Parking company threatening debt collectors
Discussion
We got a letter from "UK Parking Control" saying we were parked for just over 90 minutes at a services area where the limit is 90 minutes.
... except we weren't! Their photos only show us driving in and exiting from the main road - they say we were parked between those times even though the photos show we were driving.
We did spend just over 90 minutes in the services, but half of time we were getting fuel and going through a drive through. We were only actually parked for about 50 minutes.
We sent them a letter telling them that. They replied with "failure to see the signs is not a valid reason to appeal" - Errr, ok, so they clearly read our letter then
So we sent another letter, really short and to the point, with the words "WE WERE NOT PARKED BETWEEN XX:XX and XX:XX" highlighted.
Got another reply today from them - completely ignoring the second letter and saying if we don't pay within 14 days they may pass it on to a debt collection agency.
I tried calling them - "We don't have access to parking fines or appeals over the phone, you need to send a letter"
So what now?
... except we weren't! Their photos only show us driving in and exiting from the main road - they say we were parked between those times even though the photos show we were driving.
We did spend just over 90 minutes in the services, but half of time we were getting fuel and going through a drive through. We were only actually parked for about 50 minutes.
We sent them a letter telling them that. They replied with "failure to see the signs is not a valid reason to appeal" - Errr, ok, so they clearly read our letter then
So we sent another letter, really short and to the point, with the words "WE WERE NOT PARKED BETWEEN XX:XX and XX:XX" highlighted.
Got another reply today from them - completely ignoring the second letter and saying if we don't pay within 14 days they may pass it on to a debt collection agency.
I tried calling them - "We don't have access to parking fines or appeals over the phone, you need to send a letter"
So what now?
We went back to look after we got the first letter. The signs say 90 minutes parking and are only in the parking area. There are different signs at the hotel area, and no signs at the petrol station or fast food bit. But their cameras are at the entry to the services off the main road. These are really small services and were extended about a year ago - the food bit wasn't there before - so I guess the camera location made more sense in the past.
It took us a long time for food/fuel because it was busy. There are only 4 pumps, it's not on a major road but it was rush hour.
Their entry/exit photos are JUST over 90 minutes apart. We were definitely not parked for 90 minutes.
It took us a long time for food/fuel because it was busy. There are only 4 pumps, it's not on a major road but it was rush hour.
Their entry/exit photos are JUST over 90 minutes apart. We were definitely not parked for 90 minutes.
Is this a joke?
Over 45 minutes for fuel and drive through?
You were recorded leaving site over 90 minutes after you entered. I doubt anything in-between is relevant.
Originally, I thought your post would state that you went straight in and out, which is fair enough. Spending over the allocated time is a no no though.
Over 45 minutes for fuel and drive through?
You were recorded leaving site over 90 minutes after you entered. I doubt anything in-between is relevant.
Originally, I thought your post would state that you went straight in and out, which is fair enough. Spending over the allocated time is a no no though.
funkyrobot said:
Is this a joke?
Over 45 minutes for fuel and drive through?
You were recorded leaving site over 90 minutes after you entered. I doubt anything in-between is relevant.
Originally, I thought your post would state that you went straight in and out, which is fair enough. Spending over the allocated time is a no no though.
You're as bad at reading what's in front of you as the parking ticket issuers! OP clearly says the sign says 90 mins "parking" not 90 minutes on site.Over 45 minutes for fuel and drive through?
You were recorded leaving site over 90 minutes after you entered. I doubt anything in-between is relevant.
Originally, I thought your post would state that you went straight in and out, which is fair enough. Spending over the allocated time is a no no though.
Hackney said:
You're as bad at reading what's in front of you as the parking ticket issuers! OP clearly says the sign says 90 mins "parking" not 90 minutes on site.
And you're as daft as the OP.Is this the new blanket excuse for parking charges? It says x amount of time parking, but I was actually driving around slowly for x amount of time, so wasn't technically parking.
It's ridiculous. If I head into a car park that says 60 minutes parking, I know I need to be out of there within the allotted time. Stating I was actually driving in for 1.65 minutes of that time is just plain silly.
funkyrobot said:
And you're as daft as the OP.
Is this the new blanket excuse for parking charges? It says x amount of time parking, but I was actually driving around slowly for x amount of time, so wasn't technically parking.
It's ridiculous. If I head into a car park that says 60 minutes parking, I know I need to be out of there within the allotted time. Stating I was actually driving in for 1.65 minutes of that time is just plain silly.
I wouldn't say it was. Is this the new blanket excuse for parking charges? It says x amount of time parking, but I was actually driving around slowly for x amount of time, so wasn't technically parking.
It's ridiculous. If I head into a car park that says 60 minutes parking, I know I need to be out of there within the allotted time. Stating I was actually driving in for 1.65 minutes of that time is just plain silly.
If you have a contract term - saying you can only park for a certain amount of time, then they cannot claim against you if you were not parked. Driving to get a maccy d's isn't parking. Nor is driving around.
The argument is that people will not be able to park if someone overstays. The super supremes agreed. The argument falls apart if the person is not in fact parking.
The fact you have already written to them might have done you no good at all. However. post this on pepipoo and see if they can help
BUT be warned, they dont like people who 'fabricate' tell them the truth nd they might give you a valid reason to win at POPLA. Also just tell the debt collectors to refer back to the person authorising them, they are not baliffs and have no legal right to enter premises or demand money, they can only ask.
SO other than the usual 'Dont involve pepipoo as they know nothing' mob on here get on to pepipoo and ask their help. The outcome will be
1) you pay the whole amount
2) pepipoo will give you a challenge that saves you spending your hard earned cash
It is your choice but 2 is a better bet and makes the buggers work a bit for your money!
BUT be warned, they dont like people who 'fabricate' tell them the truth nd they might give you a valid reason to win at POPLA. Also just tell the debt collectors to refer back to the person authorising them, they are not baliffs and have no legal right to enter premises or demand money, they can only ask.
SO other than the usual 'Dont involve pepipoo as they know nothing' mob on here get on to pepipoo and ask their help. The outcome will be
1) you pay the whole amount
2) pepipoo will give you a challenge that saves you spending your hard earned cash
It is your choice but 2 is a better bet and makes the buggers work a bit for your money!
photosnob said:
I wouldn't say it was.
If you have a contract term - saying you can only park for a certain amount of time, then they cannot claim against you if you were not parked. Driving to get a maccy d's isn't parking. Nor is driving around.
The argument is that people will not be able to park if someone overstays. The super supremes agreed. The argument falls apart if the person is not in fact parking.
Does this mean that most parking tickets issued are invalid because it can't be proven that the offender was actually parked for the stated time?If you have a contract term - saying you can only park for a certain amount of time, then they cannot claim against you if you were not parked. Driving to get a maccy d's isn't parking. Nor is driving around.
The argument is that people will not be able to park if someone overstays. The super supremes agreed. The argument falls apart if the person is not in fact parking.
funkyrobot said:
Hackney said:
You're as bad at reading what's in front of you as the parking ticket issuers! OP clearly says the sign says 90 mins "parking" not 90 minutes on site.
And you're as daft as the OP.Is this the new blanket excuse for parking charges? It says x amount of time parking, but I was actually driving around slowly for x amount of time, so wasn't technically parking.
It's ridiculous. If I head into a car park that says 60 minutes parking, I know I need to be out of there within the allotted time. Stating I was actually driving in for 1.65 minutes of that time is just plain silly.
That's the major flaw with entry/exit ANPR systems. They cannot monitor the actual parking event. However it depends entirely on what the signage says. If it says parking or parked that is the basis of the contract not the total time spent on site. And vice-versa.
There is a PE managed car park not far from where I live. The exit lead debouches straight onto a traffic light controlled junction with another light controlled one about 100 yards further on. At peak times it can easily take over 10 minutes to get past the exit camera because the two sets of lights are poorly phased. I nearly got caught out once and I now only ever use that car park when i can be sure the traffic will not be backed up/gridlocked.
silverfoxcc said:
The fact you have already written to them might have done you no good at all. However. post this on pepipoo and see if they can help
BUT be warned, they dont like people who 'fabricate' tell them the truth nd they might give you a valid reason to win at POPLA. Also just tell the debt collectors to refer back to the person authorising them, they are not baliffs and have no legal right to enter premises or demand money, they can only ask.
SO other than the usual 'Dont involve pepipoo as they know nothing' mob on here get on to pepipoo and ask their help. The outcome will be
1) you pay the whole amount
2) pepipoo will give you a challenge that saves you spending your hard earned cash
It is your choice but 2 is a better bet and makes the buggers work a bit for your money!
Pepipoo went downhill in my opinion when they gave someone advice that backfired.BUT be warned, they dont like people who 'fabricate' tell them the truth nd they might give you a valid reason to win at POPLA. Also just tell the debt collectors to refer back to the person authorising them, they are not baliffs and have no legal right to enter premises or demand money, they can only ask.
SO other than the usual 'Dont involve pepipoo as they know nothing' mob on here get on to pepipoo and ask their help. The outcome will be
1) you pay the whole amount
2) pepipoo will give you a challenge that saves you spending your hard earned cash
It is your choice but 2 is a better bet and makes the buggers work a bit for your money!
Red Devil said:
I disagree. There was a quite widely reported case a couple of years ago about a notoriously crowded site in Cornwall at the height of the holiday season - 3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014). Fistral Beach. The judge ruled that time spent driving around looking for a space was NOT parking.
That's the major flaw with entry/exit ANPR systems. They cannot monitor the actual parking event. However it depends entirely on what the signage says. If it says parking or parked that is the basis of the contract not the total time spent on site. And vice-versa.
There is a PE managed car park not far from where I live. The exit lead debouches straight onto a traffic light controlled junction with another light controlled one about 100 yards further on. At peak times it can easily take over 10 minutes to get past the exit camera because the two sets of lights are poorly phased. I nearly got caught out once and I now only ever use that car park when i can be sure the traffic will not be backed up/gridlocked.
I guess the OP needs to take the parking company to court then.That's the major flaw with entry/exit ANPR systems. They cannot monitor the actual parking event. However it depends entirely on what the signage says. If it says parking or parked that is the basis of the contract not the total time spent on site. And vice-versa.
There is a PE managed car park not far from where I live. The exit lead debouches straight onto a traffic light controlled junction with another light controlled one about 100 yards further on. At peak times it can easily take over 10 minutes to get past the exit camera because the two sets of lights are poorly phased. I nearly got caught out once and I now only ever use that car park when i can be sure the traffic will not be backed up/gridlocked.
Thanks for pointing that out.
funkyrobot said:
photosnob said:
I wouldn't say it was.
If you have a contract term - saying you can only park for a certain amount of time, then they cannot claim against you if you were not parked. Driving to get a maccy d's isn't parking. Nor is driving around.
The argument is that people will not be able to park if someone overstays. The super supremes agreed. The argument falls apart if the person is not in fact parking.
Does this mean that most parking tickets issued are invalid because it can't be proven that the offender was actually parked for the stated time?If you have a contract term - saying you can only park for a certain amount of time, then they cannot claim against you if you were not parked. Driving to get a maccy d's isn't parking. Nor is driving around.
The argument is that people will not be able to park if someone overstays. The super supremes agreed. The argument falls apart if the person is not in fact parking.
However - if the charge is for parking, then I'd run it as a defence in the county court if I had a receipt for mcdonalds and it was a close run thing.
funkyrobot said:
I guess the OP needs to take the parking company to court then.
You mean the OP should refuse to pay the invoice, and await the parking company to take them to court?Meanwhile fending off debt collection agencies masquerading as court baliffs...
To the OP, I would get a picture of the wording on their sign, a copy of the Cornwall judgement (mentioned above) and send this off to the parking company whilst firmly rejecting any such contractual breach on the grounds "parking" is not the same as "entering" or "leaving" the site, which is all the APNR can record.
Sometimes its useful to just be clear about how you intend to proceed:
- reject charge completely as conditions were not breached
- no intention to pay a charge for a contract breach that has not occurred
- happy for them to issue court proceedings to recover costs
- you will seek to recover (reasonable) costs associated with defending what is in your view a spurious claim
hope it goes well,
Ian
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff