Private companies can't issue fines. Only the police or council can.
Private companies can't issue fines. Only the police or council can.
As I said - technically not fines, but identical in practical purposes.
It's a fine in practical terms, if not in legal terms.
That's where the "unreasonable" bit comes in.
They aren't allowed to be punitive.
They aren't fines. So if they are asking for more than what they can show they have lost, then it's unreasonable.
Where was the car parked? English and Scottish rules differ somewhat (primarily in relation to the registered keeper's obligation to name the driver).
As I said - technically not fines, but identical in practical purposes.
Fines are punitive, punishment.
Private companies cannot punish, they can only claim reasonable loss due to a contractual breach.
It's a fine in practical terms, if not in legal terms.
So it's ok to act illegally if it's "practical"? That's going to come back to bite you, you know that right? (-:
Arguably irrelevant, he could have been gone for six hours.
They aren't fines. So if they are asking for more than what they can show they have lost, then it's unreasonable.
So why not have a sign that says:
"Parking fees:
First hour free.
Subsequent parking, £10/hour."
At £60 for indefinite parking, that could actually come in handy if I ever need to leave my car near an airport for a three week holiday.
No, it's a £100 fine for breaking the rules.
If it is a fine, rather than a charge, or recovering losses, then they haven't a legal leg to stand on.
But they know what they are doing, the word "fine" will not appear on any signs, or notices, or letters, even if the language implies otherwise.
In these situations, Parking Eye are delibrately awful to deal with, skip over them and go straight to whoever has their name on the entrance of the car park, assuming this is a supermarket parking mistake. Nag, nag, nag and nag the PR and customer services of the shop. I had to do this with the Coop… you have to be making it clear that Parking Eye's behaviour relflects on the brand of the shop. Be persistent.
As I said - technically not fines, but identical in practical purposes.
No it isn't.
Lots here explaining how to avoid the fee or saying the PE are a bunch of aresholes to deal with. No doubt they are and knock yourselves trying to avoid it.
But if you were in charge what would you do that was reasonable? Assuming as a user you would want a car park that you can find a space you would want some measure by the the owners to prevent too much piss taking. What would you do and if it was a 'fine' system would you give in for every hard luck story?
ICBA reading all the above as this topic comes up again and again.
Parking Eye, like most parking firms, are basically legalised cowboys that make their money by fraudulently tricking people into coughing up for a contract they didn't enter into to.
I've overturned all mine using guidance from the [url= http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163 ]MSE forum[/url].
Never pay the ******s - not least without a fight. They are scum.
I got a parking ticket from them in Penrith. We were on our way to Scotland for a sea kayaking trip and stopped to buy a weeks worth of grub for six of us and then eat in the cafe.
It was busy and 6 blokes shop very slowly.... So we overstayed.
I argued with ****ng Eye but to no avail so I wrote to Morrison to say that I have used the same shop every year for 12 years for paddling trips (it's close to the Motorway) and they cancelled the charge without arguing after I sent them a till receipt.
I should really shop in Scotland though.
But if you were in charge what would you do that was reasonable?
If it were my car park, I wouldn't be charging six pounds twenty-five a minute in parking for any customer I'd want to come back again.
all this "private firms can't issue fines" and "contract law" is basically irrelevant now, does nobody read prior posts?
[b][u]It went to court and the supreme court ruled that it was not illegal[/b][/u]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-34721126
(ignore if you want. We don't listen to 'experts' any more, after all)
Its £100 for 16 mins parking - so you really need someone to explain to you why this is unreasonable?
While I sort of agree; it's not your opinion, it's the opinion of the supreme court's seven judges that counts. But it has to be high enough to be a deterrent without being unconscionable.
No, the legal ruling was to do with the amount charged, and nature of contract. It was still billed as a charge, not a fine.
If it were my car park, I wouldn't be charging six pounds twenty-five a minute in parking for any customer I'd want to come back again.
So that's what you wouldn't do but what would you do?
look, we're splitting hairs over terminology here. Whether it's billed as a fine, or a charge, to all intents and purposes it's a fine and the judges said that's OK. You can no longer evade it because it's a 'penalty' as opposed to a genuine loss incurred.
And whether it's called a fine or not, the definition of a fine in the dictionary is "a sum of money paid as punishment for a crime or other offence" - which is what this is.
For all the legal 'experts' here an idea.
1. Drive out tomorrow to a Parking Eye car park.
2. Overstay but don't take the p$ss say 20 minutes.
3. Contest the charge / fine (delete as appropriate) if you get a demand.
4. Fight the case through the courts and stick it to the man.
5. Come back on STW and tell us all about your magnificent legal expertise.
6. Get a knighthood for services to idiots who can't read signs.
Delibrately break a contract? Why? What a stupid thing to suggest.
Not the same as mistakenly over staying in a car park, especially if busy in the shop that offers the parking.
For all the legal 'experts' here an idea.1. Drive out tomorrow to a Parking Eye car park.
2. Overstay but don't take the p$ss say 20 minutes.
3. Contest the charge / fine (delete as appropriate) if you get a demand.
4. Fight the case through the courts and stick it to the man.
5. Come back on STW and tell us all about your magnificent legal expertise.
6. Get a knighthood for services to idiots who can't read signs.
Yup. Did that. (Well my OH did, although she didn't even bother going to the court hearing)
Didn't pay anything.
No knighthood though, I don't think. Although it may have been sent to the wrong address?
But it's like everything, we can't have a solution that allows people to overstay in a shop a few minutes, because for everyone that does that there's someone that just takes the piss and couldn't give a shit until they get caught. Lowest common denominator, I'm afraid.
Back to my work situation. They are private spaces, we rent them 24-7-365. We don't want to have to put bollards or chains or contract to a PPC, we just want them empty Mon-Fri 8-6. But a few people DGAS and as a result we have to consider a solution that means no-one can use them.
(to an question above - if we went bollards, for example, how do we make sure they're left free at 8am Monday; by locking them Friday night as we leave. So the residents don't get them out of hours anyway)
Yup. Did that. (Well my OH did, although she didn't even bother going to the court hearing)Didn't pay anything.
When?
When?
Think it was august last year ?
and what did she contest on the grounds of?
Best if you read the my previous post above rather than me typing it all out again 😉
At £60 for indefinite parking, that could actually come in handy if I ever need to leave my car near an airport for a three week holiday.
You'll probaby find it's £100/day or something.
Speaking as someone who came on here and whined when I got two parking tickets, I think you're all a bunch of whiners. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. See also speeding tickets.
c&p would work 😉
But I assume she got off as a result of them having sent the correspondence to the wrong address and therefore she didn't get a chance to appeal it through the channels properly rather than any overturn of the Beavis case.
If there's a post-Beavis case where someone has overstayed, been ticketed, appealed to courts over the unfair contracts / not allowed to issue fines aspect (not bad signage, or incorrect use of cameras, or other technicalities - purely on the unfair contracts bit) - and won...... I'm sure the motoring organisations would like to hear about it.
@nealglover. He's paid for the full argument and wants his money's worth.
My OH got a CCJ because of a a Parking Eye "fine"
You (sorry she) really showed them. All sorted now so no harm done.
she didn't get a chance to appeal it through the channels properly rather than any overturn of the Beavis case.
Indeed.
I was just responding to tonyf1's challenge 🙂
You (sorry she) really showed them.
Well, she did really.
The court reversed the decision, She has no CCJ, she didn't attend court, she paid no fine, she had no costs.
They on the other hand probably spent a fair bit of time and money (by comparison) for nothing.
[quote=theotherjonv ]But it's like everything, we can't have a solution that allows people to overstay in a shop a few minutes, because for everyone that does that there's someone that just takes the piss and couldn't give a shit until they get caught. Lowest common denominator, I'm afraid.
and like everything, of course you can, you just have to want to. Cougar gave a nice sensible suggestion up there:
[quote=Cougar ]"Parking fees:
First hour free.
Subsequent parking, £10/hour."
I guess you could ramp up the subsequent hours if necessary, but that sort of charging scheme would sort out the people who want to park all day without excessively penalising those who accidentally overstay.
Of course the reason they don't do that is that the actual lowest common denominator here is Parking Eye and the other similar companies. What you have to realise is that they're not in the least interested in preventing people from overstaying or preventing them from parking where they're not supposed to. On the contrary if they put lots of effort into that they'd make less money - they're really interested in getting people to overstay or park where they're not supposed to, because that's how their business model works. I can totally understand the issue you have with parking, but you should bear in mind the business model of such companies when employing them.
At £60 for indefinite parking, that could actually come in handy if I ever need to leave my car near an airport for a three week holiday.
Parking for a weekend in London a few years ago we realised that the charge for a lost ticket was less than it would be for the time we were planning on parking there for. It's possible we didn't take too much care of our tickets...
Neal, to be serious for a second the point is that now if you get a demand today and just ignore it in all likelihood you will get taken to court. The advice to just ignore it doesn't work now.
Quoting a case where you never got a demand because of a mix up on addresses that leads to a CCJ isn't a great example of winning a parking fine / demand / invoice is it?
Point of order.
No CCJ.
(Well only a temporary one, for a month, that was removed)
In the end, she won and paid no fine/fees etc.
But yes, I get your point
You just need to be more specific in your challenges. You didn't mention which defence should be used to win the case 😆
A black swan defence ... you didn't even know you where challenging the fine / demand but still won. Brilliant 8)
aracer - that could work in a free for two hours but then you get a fine place, like a supermarket for example. Apart from - the firms would have no incentive to run a parking enforcement company for a tenner here and there particularly as most people would still have to be chased for the tenner. These firms (according to the courts) have a right to make a living as well as enforcing the parking. I don't like them either but the question wasn't whether you like PPC's, but do they ever take anyone to court / how do you get off the fines?
And it still doesn't work on private land. A PPC wouldn't take it on for a tenner here and there, but even being in our spaces for a few minutes beyond the start of the working day messes us up; we have to go and park in the public car parks, 5-10 mins walk away. Do you put a couple of hours in, and hope someone clears off by then? But that means you can't be involved in a meeting at the time that happens, or be running a prolonged experiment...... so you pay for all day, and so on.
Necessary evil, in my book.
@neal - not arguing, just keen to see if there are instances where Beavis has been overruled.
you didn't even know you where challenging the fine / demand but still won. Brilliant
No.
She didn't know she had been given a fine.
When she found out, she challenged it, and won.
@neal - not arguing, just keen to see if there are instances where Beavis has been overruled.
Not as far as I know.
Would be big news if there was I reckon.
Thers's a perfectly simple solution when using an ANPR car park. Put a post-it note over your number plate as you leave. No evidence.
Take it off when you get to the public highway of course...
why not go the whole hog and fit false number plates. covers you for speeding and RLJ'ing too.
Back to the LCD argument again. Because people can't play fair, everyone has to pay for it.
I remember I visited my doctors, it has about 5 spots in their carpark and you need to punch in your registration at reception to prove you've had an appointment
I had a new car and got one of the letters wrong...ended up being sent a 60 quid fine.
Parking eye clearly knew that it was a genuine mistake, but because they are chancing scumbags they tried it on anyway.
Suffice to say they didn't get a penny.
Time to make all car parks pay on exit with barrier control unless free. Pay and Display is too much of a money spinner these days.
[quote=theotherjonv ]aracer - that could work in a free for two hours but then you get a fine place, like a supermarket for example. Apart from - the firms would have no incentive to run a parking enforcement company for a tenner here and there particularly as most people would still have to be chased for the tenner.
Except that the parking isn't there to benefit the company issuing "fines", it has another purpose. They would simply have to change their business model slightly to one which wasn't so evil. Meanwhile people might have to be chased for the £10, but I'm betting it wouldn't take much chasing, they could spend a lot less on employing lawyers.
These firms (according to the courts) have a right to make a living as well as enforcing the parking.
That wasn't [b]exactly[/b] what the courts said. I've refrained from commenting on Beavis as I don't know the full details and don't want to give bad advice, but as there is plenty of that already here, I'll point out that I do know the judges in their ruling pointed out that that the ruling only applied to the very specific circumstances, the parking companies can't rely on it as a catch all, there are still plenty of arguments which can be used (including the one about unfair penalties provided it's used right). Certainly plenty of cases have been lost by parking companies since Beavis - it doesn't mean it's been overruled, simply that it doesn't apply in all cases.
I don't like them either but the question wasn't whether you like PPC's, but do they ever take anyone to court / how do you get off the fines?
And it still doesn't work on private land.
That might have been the original question, but as always the discussion has moved on, in this case specifically to the moral question of overstays in free car parks. No it's not an argument which applies to you, but the point that the parking companies aren't incentivised to actually prevent people stealing your spaces does.
[quote=theotherjonv ]why not go the whole hog and fit false number plates. covers you for speeding and RLJ'ing too.
Back to the LCD argument again. Because people can't play fair, everyone has to pay for it.
and once again it is Parking Eye who are the LCD which prompts such behaviour - the suggestion (even if not totally serious) was certainly that its use would be limited to car parks controlled by unscrupulous companies.
These firms (according to the courts) have a right to make a living as well as enforcing the parking.
That wasn't exactly what the courts said
Long but here's what the supreme court said:
"99. In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is
not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss
as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them
which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The scheme in operation here (and
in many similar car parks) is that the landowner authorises ParkingEye to control
access to the car park and to impose the agreed charges, with a view to managing
the car park in the interests of the retail outlets, their customers and the public at
large. That is an interest of the landowners because (i) they receive a fee from
ParkingEye for the right to operate the scheme, and (ii) they lease sites on the retail
park to various retailers, for whom the availability of customer parking was a
valuable facility. It is an interest of ParkingEye, because it sells its services as the
managers of such schemes and meets the costs of doing so from charges for breach
of the terms (and if the scheme was run directly by the landowners, the analysis
would be no different). As we have pointed out, deterrence is not penal if there is a
legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not
satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract. Mr Butcher
QC, who appeared for the Consumers’ Association (interveners), submitted that
because ParkingEye was the contracting party its interest was the only one which
could count. For the reason which we have given, ParkingEye had a sufficient
interest even if that submission be correct. But in our opinion it is not correct. The
penal character of this scheme cannot depend on whether the landowner operates it
himself or employs a contractor like ParkingEye to operate it. The motorist would
not know or care what if any interest the operator has in the land, or what relationship
it has with the landowner if it has no interest. This conclusion is reinforced when
one bears in mind that the question whether a contractual provision is a penalty turns
on the construction of the contract, which cannot normally turn on facts not recorded
in the contract unless they are known, or could reasonably be known, to both parties.
100. None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it
liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest
or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service. But there is no reason
to suppose that £85 is out of all proportion to its interests. The trial judge, Judge
Moloney QC, found that the £85 charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable
having regard to the level of charges imposed by local authorities for overstaying in
car parks on public land. The Court of Appeal agreed and so do we. It is higher than
the penalty that a motorist would have had to pay for overstaying in an on-street
parking space or a local authority car park. But a local authority would not
necessarily allow two hours of free parking, and in any event the difference is not
Page 44
substantial. The charge is less than the maximum above which members of the BPA
must justify their charges under their code of practice. The charge is prominently
displayed in large letters at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals
within it. The mere fact that many motorists regularly use the car park knowing of
the charge is some evidence of its reasonableness. They are not constrained to use
this car park as opposed to other parking facilities provided by local authorities,
Network Rail, commercial car park contractors or other private landowners. They
must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for overstaying as an acceptable price for
the convenience of parking there. The observations of Lord Browne-Wilkinson in
Workers Bank at p 580 referred to in para 35 above are in point. While not
necessarily conclusive, the fact that ParkingEye’s payment structure in its car parks
(free for two hours and then a relatively substantial sum for overstaying) and the
actual level of charge for overstaying (£85) are common in the UK provides support
for the proposition that the charge in question is not a penalty. No other evidence
was furnished by Mr Beavis to show that the charge was excessive."
Again, I'm no fan of the PPC's, having been done by them in the past in days of clamping particularly. But that's where the industry changed and you now have in POPLA a pretty good appeals service for small matters like the mis-typed number plate above. My sister used them on a similar matter and it was virtually painless.
Follow the rules, don't overstay, and they're no issue. Continuing to consider them the problem nowadays avoids the point that the majority of complainers are those that can't or won't.
Follow the rules, don't overstay, and they're no issue. Continuing to consider them the problem nowadays avoids the point that the majority of complainers are those that can't or won't.
Actually I'd see them following exactly the same procedures as local council fines, with appeals treated in the same way. Rather than a tough shit regardless approach. As I mentioned above I've not had a ticket from a private operator for quite some time, I did however last year entered a 2 instead of a Z when paying for parking in a council space using the Registration plate an id . Which I appealed and the council accepted, parking was paid for, no overstay, no losses incurred, no businesses lost parking.
Your set of circumstances seems a right ball ache and it's hard to see a cost effective way for you to deal with it other than a parking charge/management company. Just be wary of who you contract as it'll not be good for business if your employees and customers find themselves on the tough shit regardless end of the stick.
Follow the rules, don't overstay, and they're no issue.
and herein lies one of the fundamental problems of the ANPR system parking eye uses.
It clocks you going in to the car park, and leaving, not the actual time parked.
You'd be aggrieved if you paid for a set amount of parking, lets say an hour. You took 59 minutes. you've paid for that. However imagine the car parks busy and it takes you time to get out, indeed it took a while to get a space so you were in the carpark for 1 hour 15 but parked for your paid for time.
You receive an invoice for £60 for an overstay in that situation. Is that right?
This happened in Stockport over christmas so its not a made up example..
The ANPR system parking eye uses has been proven time and time again to be deficient. Pay on exit, with an exit barrier is absolutely the fairest way but parking companies won't adopt this system as its been proven to massively reduce the amount of invoices (fines) issued
