Parking charge query advice please

[Emeye]

Have a look at this site for great help and advice.

http://www.pepipoo.com/

[Trax]

R0G said:

SteveR1979 said:

R0G said:

Private company not council so I would bin it and do nothing

Don't take this advice.

Poster doesn't know what he is talking about

Oh yes he does from experience

You may have been lucky in the past, but ignoring PCN's is about the worst advice you could follow since POFA came into force.

[S11Steve]

The Surveyor said:

What, you have accrued 80 parking notices against this company alone? Genuine question, are you being deliberately provocative with these people as some form of organised opposition or just very unlucky?

So what do you think UKPC should do to prevent the abuse of the accessible spaces?

I manage a fleet of 6-7000 vehicles that are supplied on a wholesale basis to the rental industry. We don't rent direct to the driver though, so we always appeal as keeper, and do not know the circumstances of each individual case. Many situations I can work out from experience, but generally the appeals are based on lack of keeper liability, no landowner authority to bring the claim, insufficient signage, primacy of contract for residential tenants etc. Without counting, I have around 500 successful POPLA appeals, and one failure in the last 3 years. Parking Eye no longer challenge us. Gladstones are about to have a losing streak at court, and have already started to discontinue the claims upon receipt of defence statements, only UKPC are pig-headed enough to continue to try their luck, but after a DJ ripped their lawyer a new one on Wednesday for bringing a fundamentally flawed case in front of him, I think that is the last I will see them in court.

The perception of widespread abuse of spaces is false. Given how many evidential photos I see attached to parking notices and appeal packs, it's very rare that the car parks are chock full. I don't disagree that some locations may be more prone to abuse than others, but having an unblinking ANPR camera that times vehicles in and out is not managing a car park. A self-important Norris with a hi-viz and notepad who issues tickets for petty reasons to genuine shoppers and residents is not managing a car park.

Citing PE v Beavis as a silver bullet that justifies the charge is false, the only thing that acknowledged is that £100 is a commercially justified penalty in certain circumstances - it did not focus on whether the initial contractual charge was valid or not.

The industry is a sham based on extortion and bluster. It's certainly no better than when we had clamping, and it's affecting the county courts workload with unnecessary cases.

[The Surveyor]

speedyguy said:

S11Steve said:

The Surveyor said:

Enforcement of accessible parking abuse to ensure that the spaces are free for those who actually need them will always be seen as being 'reasonable' so I'm not sure you're right on the interpretation of the Equalities Act here.

The Blue Badge scheme relates to local authority regulations, and congestion charges, there is nothing that says it has to be displayed on private land, even if that is publicly accessible private land like supermarket carparks. That is where the Equalities Act 2010 comes in, and again it makes no reference to the need for displaying a blue badge.

And there is nothing in the Equality regs that states BB holders are to get things free, LA or not, many private car parks can charge BB holders if they wish, Heck many councils already do and more are looking to do so to raise revenue.

I know that, the OP's parents didn't receive their PCN for not paying, it was for parking in a disabled bay without showing that they had a specific need. My point is that the Equalities Act doesn't say that disabled parking spaces should be free, but that users are not unreasonably disadvantaged on the grounds of their disability (or wording to that effect). Planning and Building Regs, and BS 8300 outline that retail parks have to provide a proportion of accessible parking spaces, and equalities Act says that these need to be maintained and be available for those who need them. It's not just a revenue thing, they have to stop the spaces being abused by those who don't need them to avoid action by those who do. They can't ignore that so what do they do?

In a time when there are increasing numbers of thoughtless yummy-mummy Range Rovers hogging the disabled bays because their wagon is too big for normal spaces and they're too lazy to walk across the car park, there has to be some action so next time the OP's parents visit this park, they can genuinely park in a disabled bay.

[The Surveyor]

S11Steve said:

I manage a fleet of 6-7000 vehicles that are supplied on a wholesale basis to the rental industry. We don't rent direct to the driver though, so we always appeal as keeper, and do not know the circumstances of each individual case. Many situations I can work out from experience, but generally the appeals are based on lack of keeper liability, no landowner authority to bring the claim, insufficient signage, primacy of contract for residential tenants etc. Without counting, I have around 500 successful POPLA appeals, and one failure in the last 3 years. Parking Eye no longer challenge us. Gladstones are about to have a losing streak at court, and have already started to discontinue the claims upon receipt of defence statements, only UKPC are pig-headed enough to continue to try their luck, but after a DJ ripped their lawyer a new one on Wednesday for bringing a fundamentally flawed case in front of him, I think that is the last I will see them in court.

The perception of widespread abuse of spaces is false. Given how many evidential photos I see attached to parking notices and appeal packs, it's very rare that the car parks are chock full. I don't disagree that some locations may be more prone to abuse than others, but having an unblinking ANPR camera that times vehicles in and out is not managing a car park. A self-important Norris with a hi-viz and notepad who issues tickets for petty reasons to genuine shoppers and residents is not managing a car park.

Citing PE v Beavis as a silver bullet that justifies the charge is false, the only thing that acknowledged is that £100 is a commercially justified penalty in certain circumstances - it did not focus on whether the initial contractual charge was valid or not.

The industry is a sham based on extortion and bluster. It's certainly no better than when we had clamping, and it's affecting the county courts workload with unnecessary cases.

Cheers for that, a genuine different perspective and nothing there I disagree with. The only counter to that from a land owner / manager perspective is that you should never underestimate the stupidity of a limited number of the parking public.

[S11Steve]

The Surveyor said:

Cheers for that, a genuine different perspective and nothing there I disagree with. The only counter to that from a land owner / manager perspective is that you should never underestimate the stupidity of a limited number of the parking public.

Indeed, YPLAC is one of my favourite phrases.

That said, why should my company have to pay for the idiotic behaviour of someone who happens to be driving a vehicle registered to us, when there is no legal obligation for us to do so?
I'm happy enough to point the PPC in the direction of the driver, but some of them think it is easier to pressure us into paying, and then us trying to charge a third party with whom we have no direct supply contract with.

[Red Devil]

S11Steve said:

A self-important Norris with a hi-viz and notepad who issues tickets for petty reasons to genuine shoppers and residents is not managing a car park.

Especially if he's a UKPC Norris who is busy doctoring/faking time stamps...

The Surveyor said:

I know that, the [b]OP's parents[b] didn't receive their PCN for not paying, it was for parking in a disabled bay without showing that they had a specific need.

It's a shame you didn't read his post properly. His father was not present. The Blue Badge holder was his uncle.
The presence of his badge on the dashboard is evidence of his need. Do you have any for your implied smear? Thought not.

[The Surveyor]

Red Devil said:

It's a shame you didn't read his post properly. His father was not present. The Blue Badge holder was his uncle.
The presence of his badge on the dashboard is evidence of his need. Do you have any for your implied smear? Thought not.

It's a shame you can't use the bold text function either but lets not get bogged down on details shall we. OK 'parent' is that better and no 'smear' was implied at all. Its a discussion topic on a discussion forum and nothing would be gained by this site at all if people didn't share differing views.

The presence of a genuine up-to-date badge on the dashboard would be evidence enough, and had that been evident then this thread wouldn't exist would it. It is petty, and he 'should' be able to get it overturned but sadly because there are so many self-entitled people out there, some enforcement is sometimes necessary. I'm sure you don't agree, but I can live with that...

[Trax]

The Surveyor said:

Red Devil said:

It's a shame you didn't read his post properly. His father was not present. The Blue Badge holder was his uncle.
The presence of his badge on the dashboard is evidence of his need. Do you have any for your implied smear? Thought not.

It's a shame you can't use the bold text function either but lets not get bogged down on details shall we. OK 'parent' is that better and no 'smear' was implied at all. Its a discussion topic on a discussion forum and nothing would be gained by this site at all if people didn't share differing views.

The presence of a genuine up-to-date badge on the dashboard would be evidence enough, and had that been evident then this thread wouldn't exist would it. It is petty, and he 'should' be able to get it overturned but sadly because there are so many self-entitled people out there, some enforcement is sometimes necessary. I'm sure you don't agree, but I can live with that...

But as we know, the ticket has nothing to do about enforcement so the correct people can park in the correct spaces. If that was the case, the company would simply overturn the ticket on provision of a full picture of the badge, but they won't, because they are not interested in people parking properly, just money. They diver will have to rely on POPLA to overturn, but most people don't bother, hence these companies make millions, and parking isn't improved.

[DM79]

Thank you for all the information, I spoke with the manager of M&S today and whilst he said he couldn't help immediately he did say if we had any difficulty with the appeal he would try and help our case. So that's one positive. The next step is to appeal to the parking company and escalate to POPLA if needs be.

Watch this space.

[Emeye]

DM79 said:

Thank you for all the information, I spoke with the manager of M&S today and whilst he said he couldn't help immediately he did say if we had any difficulty with the appeal he would try and help our case. So that's one positive. The next step is to appeal to the parking company and escalate to POPLA if needs be.

Watch this space.

Tweet M&S or give them an email or a phone call, but I find making a public complain on Twitter seems to get a swifter response - 160 words can be a challenge to get your point across, but something like "@marksandspencer been fined for parking outside your **** shop in disabled bay despite displaying badge! Can you help please?!?" should get a reaction.

Our local Aldi recently put a time limit on the parking and genuine customers have found contacting the company has got the problem resolved.

[herewego]

Emeye said:

DM79 said:

Thank you for all the information, I spoke with the manager of M&S today and whilst he said he couldn't help immediately he did say if we had any difficulty with the appeal he would try and help our case. So that's one positive. The next step is to appeal to the parking company and escalate to POPLA if needs be.

Watch this space.

Tweet M&S or give them an email or a phone call, but I find making a public complain on Twitter seems to get a swifter response - 160 words can be a challenge to get your point across, but something like "@marksandspencer been fined for parking outside your **** shop in disabled bay despite displaying badge! Can you help please?!?" should get a reaction.

Our local Aldi recently put a time limit on the parking and genuine customers have found contacting the company has got the problem resolved.

But you know that effectively they didn't display the badge. Also it was a multi-shop car park and doesn't belong to M&S. Don't these things figure in your thinking?

[S11Steve]

herewego said:

But you know that effectively they didn't display the badge. Also it was a multi-shop car park and doesn't belong to M&S. Don't these things figure in your thinking?

I know two wrongs do not make a right, but it doesn't belong to UKPC either, and I very much doubt they even have the authority of the landowner to operate there.

M&S will have the facility though to whitelist registrations for their own staff and visitors, as well as cancel tickets for their customers.

[herewego]

S11Steve said:

herewego said:

But you know that effectively they didn't display the badge. Also it was a multi-shop car park and doesn't belong to M&S. Don't these things figure in your thinking?

I know two wrongs do not make a right, but it doesn't belong to UKPC either, and I very much doubt they even have the authority of the landowner to operate there.

M&S will have the facility though to whitelist registrations for their own staff and visitors, as well as cancel tickets for their customers.

Sure and I would ask them if they are able to get it cancelled too, but I wouldn't be blackmailing them through social media to rectify my own error.

[Emeye]

herewego said:

S11Steve said:

herewego said:

But you know that effectively they didn't display the badge. Also it was a multi-shop car park and doesn't belong to M&S. Don't these things figure in your thinking?

I know two wrongs do not make a right, but it doesn't belong to UKPC either, and I very much doubt they even have the authority of the landowner to operate there.

M&S will have the facility though to whitelist registrations for their own staff and visitors, as well as cancel tickets for their customers.

Sure and I would ask them if they are able to get it cancelled too, but I wouldn't be blackmailing them through social media to rectify my own error.

It's not blackmail, it's asking for help and making sure you get a swift response.

[The Surveyor]

S11Steve said:

...., but it doesn't belong to UKPC either, and I very much doubt they even have the authority of the landowner to operate there.

M&S will have the facility though to whitelist registrations for their own staff and visitors, as well as cancel tickets for their customers.

They will have the authority of the owner to manage their car park, and M&S won't have any say over the parking management of a retail park common free-to-enter car park. Just how do you think an M&S 'whitelist' for visitors would work in a free-to-park car park, and how would that permit a visitor to park in a disabled bay when it looks like they may not have a current blue-badge?

The OP should appeal the notice to the car park operator and with luck his charge should be cancelled as he can show that him Mum was entitled to park where they were, but don't be surprised if there isn't an 'admin fee' to pay for the cancellation.

[S11Steve]

The Surveyor said:

They will have the authority of the owner to manage their car park, and M&S won't have any say over the parking management of a retail park common free-to-enter car park. Just how do you think an M&S 'whitelist' for visitors would work in a free-to-park car park, and how would that permit a visitor to park in a disabled bay when it looks like they may not have a current blue-badge?

From experience, UKPC only have a contract with the managing agents of retail sites, not the landowners. There is a significant difference, and one that is sufficient to withstand court scrutiny and is a slam-dunk POPLA win.

I can explain how the whitelist works if you really want me to, but if the car park is free for 3 hours a day, what do you think happens with employee vehicles who are there for 8 hours maybe?

[Emeye]

S11Steve said:

From experience, UKPC only have a contract with the managing agents of retail sites, not the landowners. There is a significant difference, and one that is sufficient to withstand court scrutiny and is a slam-dunk POPLA win.

I can explain how the whitelist works if you really want me to, but if the car park is free for 3 hours a day, what do you think happens with employee vehicles who are there for 8 hours maybe?

Or the vehicle of companies providing services to the retailers.

[S11Steve]

Emeye said:

Or the vehicle of companies providing services to the retailers.

Exactly that. One of my customers had a load of vehicles sub-contracting at various Wickes stores, which collected 40 odd tickets in a week from G24. Every single one was overturned by POPLA for lack of landowner authority. Some of the store managers whitelisted the vehicles when they arrived on site, but G24 refused to cancel the charges for the store managers who contacted them afterwards.


G24 have since moved to the IAS, so who know what the same appeal would result in.

[The Surveyor]

S11Steve said:

From experience, UKPC only have a contract with the managing agents of retail sites, not the landowners. There is a significant difference, and one that is sufficient to withstand court scrutiny and is a slam-dunk POPLA win.

I can explain how the whitelist works if you really want me to, but if the car park is free for 3 hours a day, what do you think happens with employee vehicles who are there for 8 hours maybe?

I know that the contract will be with the FM provider, but that would normally be done with the landowners authority (or it is with the ones I deal with). I wasn't aware that there was a weakness there.

I also know how the whitelist would work for employees or regular contractors, but I was referring to 'visitors' like the OP's family in this particular occasion. Where it wouldn't work and wouldn't be applicable.