"Illegal" Parking fines total over £100 million - RAC
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31545417
BBC News said:
Millions of pounds of parking fines could have been charged illegally, according to the RAC Foundation.
Fines for overstays in car parks on private land could in some cases be unenforceable in court, barrister John de Waal QC said in a paper for the charity.
He said fines were much more expensive than compensation for a genuine loss.
The foundation highlighted instances of people being charged £100 or more for running over their parking ticket.
Its director Professor Stephen Glaister estimated the overcharging may have reached £100 million in 2013.
'Barely regulated'
Mr de Waal said: "Payments at the level that operators presently demand as sanctions are unlikely to count as genuine pre-estimate of loss."
He said they should be seen by the courts as penalties, which would mean they were unenforceable.
European consumer legislation which requires contracts to be fair means so-called "early payment discounts" could be unlawful because they constitute a "price escalation clause", he said.
He also said that when signs are not clear or prominently displayed, the charge could also be challenged on the grounds of unfairness.
Prof Glaister said he believed millions of drivers could be due a refund.
"We would like to see this legal argument tested in a higher court so that a binding precedent is set," he added.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 banned clamping, towing, blocking-in or immobilising a vehicle without lawful authority on private land, in a bid to end abuses by rogue clamping firms.
However, the foundation said that private car parks were now using overstay fines as an alternative, with a system of ticketing which was "barely regulated".
Fines for overstays in car parks on private land could in some cases be unenforceable in court, barrister John de Waal QC said in a paper for the charity.
He said fines were much more expensive than compensation for a genuine loss.
The foundation highlighted instances of people being charged £100 or more for running over their parking ticket.
Its director Professor Stephen Glaister estimated the overcharging may have reached £100 million in 2013.
'Barely regulated'
Mr de Waal said: "Payments at the level that operators presently demand as sanctions are unlikely to count as genuine pre-estimate of loss."
He said they should be seen by the courts as penalties, which would mean they were unenforceable.
European consumer legislation which requires contracts to be fair means so-called "early payment discounts" could be unlawful because they constitute a "price escalation clause", he said.
He also said that when signs are not clear or prominently displayed, the charge could also be challenged on the grounds of unfairness.
Prof Glaister said he believed millions of drivers could be due a refund.
"We would like to see this legal argument tested in a higher court so that a binding precedent is set," he added.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 banned clamping, towing, blocking-in or immobilising a vehicle without lawful authority on private land, in a bid to end abuses by rogue clamping firms.
However, the foundation said that private car parks were now using overstay fines as an alternative, with a system of ticketing which was "barely regulated".
The article says parking "fines" may have reached a figure of £100 million in 2013 - it doesn't actually say that was JUST for 2013, but it highlights that the figures asked for by private companies are far in excess of the compensation for loss.
It does not highlight the part DVLA play in this - the DVLA may well feel they could jack up their charges for supplying Reg Keepers details in the light of this though!
It will be interesting to see if anyone is prepared to act to regulate the charges in election year!
It does not highlight the part DVLA play in this - the DVLA may well feel they could jack up their charges for supplying Reg Keepers details in the light of this though!
It will be interesting to see if anyone is prepared to act to regulate the charges in election year!
These parking companies have built their businesses on public stupidity in that we generally pay any invoice we're sent as long as it looks official. It's correct therefore they're driven out of business by public intelligence.
All we need to do is challenge every ticket and they'll go out of business.
All we need to do is challenge every ticket and they'll go out of business.
supermono said:
Also the DVLA question. Why are they giving out private data to all and sundry to allow them to raise illegal invoices? Someone must be breaking the law in the request or fulfullment side. I'd like DVLA to be pressed about why they're allowing scammers to gain access to our data.
The DVLA are stupid and they charge a fee for each request. As long as they are getting their money, it doesn't really matter.supermono said:
funkyrobot said:
The DVLA are stupid and they charge a fee for each request. As long as they are getting their money, it doesn't really matter.
Surely they have a legal duty of care and obligations under DPA just like any other business?The DPA says that information can only be used for the reason it was collected. In the case of the DVLA the reason is for identification of the owner of the car. I'm afraid that your on to a hiding to nothing complaint about the DVLA here. They can release information to anyone with a "reasonable cause", including issuing parking fines. It's not down to the DVLA to check if those fines are legal or not.
Why does Mr De Waal refer to them as 'fines' then 'charges' surely he needs to get his language correct and consistent as a 'lawyer'?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidanc...
Anyone want to define
P16 Q1
Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-
estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for
the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken.
For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs
associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be
set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention
should not be to penalise the driver.
Parking charge i'e £10-£20 + a bit of admin time, chasing up etc soon adds up ?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidanc...
Anyone want to define
P16 Q1
Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-
estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for
the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken.
For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs
associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be
set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention
should not be to penalise the driver.
Parking charge i'e £10-£20 + a bit of admin time, chasing up etc soon adds up ?
The government shouldn't need to, the legal concept of POFA Section 4 is based on compensation of losses incurred to the landowner, and in the case of a free car park, that is pretty hard to justify anything bar an admin fee.
A major test case is being heard at the Court Of Appeal next week that should clarify this, and hopefully put the pressure on these cowboy companies to act more responsibly.
I've had over 60 of these tickets cancelled in the last year, either by the PPC, POPLA and one in the county court, and despite the huge amount that are being dismissed, it is simply a numbers game for the parking sharks. For every 10 they issue, 7 or 8 will pay without question.
A major test case is being heard at the Court Of Appeal next week that should clarify this, and hopefully put the pressure on these cowboy companies to act more responsibly.
I've had over 60 of these tickets cancelled in the last year, either by the PPC, POPLA and one in the county court, and despite the huge amount that are being dismissed, it is simply a numbers game for the parking sharks. For every 10 they issue, 7 or 8 will pay without question.
supermono said:
These parking companies have built their businesses on public stupidity in that we generally pay any invoice we're sent as long as it looks official. It's correct therefore they're driven out of business by public intelligence.
All we need to do is challenge every ticket and they'll go out of business.
Whilst I agree the charges are extortionate we don't really want them out of business, a moderate fee to stop people parking where ever they want without thinking of how their parked car may affect others and remember that someone owns the land so if they can't charge and don't want people just using the land for free then car parks may close and that'll create a larger problem in many cities where the focus is to get people back into the city centre rather than out of town shoppping centres.All we need to do is challenge every ticket and they'll go out of business.
It needs regulating.
If the PPCs lose in court you can just about bet your house legislation will arrive allowing them to charge without having to rely on contractual terms. With legislative mandate behind them the 'private' parking ticket will proliferate, as companies that use the service will feel less inhibited to use PPCs when they can turn to disgruntled customers and say 1. It's the Gubberment what let us do this and 2. Everybody else does it.
Ultimately, the problem is that the need to control parking on private land doesn't disappear just because PPCs can no longer enforce contracts. The proliferation of PPCs was in response to a need driven by their clients, not just the PPCs 'twisting the arms' of their customers, some of the UKs biggest and most mercenary land owners and retailers.
If the need doesn't go away, then neither will the parking tickets.
The difference in the future will be that private parking tickets will have far fewer 'get outs' than they do now, as they'll be backed by legislation.
I have a funny feeling the court of appeal will overturn the decision of the lower court, on the basis the full fee and the conversion to it from the original smaller one, is a penalty and the original judge over-egged how far 'commercial justification' can be stretched to accommodate parking fines. Interestingly, in the high court in the case between Parkingeye and Somerfield, the judge decided the £75 overstay charge was in fact a fee for parking and therefore could not be a penalty (though the additional £60, where payment was not made promptly, probably was). Those comments were however orbiter and not subject to detailed analysis in that case.
Ultimately, the problem is that the need to control parking on private land doesn't disappear just because PPCs can no longer enforce contracts. The proliferation of PPCs was in response to a need driven by their clients, not just the PPCs 'twisting the arms' of their customers, some of the UKs biggest and most mercenary land owners and retailers.
If the need doesn't go away, then neither will the parking tickets.
The difference in the future will be that private parking tickets will have far fewer 'get outs' than they do now, as they'll be backed by legislation.
I have a funny feeling the court of appeal will overturn the decision of the lower court, on the basis the full fee and the conversion to it from the original smaller one, is a penalty and the original judge over-egged how far 'commercial justification' can be stretched to accommodate parking fines. Interestingly, in the high court in the case between Parkingeye and Somerfield, the judge decided the £75 overstay charge was in fact a fee for parking and therefore could not be a penalty (though the additional £60, where payment was not made promptly, probably was). Those comments were however orbiter and not subject to detailed analysis in that case.
Dammit said:
You get just over one parking ticket per week cancelled? How many do you get in total?
I manage a lease fleet of around 5000 vehicles, we get 2-300 of these a week, most of them I defer to the end user but some of the PPC don't like having to chase around so they pester me. It's got to the point though were two of the bigger PPCs no longer send the invoices to us when they see who the RK is - I cost one of them a huge amount when I challenged 30 odd tickets in one go at POPLA, and won them all.IPC/IAS companies (as opposed to those in the BPA) are a different kettle of sharks though - their appeals process is along the lines of "ner ner ner ner ner ner we can't hear you, la la la la, my dads' bigger than your dad". I'm itching for one of them to take me to court though as you could powerslide a bus through the holes in their arguments.
S11Steve said:
Dammit said:
You get just over one parking ticket per week cancelled? How many do you get in total?
I manage a lease fleet of around 5000 vehicles, we get 2-300 of these a week, most of them I defer to the end user but some of the PPC don't like having to chase around so they pester me. It's got to the point though were two of the bigger PPCs no longer send the invoices to us when they see who the RK is - I cost one of them a huge amount when I challenged 30 odd tickets in one go at POPLA, and won them all.IPC/IAS companies (as opposed to those in the BPA) are a different kettle of sharks though - their appeals process is along the lines of "ner ner ner ner ner ner we can't hear you, la la la la, my dads' bigger than your dad". I'm itching for one of them to take me to court though as you could powerslide a bus through the holes in their arguments.
herewego said:
I suggest that backing the drivers is encouraging them to ignore the private parking rules so now they are abusing the facilities.
I have no direct contact with drivers, and don't even know who is in the vehicle at any given moment. I know which corporate entity the vehicle was leased to, and that is all I need to know. For the each of the rejected representation, the driver would never even know there had been an invoice issued if it was an ANPR system that timed their stay.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 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!
ZOLLAR said:
supermono said:
These parking companies have built their businesses on public stupidity in that we generally pay any invoice we're sent as long as it looks official. It's correct therefore they're driven out of business by public intelligence.
All we need to do is challenge every ticket and they'll go out of business.
Whilst I agree the charges are extortionate we don't really want them out of business, a moderate fee to stop people parking where ever they want without thinking of how their parked car may affect others and remember that someone owns the land so if they can't charge and don't want people just using the land for free then car parks may close and that'll create a larger problem in many cities where the focus is to get people back into the city centre rather than out of town shoppping centres.All we need to do is challenge every ticket and they'll go out of business.
It needs regulating.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff