"Illegal" Parking fines total over £100 million - RAC
Discussion
Mill Wheel said:
A simple measure of not allowing charges for overstaying in a free car park would make a difference, and weed out a percentage of "illegal" charges.
I suspect a lot of car parks where the driver gets a refund in a shop don't end up with refunds, as the driver is elsewhere. It does however appear fairer on entry to the car park - and overstaying having paid seems fairer too.
Most of the problems stem from the greed of the parking companies such as Parking Eye, and a few drivers who take the piss knowing that PE are greedy money grasping bar stewards!
I don't think so. Look at S11Steve with hundreds of claims a week for selfish parking from just a few thousand drivers. Why shouldn't they be charged for overstaying in a free car park, it's free parking for a couple of hours not a free for all.I suspect a lot of car parks where the driver gets a refund in a shop don't end up with refunds, as the driver is elsewhere. It does however appear fairer on entry to the car park - and overstaying having paid seems fairer too.
Most of the problems stem from the greed of the parking companies such as Parking Eye, and a few drivers who take the piss knowing that PE are greedy money grasping bar stewards!
herewego said:
Why shouldn't they be charged for overstaying in a free car park, it's free parking for a couple of hours not a free for all.
In simple terms it because in the UK legal system, a breach of contract can only be remedied by reimbursement of actual losses incurred. What loss is incurred by the landowner (not necessarily, and very rarely is it the parking company) when a vehicle remains on a free car park for more than the permitted time? The genuine loss is usually only the admin cost of getting DVLA information and sending out a few threat-o-grams. I'm sure one of the many lawyers on PH will be able to explain it better though.
There are quite a number of other reasons though that these charges are in contravention of various consumer protection laws, each one can be used as a valid reason to have the ticket cancelled at POPLA, although not the IAS who are nothing more than a kangaroo court.
As above though, I try to work with them, rather than against them - if I can simply write a letter to guide the PPC towards the person who formed the contract with them and they leave me alone, then so be it. If they try to get arsey with me, I'll happily rise to the challenge.
I don't necessarily agree with their business practices in many cases, and although I know the "loopholes" I don't take the piss when I use private car parks that are open to the public but I do tend to take a photo of any parking signs though wherever I leave the car.
Land owners need an effective method of discouraging the selfish drivers from parking where they shouldn't or for longer than permitted.
Chances are if the current legislation turns out not to be able to do that, then the legislation will be amended.
I would like to see the ability for a fixed parking charge to be levied on the registered keeper.
Chances are if the current legislation turns out not to be able to do that, then the legislation will be amended.
I would like to see the ability for a fixed parking charge to be levied on the registered keeper.
PurpleMoonlight said:
I would like to see the ability for a fixed parking charge to be levied on the registered keeper.
Interesting point to note on POFA is that it states the "keeper" is liable, but this is not necessarily the same as the "registered keeper". That precedent has been set many times over, but seems to have been overlooked when POFA was cobbled together. I've started to get them cancelled on that basis recently too...
Don't see "Speculative invoice" yet though 
herewego said:
Mill Wheel said:
A simple measure of not allowing charges for overstaying in a free car park would make a difference, and weed out a percentage of "illegal" charges.
I suspect a lot of car parks where the driver gets a refund in a shop don't end up with refunds, as the driver is elsewhere. It does however appear fairer on entry to the car park - and overstaying having paid seems fairer too.
Most of the problems stem from the greed of the parking companies such as Parking Eye, and a few drivers who take the piss knowing that PE are greedy money grasping bar stewards!
I don't think so. Look at S11Steve with hundreds of claims a week for selfish parking from just a few thousand drivers. Why shouldn't they be charged for overstaying in a free car park, it's free parking for a couple of hours not a free for all.I suspect a lot of car parks where the driver gets a refund in a shop don't end up with refunds, as the driver is elsewhere. It does however appear fairer on entry to the car park - and overstaying having paid seems fairer too.
Most of the problems stem from the greed of the parking companies such as Parking Eye, and a few drivers who take the piss knowing that PE are greedy money grasping bar stewards!
Mill Wheel said:
The most likely result would be an end to "free" parking, if you wanted to ticket for overstaying.
So as usual the tiny minority spoil it for the majority? Let's say a 'gobby' minister was/is looking at an element of this, he has cancelled 3 meetings so far and got back in his box as he has no idea what he is talking about or the implication of what he is doing.
Sounds like a rerun of banning clamping with no workable alternative
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 20th February 19:46
It's more than just a few thousand motorists though, the number of electronic requests for personal details from the DVLA made by parking companies has gone up from 1,897,572 in 2012/13 to 2,430,130 in 2013/14
And that figure won't include tickets where the driver has paid before a notice to keeper had been issued.
Is every single one a valid and fair charge?
And that figure won't include tickets where the driver has paid before a notice to keeper had been issued.
Is every single one a valid and fair charge?
Mill Wheel said:
herewego said:
Mill Wheel said:
A simple measure of not allowing charges for overstaying in a free car park would make a difference, and weed out a percentage of "illegal" charges.
I suspect a lot of car parks where the driver gets a refund in a shop don't end up with refunds, as the driver is elsewhere. It does however appear fairer on entry to the car park - and overstaying having paid seems fairer too.
Most of the problems stem from the greed of the parking companies such as Parking Eye, and a few drivers who take the piss knowing that PE are greedy money grasping bar stewards!
I don't think so. Look at S11Steve with hundreds of claims a week for selfish parking from just a few thousand drivers. Why shouldn't they be charged for overstaying in a free car park, it's free parking for a couple of hours not a free for all.I suspect a lot of car parks where the driver gets a refund in a shop don't end up with refunds, as the driver is elsewhere. It does however appear fairer on entry to the car park - and overstaying having paid seems fairer too.
Most of the problems stem from the greed of the parking companies such as Parking Eye, and a few drivers who take the piss knowing that PE are greedy money grasping bar stewards!
Mill Wheel said:
herewego said:
Mill Wheel said:
A simple measure of not allowing charges for overstaying in a free car park would make a difference, and weed out a percentage of "illegal" charges.
I suspect a lot of car parks where the driver gets a refund in a shop don't end up with refunds, as the driver is elsewhere. It does however appear fairer on entry to the car park - and overstaying having paid seems fairer too.
Most of the problems stem from the greed of the parking companies such as Parking Eye, and a few drivers who take the piss knowing that PE are greedy money grasping bar stewards!
I don't think so. Look at S11Steve with hundreds of claims a week for selfish parking from just a few thousand drivers. Why shouldn't they be charged for overstaying in a free car park, it's free parking for a couple of hours not a free for all.I suspect a lot of car parks where the driver gets a refund in a shop don't end up with refunds, as the driver is elsewhere. It does however appear fairer on entry to the car park - and overstaying having paid seems fairer too.
Most of the problems stem from the greed of the parking companies such as Parking Eye, and a few drivers who take the piss knowing that PE are greedy money grasping bar stewards!
Burwood said:
which is exactly how it works at M&S. You pay and they refund you. this is all a bit moot. the court of appeal case due out in a week or so will deal with this issue
The Consumer Association is being joined in the Beavis appeal.http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/on-d...
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/co...
That is because the issue involved extends way beyond the private parking industry.
Another issue is the existence of two accredited bodies: BPA and IPC, which allows PPCs to pick and choose.
The latter's appeal process is a rubber stamp kangaroo court and the sooner its accreditation is withdrawn the better.
I don't think landowners, ie folks with a bit of parking outside their home or business are helped at all by the likes of Parkinng Eye etc. Big retail parks where there is maybe a bit of free parking then paid parking are the ones allowing these companies to prosper by allowing them to 'manage' their carpark. I don't think their management really helps anyone but the parking companies themselves. Think of your local out of town shopping centre. If parking was unmonitored would anything change? Would shops have to increase prices because no parking money coming in? Would the place miraculously fill up 24 hours a day so no shoppers can get in?
No of course not. We've accepted the notion of having to pay through the nose to park when we want to shop and have lost sight of the why. Parking companies are just pimping off the top of retail and offering no real benefit, mostly.
No of course not. We've accepted the notion of having to pay through the nose to park when we want to shop and have lost sight of the why. Parking companies are just pimping off the top of retail and offering no real benefit, mostly.
supermono said:
I don't think landowners, ie folks with a bit of parking outside their home or business are helped at all by the likes of Parkinng Eye etc. Big retail parks where there is maybe a bit of free parking then paid parking are the ones allowing these companies to prosper by allowing them to 'manage' their carpark. I don't think their management really helps anyone but the parking companies themselves. Think of your local out of town shopping centre. If parking was unmonitored would anything change? Would shops have to increase prices because no parking money coming in? Would the place miraculously fill up 24 hours a day so no shoppers can get in?
No of course not. We've accepted the notion of having to pay through the nose to park when we want to shop and have lost sight of the why. Parking companies are just pimping off the top of retail and offering no real benefit, mostly.
Perhaps not for out of town, but big supermarkets in more central locations or near things like train stations would certainly suffer. Not that local councils have helped by removing spaces whilst increasing parking fees and restrictions (then wondering why the high street is dying)No of course not. We've accepted the notion of having to pay through the nose to park when we want to shop and have lost sight of the why. Parking companies are just pimping off the top of retail and offering no real benefit, mostly.
Negative Creep said:
Perhaps not for out of town, but big supermarkets in more central locations or near things like train stations would certainly suffer. Not that local councils have helped by removing spaces whilst increasing parking fees and restrictions (then wondering why the high street is dying)
Supermono is that a very niave view or through rose tinted spectacles?The view above is much more realistic, near here, The train parkers were parking in the hospital, they brought charges in to 'deter' this, the problem moved to the Sainsburys over the road so they have a 3 hr limit to stop hospital workers blocking their car park.
In the local town the retail Park close to it had to bring in and then extend charges due to non retail Park users filing the place up.
The other local hospital charges as it is an excellent moneyspinner for them with a range of fantastic excuses as to why they 'need' to do it to boot.
They have just taken on PE with ANPR to 'manage' their parking scam.
Hospitals are not private business and i don't see many attending by choice, they are a captive market.
Similar to the twisted logic of getting people/commuters out of their cars but then charging them to park at the station.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff