Parking Eye - £100 "fine" for meeting someone @ Fleet servic

Parking Eye - £100 "fine" for meeting someone @ Fleet servic

Author
Discussion

EskimoArapaho

5,135 posts

134 months

Sunday 27th July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
Whether the rules are technically correct is a moot point,
But it's not. You want us to act within the law re insurance, but you think car parking enforcement companies should be allowed to flaunt the law. And you claim equivalence between over-staying at a commercially run car park and parking in a private house's driveway.

I'm struggling to find an over-arcing principle that covers these PoVs, and the only thing I can think is that you're so jaded (here at PH, at least) that you just don't like PH motorists who complain. Whether their grievance is legitimate or not.

ruff'n'smov

1,092 posts

148 months

Sunday 27th July 2014
quotequote all
g3org3y said:
LoonR1 said:
Kitchski said:
Any thoughts?
Yes. First thought is pay up.
Second thought is:

- Make a soft appeal directly to the private parking company (who will reject it).
- Obtain a POPLA code from the parking company (will be in the rejection letter).
- Use the code to appeal directly to POPLA (see MSE/Pepipoo on example letters).
- Win the case.
Do the second one.
I have recently POPLA appealed MET services and Parking eye and won them both, get advice from parking prankster and Pepioo. There is a contract implied by you parking there but the parking company can only claim costs against you on the perceived loss of revenue, or that's how I appealed anyway.

Good luck.


LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Sunday 27th July 2014
quotequote all
EskimoArapaho said:
LoonR1 said:
Whether the rules are technically correct is a moot point,
But it's not. You want us to act within the law re insurance, but you think car parking enforcement companies should be allowed to flaunt the law. And you claim equivalence between over-staying at a commercially run car park and parking in a private house's driveway.

I'm struggling to find an over-arcing principle that covers these PoVs, and the only thing I can think is that you're so jaded (here at PH, at least) that you just don't like PH motorists who complain. Whether their grievance is legitimate or not.
There was more to my post than that snip and that snip was not the point I was making. Either way, I couldn't care less what you do with insurance. It's your choice, not mine.

I've also replaced my driveway question with one about another company's office car park and whether you'd park in that as it's unlikely they own the land. Nobody has bothered to even attempt to address that yet.

As for parking this way in theServices, then yes I think people should at least consider their actions, rather than just treat it as free. For example, the OP is moaning that he's being fined, but did he make any attempt to pay the parking fee that was lawfully requested?

Edit: no idea where that red angry smiley thing came from.

Edited by LoonR1 on Sunday 27th July 18:33

Nigel Worc's

8,121 posts

187 months

Sunday 27th July 2014
quotequote all
I frequently need to park on other peoples land when visiting small businesses, you just ask, I've never been refused yet.

The services are very well signed, if you don't agree with it, don't use them.

hairykrishna

13,158 posts

202 months

Sunday 27th July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
Jesus fking Christ. How many times?

I don't give a st about the parking company and their charges. I do give a st about the standard whining when
people break rules and then say it's always someone else's fault. Whether the rules are technically correct is a moot point, it's the fact they blatantly ignore them and then start bleating about it that pisses me off.
He's not bleating about ignoring them. It's that he doesn't feel that £100 is a reasonable charge for overstaying the 2hrs. The law agrees with him. Companies can't impose fines for arbitrary amounts of money. That's a fairly important element of 'technically correct' isn't it?


marshalla

15,902 posts

200 months

Sunday 27th July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
As for parking this way in theServices, then yes I think people should at least consider their actions, rather than just treat it as free. For example, the OP is moaning that he's being fined, but did he make any attempt to pay the parking fee that was lawfully requested?
He is NOT being fined. He has been presented with an invoice for 31 minutes parking. The invoiced amount is significantly higher than the amount stated in the "contract" notices.

blueg33

35,574 posts

223 months

Sunday 27th July 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
There was more to my post than that snip and that snip was not the point I was making. Either way, I couldn't care less what you do with insurance. It's your choice, not mine.

I've also replaced my driveway question with one about another company's office car park and whether you'd park in that as it's unlikely they own the land. Nobody has bothered to even attempt to address that yet.

As for parking this way in theServices, then yes I think people should at least consider their actions, rather than just treat it as free. For example, the OP is moaning that he's being fined, but did he make any attempt to pay the parking fee that was lawfully requested?

Edit: no idea where that red angry smiley thing came from.

Edited by LoonR1 on Sunday 27th July 18:33
Re the bit in bold - yes they have

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Sunday 27th July 2014
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
He's not bleating about ignoring them. It's that he doesn't feel that £100 is a reasonable charge for overstaying the 2hrs. The law agrees with him. Companies can't impose fines for arbitrary amounts of money. That's a fairly important element of 'technically correct' isn't it?
Did he pay the amount charged once he exceeded two hours? No he decided to pay nothing them start bleating. I'm done with this thread, ignorant parking and people who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions piss me off.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Sunday 27th July 2014
quotequote all
blueg33 said:
LoonR1 said:
There was more to my post than that snip and that snip was not the point I was making. Either way, I couldn't care less what you do with insurance. It's your choice, not mine.

I've also replaced my driveway question with one about another company's office car park and whether you'd park in that as it's unlikely they own the land. Nobody has bothered to even attempt to address that yet.

As for parking this way in theServices, then yes I think people should at least consider their actions, rather than just treat it as free. For example, the OP is moaning that he's being fined, but did he make any attempt to pay the parking fee that was lawfully requested?

Edit: no idea where that red angry smiley thing came from.

Edited by LoonR1 on Sunday 27th July 18:33
Re the bit in bold - yes they have
Where? Only NigelWorcs did and that was after I posted what you've quoted.

HertsBiker

6,300 posts

270 months

Sunday 27th July 2014
quotequote all
2.5 hours ? Why not leave the car park and find a pub to go chat? Regardless of truth, your actions sound suspect. Use something that doesn't belong to you, and try to dodge the hire fee? Of course you could tell them to do one, but why take so long discussing 'car' parts? Or whatever.

Kitchski

Original Poster:

6,514 posts

230 months

Sunday 27th July 2014
quotequote all
Right, first off thanks everyone for your input. Lots of good advice and (some) decent minded folk.

I feel I should explain a bit more (though there's a part of me that thinks, fk 'em) about the details of the night.

First off, this is an image from Google Earth showing the entrance to the services:



This is the entrance to the Fleet service station on the southbound M3. On approaching the services, you have two options; left labelled for fuel/lorries, and right-hand lane labelled for cars. I took the right-hand lane, and it looks like I missed the white/red sign on the nearside just as I entered the car park. The light was going down (not going to bum someone in broad daylight like a , am I?!) and you're reading instructions on the ground, checking to see no one's reversing out of those spaces on the right etc.....I'm not saying I didn't miss the sign, but I'd contest it's not exactly well-placed, or forcefully presented in any way. Not in comparison to a supermarket car park or the like. But hey ho, that's the one I'd missed. If I'd have seen it, I'd have been aware that I needed to GTFO within a 2 hour window. Not a problem - it's not my land and I'm not one to try and break rules. The sign on the left hand lane looks much larger, and not near any junctions or areas where you need to be watching for maneuvering cars - I doubt I'd have missed that to be honest. Ironically I parked just behind it, in an area completely empty of cars for the entire night as the car park was at 25% capacity of so. Again, if people were struggling for spaces, guilt would have kicked in and I'd have been prompted to leave earlier.

I chose the service station to meet the chap, because he lives in Cambridge on a boat, and was only down in Farnborough because he's an aircraft engineer. He worked on the XH558 return to flight programme, which is mainly how two hours (I got there before him and had to wait around) got eaten up in idle chat. I'm from Fareham, so I chose Fleet services as I could have a blat across the Meon Valley to get there, and it's easy for him to hit the M3 and head home afterwards. Winner.

Having been rang by the missus' and bked down the phone for staying out later than I said I would, I realised the time, promptly wished him well and we went our separate ways. So by the time I'd left, I still hadn't seen a sign of any kind! I wasn't even looking for one, as I rarely use service stations and hadn't realised they were operating systems like that. Makes sense now I think about it, as if they didn't police it somehow, people would meet there and then car-share into London, paying 1x vehicle's congestion charge/LEZ or whatever. I can understand why they've done something, I'm not contesting that.
Or put it another way - if I got busted for speeding doing 36mph in a 30mph zone, and got the 3 points/£60 fine, then I hold my hands up. It's exactly what I did a few years back. No one else was driving that car, it was me. My fault, and I'd know it.

If I had spotted the signs, and the signs had said something along the lines of "Free parking for 2hrs, then £10per hour after that" to dissuade people from taking the piss, again I totally see the logic. If I'd then had a letter in the post saying "You parked here for more than 2hrs, so we are billing you for the third full hour, plus costs so it's £15.00" or something, I would genuinely hold my hands up and say, sorry I wasn't on the ball and didn't notice the sign (however poorly placed it was). The fact that they're trying to sting me for £60 (or £100 after 14 days) seems more akin to robbery. I'm thoroughly fked off with myself for getting into the mess in the first place, but equally as fked off as the amount I'm being "fined" is clearly disproportionate to the offence committed. I'm going to appeal, and I will actually state that if the charge was more in keeping to the offence, I'd probably just pay it.

At the end of the day, I had no idea I'd done anything wrong, and if I ever do break the law/rules somewhere, and I get busted, I don't get all whiny about it. If you know what you're doing, and you get caught, it's on you. That's my view, always has been. But this is different to that, because I genuinely didn't realise I'd broken any rules. And now that it's been brought to my attention, I feel I'm trying to be taken advantage of (second time around, for those who think I was there being mucky), which would fk anybody off, obviously.

I know it seems I was there a long time, but have you ever tried removing another chap's muck from your trousers so your missus doesn't find out you're a closet homosexual? We've all been there, right? The fact that some people suggested I was there being smutty with another chap rather than just another person kinda screams 'closet' a little bit, but that's just my view. wink

Anyway, that's the lot. Thank you deeply (really deep) to all those providing the advice and links to where I should be heading. You're exactly the kind of people I was targeting the thread at. To everyone else, you're exactly the kind of people I was expecting would show up on PH.

Service stations costing money to run?! Oh boo fking hoo, my heart bleeds! I'm going to laugh about that one for a few weeks!

Cheers!

Edited by Kitchski on Sunday 27th July 20:04

caiss4

1,864 posts

196 months

Sunday 27th July 2014
quotequote all
To the OP, please follow the advice from Pepipoo and MSE.

The issue is the business model for PPC's doesn't work unless there are spurious reasons to issue PCN's/fake invoices.

As you state, you made an honest mistake, for which you are being 'fined' £100 (or £60). I, like you, would hold my hands up if the charge was a more reasonable £15 or even £25 but when it's punitive then you want to challenge it.

These days I look carefully for signs everywhere in private car parks and I'd even go so far to say that it could affect my buying behaviour at a retail park, for example, if I considered the terms to be unreasonable.

I was bitten in my company car park. Got a ticket for not displaying a permit which had fallen on the floor. My company doesn't own the car park ( and neither does the PPC in question) so I approached the landlord who receives £35K a year from my company for leasing spaces. All he did was refer it to the PPC who refused to cancel the ticket. (It was quite clear the landlord got a kickback for every ticket paid)

Anyway, went through POPLA and the appeal succeeded based on the charge not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Following that a number of colleagues got stung and came to me for advice. They appealed too and on each occasion the PPC failed to submit any evidence to POPLA so the appeals were won.

Interestingly, the PPC in question has now jumped ship from the BPA to IPC where the argument has moved from damages to agreeing to a consideration if you park. This raises the spector of the PPC really having to pay VAT so if I got hit again I'd definitely expect to receive a VAT invoice (the standard tickets rarely mention VAT and if they do the letter to the RK will not). If I didn't then HMRC will certainly get a letter.

So, in summary, I support private land owners managing their land but the moment they invite the likes of PE to 'manage parking'(a Capita company who run TVL for example)then you know any trivial infringement of arbitrary 'rules' will result in a fine - er,no speculative invoice.

Kitchski

Original Poster:

6,514 posts

230 months

Sunday 27th July 2014
quotequote all
Thanks for your advice.

caiss4 said:
These days I look carefully for signs everywhere in private car parks and I'd even go so far to say that it could affect my buying behaviour at a retail park, for example, if I considered the terms to be unreasonable.
I will too, from now on!

Red Devil

13,055 posts

207 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
Kitchski said:
I'm going to appeal, and I will actually state that if the charge was more in keeping to the offence, I'd probably just pay it.
Good, but forget any thought of making such a statement. Not only won't the PPC give a stuff but POPLA do not consider opinions and/or mitigating circumstances.

caiss4 said:
To the OP, please follow the advice from Pepipoo and MSE.
^^This^^

Use what works. Don't try to reinvent the wheel.



hairykrishna

13,158 posts

202 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
Yes. Don't fk about with 'soft' appeals either as they're for people trying to make a point. Just write them a letter saying that you don't think it's a reasonable estimate of loss, ask them to justify it and provide the POPLA code at the same time. They'll back off. Their business model relies on scaring people into paying fast not arguing with people.

austinsmirk

5,597 posts

122 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
can't be bothered reading the thread but:

my wife has had two seperate "fines" from parking eye.

we've ignored everything.

all has been forgotten about.

they won't pursue you.


In a previous job, I also had staff who parked 8/9 hrs a day in a 3 hr controlled parking eye carpark, again no action taken.

they send warning letters but it tales off.

you have to be brave to ignore the letters- but I can cite about 8 occasions with 100% success rate of nothing occuring.

Kitchski

Original Poster:

6,514 posts

230 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
Cheers guys

aw51 121565

4,771 posts

232 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
austinsmirk said:
can't be bothered reading the thread but:

my wife has had two seperate "fines" from parking eye.

we've ignored everything.

all has been forgotten about.

they won't pursue you.


In a previous job, I also had staff who parked 8/9 hrs a day in a 3 hr controlled parking eye carpark, again no action taken.

they send warning letters but it tales off.

you have to be brave to ignore the letters- but I can cite about 8 occasions with 100% success rate of nothing occuring.
"Ignore" is so 2012, the 'company' concerned are pretty litigious nowadays and must be engaged with (as per advice upthread - they're not difficult to 'see off' in the early stages with a little time and effort and at no financial cost save some paper, stamps and ink smile ).

There have also been certain shenanigans in a Cambridge court (currently in the early stages of being appealed, appeal due to be heard early next year by all accounts), which reinforces this advice (to engage and kick these 'tickets' into the long grass ASAP) wink .

oyster

12,577 posts

247 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
Phatboy317 said:
Nigel Worc's said:
It costs a fortune to run these services, they are obliged to give you two hours free.
Oh boo hoo! rolleyes
If it costs them to run a business then they wouldn't be doing it.
And, if nobody parked for longer than 2 hours then they wouldn't be making any money from parking anyway.
If the OP had gone in and spent 2.5hrs shopping, eating, playing on the slot machines etc then I'd have sympathy.

But they didn't spend anything and in fact conducted business on someone else's land. So I do have some sympathy for the car parking firm here.

Boosted LS1

21,165 posts

259 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
talksthetorque said:
As you were with a friend dogging chatting for two and a half hours you stopped at least seven cars parking in that spot and buying items from the services.(at a conservative 20 minutes each) If these cars all had 5 people in ( I won't go crazy and say they were all people carriers)
That's 35 x large coffees+ 35 x dead dog and mustard panini from costa, and 35 copies of Razzle or Which Pony from WH Smith. I make that over £400 of turnover. I'm sure the Gross profit at a service station is more than 25% so you can argue that £100 is getting off lightly.
If there were any empty spaces to park in then they haven't made a loss of profit because they car park wan't full to capacity.