Parking Eye - £100 "fine" for meeting someone @ Fleet servic
Discussion
EU_Foreigner said:
First of all, it is not a fine. It is a private company trying to invoice you a ridiculous amount for parking in a free car park. For some reason they think that £100 is a reasonable amount to try to charge - that is why it always gets thrown out if you follow the proper process of objection with POPLA. In my case, they submitted their loss charges (also in a free car park, but my "crime" was parking over the white line at the end space next to a wall).
They tried to justify that the envelope on the windscreen was £36. That was what POPLA threw it out on as it was a made up figure and not a real one.
These companies can not issue penalty level charges, and as long as they try that they will lose time and time again. But as there will always be people paying up, it remains worth their effort to try it on.
With any luck one day the government will realise the absurdity of the law and allow firms to actually charge a fee which includes a decent deterrent element.They tried to justify that the envelope on the windscreen was £36. That was what POPLA threw it out on as it was a made up figure and not a real one.
These companies can not issue penalty level charges, and as long as they try that they will lose time and time again. But as there will always be people paying up, it remains worth their effort to try it on.
Parking enforcement by firms like Parking Eye is only necessary because drivers decide to abuse car parks. If drivers didn't overstay their welcome, didn't park out side bays, didn't block people in, didn't take up spaces that belong to someone else etc then there would be no need for enforcement.
The issue of course then becomes that enforcement is expensive and prevention is even more so as barriers are inclined to fail or be vandalised,, gates need opening and closing, Parking Eye need the ANPR kit, or staff need to be paid. These need to be paid for and it seems to me only reasonable (even if not strictly lawful) that those costs should be paid by those who cannot obey the rules.
I assume those who advocate not paying etc have never had the experience of managing land where parking is abused. I strongly believe that Most land owners would rather not use a parking enforcement company, but end up having little choice as it is the most effective and cost efficient way of resolving the issues they have.
mph1977 said:
OldJohnnyYen said:
King Eric said:
Oh the old 'I met another man in a motorway services to buy some car parts and it lasted 2hrs 31mins'
They met for bum fun.Chrisgr31 said:
I assume those who advocate not paying etc have never had the experience of managing land where parking is abused. I strongly believe that Most land owners would rather not use a parking enforcement company, but end up having little choice as it is the most effective and cost efficient way of resolving the issues they have.
Spot on.Chrisgr31 said:
With any luck one day the government will realise the absurdity of the law and allow firms to actually charge a fee which includes a decent deterrent element.
Parking enforcement by firms like Parking Eye is only necessary because drivers decide to abuse car parks. If drivers didn't overstay their welcome, didn't park out side bays, didn't block people in, didn't take up spaces that belong to someone else etc then there would be no need for enforcement.
The issue of course then becomes that enforcement is expensive and prevention is even more so as barriers are inclined to fail or be vandalised,, gates need opening and closing, Parking Eye need the ANPR kit, or staff need to be paid. These need to be paid for and it seems to me only reasonable (even if not strictly lawful) that those costs should be paid by those who cannot obey the rules.
They changed it in 2012 to make themselves look good by banning clamping,Parking enforcement by firms like Parking Eye is only necessary because drivers decide to abuse car parks. If drivers didn't overstay their welcome, didn't park out side bays, didn't block people in, didn't take up spaces that belong to someone else etc then there would be no need for enforcement.
The issue of course then becomes that enforcement is expensive and prevention is even more so as barriers are inclined to fail or be vandalised,, gates need opening and closing, Parking Eye need the ANPR kit, or staff need to be paid. These need to be paid for and it seems to me only reasonable (even if not strictly lawful) that those costs should be paid by those who cannot obey the rules.
Was it a good thing ??
In the Govs eyes probably because the carpark owners trying to secure their land from some p!sstakers are not as vocal a bunch as the people being clamped the POFA 2012 allows reasonable losses but is 'wishy washy' on what they are.
It is that what needs making clearer but it won't happen as it's easier to do nothing at the moment.
k ....Chrisgr31 said:
EU_Foreigner said:
First of all, it is not a fine. It is a private company trying to invoice you a ridiculous amount for parking in a free car park. For some reason they think that £100 is a reasonable amount to try to charge - that is why it always gets thrown out if you follow the proper process of objection with POPLA. In my case, they submitted their loss charges (also in a free car park, but my "crime" was parking over the white line at the end space next to a wall).
They tried to justify that the envelope on the windscreen was £36. That was what POPLA threw it out on as it was a made up figure and not a real one.
These companies can not issue penalty level charges, and as long as they try that they will lose time and time again. But as there will always be people paying up, it remains worth their effort to try it on.
With any luck one day the government will realise the absurdity of the law and allow firms to actually charge a fee which includes a decent deterrent element.They tried to justify that the envelope on the windscreen was £36. That was what POPLA threw it out on as it was a made up figure and not a real one.
These companies can not issue penalty level charges, and as long as they try that they will lose time and time again. But as there will always be people paying up, it remains worth their effort to try it on.
Parking enforcement by firms like Parking Eye is only necessary because drivers decide to abuse car parks. If drivers didn't overstay their welcome, didn't park out side bays, didn't block people in, didn't take up spaces that belong to someone else etc then there would be no need for enforcement.
The issue of course then becomes that enforcement is expensive and prevention is even more so as barriers are inclined to fail or be vandalised,, gates need opening and closing, Parking Eye need the ANPR kit, or staff need to be paid. These need to be paid for and it seems to me only reasonable (even if not strictly lawful) that those costs should be paid by those who cannot obey the rules.
I assume those who advocate not paying etc have never had the experience of managing land where parking is abused. I strongly believe that Most land owners would rather not use a parking enforcement company, but end up having little choice as it is the most effective and cost efficient way of resolving the issues they have.
Why do these companies even patrol free car parks where there are no limits on staying - that never makes sense to me.
Chrisgr31 said:
EU_Foreigner said:
First of all, it is not a fine. It is a private company trying to invoice you a ridiculous amount for parking in a free car park. For some reason they think that £100 is a reasonable amount to try to charge - that is why it always gets thrown out if you follow the proper process of objection with POPLA. In my case, they submitted their loss charges (also in a free car park, but my "crime" was parking over the white line at the end space next to a wall).
They tried to justify that the envelope on the windscreen was £36. That was what POPLA threw it out on as it was a made up figure and not a real one.
These companies can not issue penalty level charges, and as long as they try that they will lose time and time again. But as there will always be people paying up, it remains worth their effort to try it on.
With any luck one day the government will realise the absurdity of the law and allow firms to actually charge a fee which includes a decent deterrent element.They tried to justify that the envelope on the windscreen was £36. That was what POPLA threw it out on as it was a made up figure and not a real one.
These companies can not issue penalty level charges, and as long as they try that they will lose time and time again. But as there will always be people paying up, it remains worth their effort to try it on.
Parking enforcement by firms like Parking Eye is only necessary because drivers decide to abuse car parks. If drivers didn't overstay their welcome, didn't park out side bays, didn't block people in, didn't take up spaces that belong to someone else etc then there would be no need for enforcement.
The issue of course then becomes that enforcement is expensive and prevention is even more so as barriers are inclined to fail or be vandalised,, gates need opening and closing, Parking Eye need the ANPR kit, or staff need to be paid. These need to be paid for and it seems to me only reasonable (even if not strictly lawful) that those costs should be paid by those who cannot obey the rules.
I assume those who advocate not paying etc have never had the experience of managing land where parking is abused. I strongly believe that Most land owners would rather not use a parking enforcement company, but end up having little choice as it is the most effective and cost efficient way of resolving the issues they have.
Motorway service areas are probably the trickiest one to enforce though, you cant really use a barrier without a payment mechanism and IIRC legislation eans that parking has to be free (at least for a time).
Parking Eye though, really are the cowboys of cowboys, we interviewed them once when we were looking for a firm to manage a car park.
Chrisgr31 said:
Parking enforcement by firms like Parking Eye is only necessary because drivers decide to abuse car parks. If drivers didn't overstay their welcome, didn't park out side bays, didn't block people in, didn't take up spaces that belong to someone else etc then there would be no need for enforcement.
Totally disagree here.Parking firms exist because the government and local authorities have totally ignored the fact that there are more private vehicles on the road than there used to be and have ignored the requirements for providing more convenient parking.
To compound this issue local authorities have forced the motorist out of town centres and placed restrictions on the majority of remaining areas leaving little choice for the motorist to go about their daily business without coming in to contract when parking.
My second point is that there has been a total lack of realisation that there is a miss-match between the growing width of vehicles and the "standard car park width" that is painted in the majority of car parks. This will of course highlight that humans make errors and as a result there is a focus there to make a profit when there are assumed contracts in place where the motorist has little other choice.
It is for these reasons why so many parking firms have cropped up and why a parking space is now deemed to be an asset that can provide a profit.
AA999 said:
Chrisgr31 said:
Parking enforcement by firms like Parking Eye is only necessary because drivers decide to abuse car parks. If drivers didn't overstay their welcome, didn't park out side bays, didn't block people in, didn't take up spaces that belong to someone else etc then there would be no need for enforcement.
Totally disagree here.Parking firms exist because the government and local authorities have totally ignored the fact that there are more private vehicles on the road than there used to be and have ignored the requirements for providing more convenient parking.
To compound this issue local authorities have forced the motorist out of town centres and placed restrictions on the majority of remaining areas leaving little choice for the motorist to go about their daily business without coming in to contract when parking.
My second point is that there has been a total lack of realisation that there is a miss-match between the growing width of vehicles and the "standard car park width" that is painted in the majority of car parks. This will of course highlight that humans make errors and as a result there is a focus there to make a profit when there are assumed contracts in place where the motorist has little other choice.
It is for these reasons why so many parking firms have cropped up and why a parking space is now deemed to be an asset that can provide a profit.
Whether they have gone about it in the right or wrong way is open to arguement but what other option do they have apart from limiting parking capacity to make it difficult for car drivers.
That is why there are planning restrictions on developments etc, With regard to point 2, If you can provide 10 spaces and land use/space isn't a problem spaces can be wider/bigger. Have a root when you are bored http://www.planningni.gov.uk/downloads/parking-sta...
speedyguy said:
I think you may have missed the point in that the Gov and councils are trying to disuade people from using their cars.
Has this come from public demand I wonder or some minority crazies who believe that preventing vehicles from conveniently entering towns/cities is going to save the planet from destruction? 
AA999 said:
speedyguy said:
I think you may have missed the point in that the Gov and councils are trying to disuade people from using their cars.
Has this come from public demand I wonder or some minority crazies who believe that preventing vehicles from conveniently entering towns/cities is going to save the planet from destruction? AA999 said:
Has this come from public demand I wonder or some minority crazies who believe that preventing vehicles from conveniently entering towns/cities is going to save the planet from destruction?
Probably because i now use the train to get to work rather as it's quicker and cheaper.Oh and "free" buses round the City help
Next time i go to the city with the family though will be in the car because it's a damn sight cheaper and just about as quick as it won't be rush hour.
The swivel eyed loonies have won, The policy changes have worked.
Oh and i know where and how to park without getting a ticket which helps
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff