed out, it's illegal to park within, IIRC, 25 metres of a junction.

Also, a dropped kerb is an access-point for wheeled traffic....logic says, therefore, it's a junction, not a convenient run-on for parking.
If it's not obvious just why it's illegal to park an obstruction in the sight-lines of a junction, you shouldn't be driving.



Had the section been over 25 metres from the junction, you might have had an appeal chance, based on the fact the double yellow lines were in disrepair and did not meet the statutory requirements to make them valid as controls.....likewise the argument that the patch was a single line, would not wash, because they, too, have to comply with various parameters including advisory notices every so-often.

Never roll over and submit, just because it's "authority" that accuses you. Often they are lazy, incompetent, careless or misinformed. do your homework and challenge them!
A friend's house has a footpath directly outside, then there is a strip of tarmac, a crash-barrier and then the curb and the road....there are the remains of double-yellows....no stop-end where they finish, no statutory notices ...she was done for parking on the highway....she was parked part on the tarmac strip and part on the pavement.....I argued the highway ended at the crash-barrier therefore the tarmac behind it was inacessible to traffic and so, not highway. she coughed up 60 and complained that, as the tarmac got wider, the council had actually marked out bays.
she got done again, this time for parking with 2 wheels on the (overly wide) pavement....they had her bang to rights, another 60.

superq7
24th Feb 2015, 10:41
Hi steve, no I was parked adjacent or parallel to the dropped kerb right in the centre of the pic just to the right of the road name sign, not on the corner of the road as you think, and as I said taught me a lesson := Stu.

http://i60.tinypic.com/2zf37m9.jpg

AtomKraft
24th Feb 2015, 19:26
I will never pay a sou to anyone for parking in a NHS car park.
I'd sooner go to to jail.

The NHS is a huge financial burden on us all, no matter what you think of it- and all us tax payers fund it whether we wish to, or not.

If anyone tries to fleece me to park in one of its car parks- they will receive precisely zero pounds, under all circumstances.

Anyone who puts up with parking eye, or similar, in an NHS car park, will put up with anything.

And that's not a compliment.

Gertrude the Wombat
24th Feb 2015, 20:31
If anyone tries to fleece me to park in one of its car parks
Well, the current theory is that the car parks should be paid for by the people who choose to use them (who are, by definition, rich enough to be able to run cars). The alternatives include

(a) not to have car parks, and to use the land for other purposes that won't be a drain on the NHS budgets

(b) use the land to provide free parking, and sack large numbers of doctors and nurses to be able to pay for it

but one that nobody has been able to make work yet is

(c) invoke the magic money fairy to provide free everything for everyone who wants it.

Loose rivets
24th Feb 2015, 23:13
Jeremy Clarkson visited NCP's boss' yacht. It was big. Very big. And cost Ten million quid PER METRE to build. Cat and Fat come to mind, along with a picture of overburdened mums fishing in their pockets for change.

VP959
25th Feb 2015, 06:52
IIRC, NCP made most of its money by having the foresight to see there would be a need for car parking in big cities just after the war. They went around buying up bombed out sites very cheaply, in areas where they thought car parking might be needed in the post war boom.

I have no love of the company, but always thought that was an particularly astute bit of entrepreneurial thinking.

They ended up sitting on assets that in central London alone are worth hundreds of millions in land value.

gingernut
25th Feb 2015, 12:59
I will never pay a sou to anyone for parking in a NHS car park.
I'd sooner go to to jail.

I agree with the sentiments. I personally avoid Parking Eye carparks, Fistral Beach, The Range, Aldi etc, as I have that choice. (And the food in Adi is generally mouldy.)

What worries me is, that generally, people don't have a choice when visiting a hospital. It's a great sentiment AtomKraft, it's unlikely you will be imprisoned, but highly likely that you would recieve a CCJ. (Unless you successfully defended the case.)

AtomKraft
25th Feb 2015, 13:26
Gertrude.

The way I look at it, when I PAY for the NHS- and boy, I have- parking is included.

Hitting people for parking charges, when they are forced to use the NHS, is not fair. You might CHOOSE to park at Aldi, but visits to hospitals tend to be more pressing in nature......

I will never pay a bean for parking in a hospital car park. The NHS is meant to be free at point of use- because you PAY, up front.

Charging for use of hospital car parks is just another aspect of rip- off Britain.

Gertrude the Wombat
25th Feb 2015, 17:20
What worries me is, that generally, people don't have a choice when visiting a hospital.
I do.

My hospital visits over the years have involved travelling by ambulance, bus, bicycle, taxi and car (thankfully I've never needed a ride in the chopper). Each choice has its own advantages and costs. One of the costs of choosing to drive is parking - none of the other choices have this cost.

The ones who really have no choice at all are the ones in the ambulances, and they don't pay for parking.

Gertrude the Wombat
25th Feb 2015, 17:23
The way I look at it, when I PAY for the NHS- and boy, I have- parking is included.
Ah! - so you'd like to pay more tax, then, in order to have additional services included.

Fair enough, that's a perfectly reasonable position, and one that many people take. But I'm afraid that's still a minority, so I'm afraid you're not going to win that one, for the time being at least.

gingernut
25th Feb 2015, 19:25
Those who serve the NHS, have become victim to Parking Eye. On many occasions.

AtomKraft
26th Feb 2015, 09:42
Gertrude.

Are you nuts?

Parking at hospitals should be free. End of.

Just because someone's worked out a new way to make money, does not mean that that money must always be there. Hospitals managed for decades without car parking charges.

I'm always amazed at the mindset that defends the indefensible. It must be a British disease.

As for parking eye operating these car parks, one wonders where the line should be drawn? Presumably you've no problem with wheel clampers operating there, or tow away trucks?

Hospital car parks are for people who need to go to hospital because they are using the NHS, or for people to visit them. No need to charge them for the privilege, they have already paid. And no need for more tax either. The NHS is extravagantly funded already and can manage without income from it's own car parks, FFS.

gingernut
26th Feb 2015, 09:53
Hmmm....not sure if I'd take my poorly child/expectant wife etc to hospital on a pushbike or rely on our busses. And we are trying to discourage people from using an ambulance merely as taxi.

I don't actually have any beef with the NHS charging for parking, what I do object to, is an unfair business model, which relies on default to make 57million pounds for ParkingEye and the lot.

There are fairer models available.

And whilst I wish Mr Beavis all the look in the world, there could potentially be a reclaim here on the scale of PPI - probably paid for by "patients money."

The commissioners have a lot to answer for.

Gertrude the Wombat
26th Feb 2015, 10:17
Hospitals managed for decades without car parking charges.
And I used to have to drive around for ages trying to find a space in one of a dozen scrappy little surface parks scattered around the site, quite likely missing the appointment.


Now there's a multi-storey convenient for the main entrances and you just drive in and park ... where TF do you think the millions that cost to build should come from?

KelvinD
26th Feb 2015, 10:32
I just returned, disappointed, from a visit to my local hospital.
I was sent there by my GP to have some blood tests. Having heeded his admonishment that I had to fast for 12 hours prior to my tests, I headed off there having had not a scrap of food or even a coffee since yesterday evening. Got there, got a ticket at the entrance to the car park and went round and round only to be told by the attendant I would have to leave the car park, go around the circuit again and try again. The bit that figures out the car park is full was not working and was allowing access to a 100% full car park. Having tried the circuit twice, I gave up and came home. I shall try again this afternoon but the fast has gone up the spout; I am now having my first cup of coffee. Normally by this time of day, I would be on cup number 4 or 5. It did seem to work better in the "good old days" when the car park was unregulated and free.
And free they should be. My local hospital doesn't have a multi-storey car park so talk of costing millions is way wild of the mark. It is a tarmac covered square with white lines marking the spaces. "Tarmac your drive Mr?" man could lay it out for a couple of grand. This one probably takes in excess of 1,000 per day in fees and I am buggered if I can see how that can be justified!

Gertrude the Wombat
26th Feb 2015, 11:09
I am buggered if I can see how that can be justified!
Well, the current provision is inadequate, isn't it, as proved by your failing to find a place. So perhaps they're saving up to build a real car park?


What they're not succeeding in doing is rationing by price - they're obviously not charging enough for that to work.

Mr Chips
26th Feb 2015, 11:20
Gertrude, can we keep this one quiet please, but today I agree with you!

To claim that a car park is full because it is paid for is ludicrous, even by Jetblast standards!

Katamarino
26th Feb 2015, 15:11
(c) invoke the magic money fairy to provide free everything for everyone who wants it.

You took this out of the Labour manifesto, right? :}

BabyBear
26th Feb 2015, 15:51
BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Does free hospital parking work? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8308517.stm)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7273649.stm

G-CPTN
26th Feb 2015, 16:25
The hospital in the nearby town is located very close to the main street - closer than any of the three supermarkets.


The hospital carpark was convenient for those working in the town, and was frequently filled by all-day parkers.


The hospital introduced parking charges (including for their staff) resulting in the residential streets around the hospital being clogged by all-day parkers (and hospital employees). It seems that providing free parking in a paid-for carpark is a taxable 'perk'.


A change of County Council (political) management resulted in free parking in the town (previously pay and display) carparks - result, the town carpark is now full by 09:30 every day with all-day parkers (those working in the town) and hospital workers (safer than parking in the residential streets and less hassle).
Visitors and would-be shoppers can no longer find parking in the town and the shop footfall has fallen (despite the town centre shopkeepers initially supporting removal of parking charges).


The two supermarkets (on the periphery of the town) that have free parking (albeit limited to two or three hours) are located down a steep bank (or, in fact, the town centre is up a steep bank) meaning that few shoppers bother with the town centre shops now.

The third supermarket has retained its carpark charges, and their carpark is mainly empty throughout the day.

I could suggest changes to the town centre parking arrangement and layout that would alleviate the predicament, but the county (and town) councillors are too thick to see the folly of their ways - just as they fail to see the obvious (to me) changes to traffic priority that would relieve the junctions that gridlock at peak times of the day.

gingernut
26th Feb 2015, 17:37
Please don't fall for the illusion that Private Parking Companies have any interest in parking.

AtomKraft
26th Feb 2015, 19:16
Ginger.
Correct.
They are only interested in money.

Come to think of it, most organisations in the UK are only interested in money.

In fact, ALL organisations in the UK are only interested in money.

And some idiots, are only interested in justifying their love of money.

The UK has become a sick society, and I'm glad to no longer be a part of it.

Kiss my ass, and kiss my tax Cheerio with it.

You get nothing from me from now on.

:)

Gertrude the Wombat
26th Feb 2015, 21:16
They are only interested in money.
That's the law, if they've got shareholders.

gingernut
27th Feb 2015, 07:58
That's the law

ahh yes, we're back to that one, which, I think, is what this thread is about.

gingernut
27th Feb 2015, 08:00
slightly different, as there is a criminal element involved with this one, but one I'm keeping my eye on..


Aberdeen Sheriff Court
Wednesday 4th March 2015
Criminal

#17 Civil Enforcement Ltd SCS/2015-025464 AB14012607 Court 1A