Car parking fines. When will the stupidity end
Discussion
The entire industry needs ripping to the ground and starting again with proper regulation.
Definitely a regulator who is balanced between parking company and customers and licences companies and has powers to strip companies from right to operate and strike bosses off so they have to stand down. The ability to impose large fines (up to 100% of profit on company and large fines on certified managers) when it goes wrong too.
Then the absolutely swamp that is private parking companies might sort itself out.
Definitely a regulator who is balanced between parking company and customers and licences companies and has powers to strip companies from right to operate and strike bosses off so they have to stand down. The ability to impose large fines (up to 100% of profit on company and large fines on certified managers) when it goes wrong too.
Then the absolutely swamp that is private parking companies might sort itself out.
Dingu said:
The entire industry needs ripping to the ground and starting again with proper regulation.
Definitely a regulator who is balanced between parking company and customers and licences companies and has powers to strip companies from right to operate and strike bosses off so they have to stand down. The ability to impose large fines (up to 100% of profit on company and large fines on certified managers) when it goes wrong too.
Then the absolutely swamp that is private parking companies might sort itself out.
I've never had a parking fine, however doesn't the company have to have suffered loss of income (at the time of the offence) to be sucessful in court?Definitely a regulator who is balanced between parking company and customers and licences companies and has powers to strip companies from right to operate and strike bosses off so they have to stand down. The ability to impose large fines (up to 100% of profit on company and large fines on certified managers) when it goes wrong too.
Then the absolutely swamp that is private parking companies might sort itself out.
Alex Z said:
There’s a line in there about how she took up to three hours to pay for parking.
If that’s proven to be the case I suspect she may be in trouble, but if she has paid at the earliest opportunity as claimed then I find it hard to believe the court will think £2k is reasonable.
But if you read the article fully, the lady explained that the time discrepancy of payments and entry were due to the transactions not appearing on the account, not the actual time of making the payment. If necessary, the bank would be able to provide the actual time of details being entered. Quite frequently I find that transactions on my card are "pending" or don't even appear till the next day, e.g., M6 Toll is a bugger for this.If that’s proven to be the case I suspect she may be in trouble, but if she has paid at the earliest opportunity as claimed then I find it hard to believe the court will think £2k is reasonable.
I strongly suspect the company are lying/obfuscating the truth on purpose and they know full well when she paid, but that they also believe they can hide behind confusing data to muddy the waters and throw doubt on the victim's story. They're worse than scum.
Excel Parking have admitted that the 5 minute rule is in place to stop people dropping off & picking up without parking.
Since Rosey had planned to park and had actually paid to park, it is clear that she was not dropping off or picking up.
The purpose of the 5 minute rule is therefore not relevant to Rosey's situation, and Excel using the rule as a pretext to extract £100 from her is dishonest.
I hope that she defends herself in court, and that the Judge rightly throws the book at Excel Parking for their dishonest behaviour.
Since Rosey had planned to park and had actually paid to park, it is clear that she was not dropping off or picking up.
The purpose of the 5 minute rule is therefore not relevant to Rosey's situation, and Excel using the rule as a pretext to extract £100 from her is dishonest.
I hope that she defends herself in court, and that the Judge rightly throws the book at Excel Parking for their dishonest behaviour.
sim72 said:
119 said:
Don't these apps allow you to pay upfront for parking before you get there?
Never used one so dont know.
Many do, yes. However you don't want to pay in advance and then arrive at a car park to find that it's full. As I found out once.Never used one so dont know.
t bricks and results in more fines. sim72 said:
119 said:
Don't these apps allow you to pay upfront for parking before you get there?
Never used one so dont know.
Many do, yes. However you don't want to pay in advance and then arrive at a car park to find that it's full. As I found out once.Never used one so dont know.
Edited by 5s Alive on Saturday 30th November 13:59
I think Excel will struggle to justify liquidated damages.
The ANPR will pick up *everybody* who enters, stays beyond 5 minutes and leaves. The justifiable liquidated damages clause is effectively "you have a 5 minute grace period to either park or leave without charge. If you stay beyond that and fail to pay before you leave, there will be a charge of £X".
Those who stay for more than 5 minutes and don't pay before leaving are captured by the ANPR and the liquidated damages clause takes care of the charge.
Where a person parks for longer than 5 minutes and pays the appropriate amount, at whatever point in time, before they leave, there can be no loss. If liquidated damages must be a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss', that loss can only be zero in this instance.
This leaves the 'commercial justification' test introduce by the Supreme Court (Makdessi still extant?). In that case the business model was free parking for maximum time then you must leave. It naturally requires enforcement. With no direct income from parking there needed to be another way of funding it. In that case it was funded by overstayers' parking charges. From memory the court decided this special commercial arrangement meant liquidated damages could be justified without being a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Here the car park business model is different. Customers pay for parking and are allowed to stay all day, subject to payment. Presumably the landowner (or whoever benefits from such income) would be perfectly happy if every space were occupied and paid for all day, every day. In which case there is no special commercial situation to justify liquidated damages without it being a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
In which case, where someone parks and pays the correct fee, albeit more than 5 minutes after they arrived, before leaving, there would be no potential loss from which to form a genuine pre-estimate. There would be no commercial justification to avoid one. I don't think the clause is enforceable.
The ANPR will pick up *everybody* who enters, stays beyond 5 minutes and leaves. The justifiable liquidated damages clause is effectively "you have a 5 minute grace period to either park or leave without charge. If you stay beyond that and fail to pay before you leave, there will be a charge of £X".
Those who stay for more than 5 minutes and don't pay before leaving are captured by the ANPR and the liquidated damages clause takes care of the charge.
Where a person parks for longer than 5 minutes and pays the appropriate amount, at whatever point in time, before they leave, there can be no loss. If liquidated damages must be a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss', that loss can only be zero in this instance.
This leaves the 'commercial justification' test introduce by the Supreme Court (Makdessi still extant?). In that case the business model was free parking for maximum time then you must leave. It naturally requires enforcement. With no direct income from parking there needed to be another way of funding it. In that case it was funded by overstayers' parking charges. From memory the court decided this special commercial arrangement meant liquidated damages could be justified without being a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Here the car park business model is different. Customers pay for parking and are allowed to stay all day, subject to payment. Presumably the landowner (or whoever benefits from such income) would be perfectly happy if every space were occupied and paid for all day, every day. In which case there is no special commercial situation to justify liquidated damages without it being a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
In which case, where someone parks and pays the correct fee, albeit more than 5 minutes after they arrived, before leaving, there would be no potential loss from which to form a genuine pre-estimate. There would be no commercial justification to avoid one. I don't think the clause is enforceable.
bad company said:
I wish Breadvan hadn’t left PH. He was very knowledgeable on stuff like this.
Yes I used to love his threads on beating car parking companies. In the end they told him if he carried on helping people on here and peppipo they would inundate him, (he managed a very very large fleet, manager of some sort and dealt with lots and lots of parking fines every week, got very proficient and knowledgeable about how to beat them and the processes involved)
take every one of his appeals to court and basically make his working life impossible so he disappeared off here.
I secretly hope he’s still about and helping out under different usernames etc.
If it was me my defence would be- I was asked to pay and I paid in full. They have not been at any financial loss on any day.
If she was paying by part-day or by the hpur and chose to start the timing later then yes she's benefitted.
However to take her to court when she's actually paid in full on the day? No.
If she was paying by part-day or by the hpur and chose to start the timing later then yes she's benefitted.
However to take her to court when she's actually paid in full on the day? No.
As a registered keeper of a car I am currently being pursued for a claim the car was in a carpark for 6 and half minutes. No signs to indicate you have 5 minutes to pay. The car park was cash only, no signs at the point of entry to indicate this. So it takes time to park up, go to the machine and work out it doesn't take cards. Read some of the signs displayed around the car park to see if you can do it via an app, which none did. So the driver got back in the car with the child they were with and left to find another car park. I'm prepared to go to court as you can't form a contract with the parking company unless all terms of the contract are clearly stated and not hidden in some paperwork in their office. It's about time these companies were put out of business, they are praying on people's ignorance of the law.
Qualified PHers give up giving advice as people being people expect more than some guidance, they want follow up, further. Back and forth. Their friends then also contact the PHer via email asking for free advice also. Etc etc.
At what point does the advice become professionally indemnable?
I have alot of knowledge around a certain subject. No way I'd give anyone advice. It'd potentially jeopardise my employment.
At what point does the advice become professionally indemnable?
I have alot of knowledge around a certain subject. No way I'd give anyone advice. It'd potentially jeopardise my employment.
5s Alive said:
Dingu said:
The entire industry needs ripping to the ground and starting again with proper regulation.
Definitely a regulator who is balanced between parking company and customers and licences companies and has powers to strip companies from right to operate and strike bosses off so they have to stand down. The ability to impose large fines (up to 100% of profit on company and large fines on certified managers) when it goes wrong too.
Then the absolutely swamp that is private parking companies might sort itself out.
I've never had a parking fine, however doesn't the company have to have suffered loss of income (at the time of the offence) to be sucessful in court?Definitely a regulator who is balanced between parking company and customers and licences companies and has powers to strip companies from right to operate and strike bosses off so they have to stand down. The ability to impose large fines (up to 100% of profit on company and large fines on certified managers) when it goes wrong too.
Then the absolutely swamp that is private parking companies might sort itself out.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff