Forum menu
I once parked at the National Cycling Centre to go riding at Clayton Vale (just next door).
They have 2 car parks, one at the front and one at the back with gates. The road going into it has big signs about the free parking, so I drove into the car park and went for a ride... Got back later to find the gates locked. WTF!
Much searching later I discovered a small sign, unreadable from the road, stating that the car park locked its gates at 6pm. All the large obvious signs on the approach road apparently refer to the front car park only.
See that blue sign on the railings to the right? The unobtrusive tiny one you have to get out of the car and go and squint at in order to read? This is the only notification that the car park is locked (or at least it was, a couple of years ago when this happened).
Had to come back early next morning to fetch the car, was a right pain.
Ok, that's my vaguely relevant and entirely unhelpful contribution for the day 🙂
What does your solution look like?
Assuming for the sake of argument that paying for parking is a legitimate practice (it cost me £4 yesterday for hospital parking and 20 minutes of that was finding a space and then getting out again, bastards), plenty of car parks issue tickets on arrival that you validate before leaving.
Failing that, did we all just take leave of common sense? I've already said this, an automated system isn't time-critical. It makes no difference whether you pay within five minutes of arrival or pay for your stay two weeks later so long as you do actually pay.
Prepayment in itself is a con, if you don't know how long you're going to be then you'll overpay to be on the safe side. Have you never paid for 3 hours' parking and then thought "actually, it's a bit shit here" and left again after 30 minutes? So you do the nice thing and offer your ticket to someone else only they've got wise to this now and ask for your registration, so a parking spot is paid for twice over.
Your small print is because they're operating on the edges of the law and they know it, it's at least as much to go "aha, gotcha!" as it is to guard against loopholes. If a driver can't grasp "park car in a marked bay, pay for parking" without a page of legalese then they should probably consider public transport.
I understand the need for businesses to enforce parking restrictions but, as per the OP here, plenty of companies take the absolute piss.
I got a penalty notice last year, either Banbury or Bedford station I think (had gone to a gig in London - parked there, train in, and train back late late eve / (1am sort of time). I had paid by app. reasonably soon after parking (I did have to go run for the train so may have been 10 or 15 mins by the time I had a signal). No machines there to pay directly. I took photos of the notices before leaving too.
Anyway, I did tell them in the appeal form to FRO and that I'd happily go to court if they wanted, as I'd paid by App, and they could go check that themselves as they had taken my money (the ££ had gone out of my account so I had that proof if I needed it in court). Plus told th that I'd be billing them £125 and hour (+VAT) for all the time + took to go to court, as per the normal fee rate for my time at work (I'm in a consultancy) and travel costs on top, as costs for when they lost.
They replied a couple of weeks later apologising with some bollox about a technical error and cancelling it.
Tossers.
.
Banbury or Bedford station
You probably had a get out of jail free card there, railway land is usually covered by bylaws not POFA so they can't hold the keeper liable.
an automated system isn’t time-critical
It can be if the parking prices vary during the day, the ideal is cameras with pay on exit machines, the machine calculates what you owe automatically, you only pay for what you've used. That said even that can go wrong, people are idiots, they pay on arrival despite the signs, system thinks they've been in the car park for 15 minutes and charges them accordingly then they get pissy when they get a PCN for not paying enough cos they are too stupid to follow the instructions.
Update!
I've just received an email, they've accepted my appeal as 'an act of goodwill'.
They've clarified that the reason for the PCN was, as expected, payment after the session started.
My grounds for appeal were:
- I paid for parking in good faith.
- At the time of the offence on the PCN my ticket was valid (receipt provided).
- The signage was unclear. Specifically, although it said payment on arrival, it also said payment up to 24 hours later, leading me to believe I would be able to select the correct time on the app.
- Since I could have avoided the PCN by paying up to 24 hours later on their website, their signage clearly misled me.
Thanks all, for your advice, comments anecdotes etc.
I thought all these PPCs were scum?
So they charged him unfairly, caused stress and inconvenience, and when challenged on it (after they'd probably banked on OP paying up for an easy life), tried to pretend they were doing the OP a favour.
Rather than the reality, which is that they knew fine well that charge would never have stood up to any form of independent scrutiny.
So yeah, still very much under the 'scum' category for me..
So they charged him unfairly,
Didn't pay for the ticket in the time allocated.
when challenged on it ......tried to pretend they were doing the OP a favour.
They did. He didn't meet the contractual obligations, but they let him off once he'd explained the error he made.
Seems very fair and honest to me.
an act of goodwill
Mrs_oab got a PCN through.
They replied to her complaint that they also were 'doing her a favour'.
The reason for them not progressing? They had pictures of two different red Seat Ibiza cars arriving and leaving the car park, 6 hours apart...
It's a difficult industry because let's be honest that some drivers would take advantage unless things are punitive. But the industry seems to be composed of horrid companies and people, out to steal what they can...
But the industry seems to be composed of horrid companies and people, out to steal what they can…
Some companies, not all of them are like that, and they are dealing with people who disadvantage others and will often blatantly lie. Private Parking companies provide a service no one else can, land owners are effectively powerless to manage their car parks unless you want to go back to the days of clamping and blocking cars in behind closed gates with no option to appeal or challenge, just pay up to get your car back, I don't.
What you tend to hear about is the really bad examples (your is really odd unless it was issued manually as ANPR is agnostic about the colour and make of car, it just reads the plates in and out) and people being outraged because they broken the rules whether by accident or deliberately and don't like being held to account for it.
If you want to really blame someone have a go at the Torys they made a complete mess of their own legislation to the point they had to drop implementation due to threat of a judicial review they knew they'd lose. They had a great opportunity to put proper regulation, remove the bottom feeder companies and make the whole industry more legitimate and accountable and they blew it chasing populist headlines. Quelle surprise.
Good result in this case, shows the system can work. I've read online that they will shortly banning the practice of insisting on paying within a set time period. Will screw some of the apps though as they are separate companies and don't have access to the ANPR data, they just assume you're paying when you arrive and calculate the cost from there, goes badly wrong when you try and pay just before leaving and there's no overnight parking allowed so the app won't let you pay, don't ask me how I know....
But the industry seems to be composed of horrid companies and people, out to steal what they can…
Some are - although I'd actually argue used to be, but since BPA and codes of conduct and so on, their act is very much cleaned up compared to what it was.
If they were out to steal what they can, they could very easily have pointed the OP to the clearly visible and available T&Cs that said they have to pay for parking in 20 mins, or pay for it after on their website.
They didn't, they accepted the OP's honest error and have cancelled the charge that they were contractually entitled to. Strange definition of theft, that.
but since BPA and codes of conduct and so on, their act is very much cleaned up compared to what it was.
This sounds bad, but mrs_oab had another ticket, within a few months of the first ticket I explained.
She drove over a line at Penrith McDonalds into the office car park next door. Got out car and walked to the big notice full of small print and read it. Drove out again. All less than a minute, likely nearer 30 seconds. Cue PCN.
From a BPA registered company.
Who then spent 6 increasingly aggressive letters telling me that I had to tell then who the driver was.
As a Scottish resident I did not have to tell a private company this as there is no keeper liability.* So a photocopied response 6 times of 'I was not driving, I refuse to tell you who was driving, do take met to court in Scotland if you fancy sharing the CCTV of the incident' finally worked on them.
I wrote to BPA complaining - they did not uphold my complaint, as apparently reading the t&c notice (posted on the side of the road, not in the car park) should be done *before* entering the car park...
So in my view, BPA are as bad.
* edit: I should have added. There is a Facebook group dedicated to that car park in Penrith, run by two lawyers, who advise everyone. Summary was similar to here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6543399/parking-fine-from-england-but-live-in-scotland#:~:text=So%2C%20if%20the%20PPC%20wanted,company%20who%20the%20driver%20was.
The statute of limitations for a debt claim is 6 years. In Scotland it is 5 years. However, as the PCN was issued in England, it is the English state that applies. However, if the PPC wanted to try and sue you for the alleged debt, as you are resident of Scotland, they would have to do so through the Scottish courts.
In Scotland there is no keeper liability. Only the keeper is known. The driver is unknown unless the keeper blabs it, inadvertently or otherwise. Unlike in England, where the liability can be transferred from the unknown driver to the known keeper provided all the requirements of PoFA have been fulfilled, this is not the case in Scotland, for now.
So, if the PPC wanted to sue you for the alleged debt, they would have to prove you were the driver. Unless you tell them, they have no proof and there is no legal obligation to tell an unregulated private parking company who the driver was. Also, they would be utterly stupid if they tried to sue the driver, if they knew who it was, because they cannot recover any costs in Scotland for a claim for under £300. It simply isn't worth it for them.
So, all you have to do is email the DPOs of the PPC and the DRA and order them to rectify your data with your current address and for them to erase your old one. After that, you can ignore them.
I was told to send letter recorded delivery to them with the (non) information in.
All less than a minute, likely nearer 30 seconds. Cue PCN.
If that's true then a clear breach of the code of practice, the minimum consideration period is 5 minutes unless it's a drop off or no stopping zone and that only changed recently.
apparently reading the t&c notice (posted on the side of the road, not in the car park) should be done *before* entering the car park…
That's completely wrong if that's what they said, the whole point of the 5 minutes is to allow you to read the contract, i.e. the signage.
....and if the 5 minutes grace to enter the car park, park up, find the sign read and digest it then leave it you choose not to stay is true then that's nowhere near enough time, so the bpa are no better then the cowboy ticketing companies.
unless you want to go back to the days of clamping and blocking cars in
I never understood the mentality of "you've outstayed your welcome, so we'll prevent you from leaving." If you need to protect your parking space then surely clamping is the diametric opposite of what you should be doing, you should be dragging the buggers away.
people being outraged because they broken the rules whether by accident or deliberately and don’t like being held to account for it.
"Outraged" is a strong word, but I think most people expect fairness. "Ignorance is no defence" sure but if people break rules by accident then is the onus not on the rule-setters to make the rules clearer?
I recently got hit with two penalty charges for claiming free prescriptions. The pharmacist had asked if I paid, I replied "I don't know, I'm on job seeker's allowance?" she said "OK" and didn't charge me. As it turned out, I was on the wrong type of JSA to qualify. The terminology used by the NHS is outdated, I was on "New Style" JSA which seemingly doesn't exist to them. I spoke with them, zero wiggle room, a clearly well-practiced lecture about law this and regulation that, pay up. Alright, ultimately my fault, but it feels deeply unjust to rename something and then go "computer says no."
If that’s true then a clear breach of the code of practice, the minimum consideration period is 5 minutes unless it’s a drop off or no stopping zone and that only changed recently.
Yes - but note the Code of Conduct was issued relatively recently (6/24) so any examples before may not have had the same considerations.
and if the 5 minutes grace to enter the car park, park up, find the sign read and digest it then leave it you choose not to stay is true then that’s nowhere near enough time, so the bpa are no better then the cowboy ticketing companies.
Fortunately the CofC requires the salient points to be put in simple language and standard type terms so you can. Remember the 5 mins is a min, the OP was given 20.
But he did. Just using the app rather than the website.
So he didn't then. If using the app, or the machine, you have 20 mins. He took 40. If using the website you have 24 hours. It's on the signs in black and white as per below. I can potentially understand the OP misunderstanding this last point but actually the language is clear.
It’s a parking space, not a loft conversion.
Still a contract. A very simple one. Basically; park in a marked space and pay for your stay within 20 mins. Or on the website up to 24 hours after. As it happens I was in this very car park this weekend and it was no issue to find and understand a sign, pay for parking, and then walk into town and have a bite to eat.
Yes – but note the Code of Conduct was issued relatively recently (6/24) so any examples before may not have had the same considerations.
It been in the BPA CoC for a long time. Cougar you may not like it but the basis for parking contracts was formalised by Beavis vs Parking Eye in 2015, Beavis thought he was the motorists champion but in reality he did the private parking industry a massive favour.
The clampers used to clamp because they could extort large sums of money out of people because you had to pay to get your car back, there was no code of practice, appeal system or independent appeals adjudicator. I suspect for landowners if felt punitive on the people abusing their car park but I get your point although driving into a car park with a clamped vehicle must be a sort of deterant to others.
I do agree that for all but the smallest car parks 5 mins is cutting it a bit fine but where do draw the line, certainly beyond 10 minutes people would start parking to nip to the shops, pick up a take away etc., if it's a paid for car park I'd expect the landowner would still like them to pay for the service of providing somewhere to park. Car parks continue to cost landowners in rates, insurance, maintenance, waste water chargers, electricity costs once built.
The clampers used to clamp because they could extort large sums of money out of people because you had to pay to get your car back, there was no code of practice, appeal system or independent appeals adjudicator.
There frequently was an "appeal system", but they had your money by then and could just keep ignoring your appeals!
So he didn’t then. If using the app, or the machine, you have 20 mins. He took 40.
He paid for parking. What difference does it make as to when he paid?
I'm well aware of Beavis. The ruling was that it was fair to charge a punitive amount to act as a deterrent. But this isn't what happened here.
where do draw the line
The line is "did you pay for parking? [yes|no]" Seems pretty simple to me.
The line is “did you pay for parking? [yes|no]” Seems pretty simple to me.
The line is you can either do A or B. As detailed on the signs / written in the T&Cs, that by parking you are lawfully deemed to have accepted (after in this case 20 mins)
OP did C
Not hard to understand why they were therefore ticketed.
What difference does it make as to when?
The fact that C was paying eventually is contractually immaterial. What is eventually? Would it be OK if they'd paid a day later? A week later? A month later?
The fact it was only 20 mins after the time to pay expired is why the PPC agreed not to pursue a penalty charge. Try it a month later and I suspect they won't. The breach of contract is still the same.
I don't understand why you're defending this bollocks so robustly.
If the OP had intended to dodge the fee then fair, bang to rights. But they paid as soon as was convenient and before enforcement was applied.
Would it be OK if they’d paid a day later?
Yes, that's literally what the signage said, payment due within 24 hours via the website. The OP paid via the approved app instead of the web and has been penalised for it. That's not right.
Come on dude. You're normally one of the voices of reason here. The OP paid for parking in a timely manner, "a month later" is whataboutery.
Cougar you have summed it up exactly as I see it. He paid within the 24 hrs online (would anyone genuinely think there is a difference between the app and the website, and it's hardly fair that you potentially only find out the difference when it's too late). The parking company knew fine well he'd paid, and fine well they had no chance of winning the argument if he appealed. But they sent the charge anyway, hoping that he'd pay up for an easy life ...as many probably do.
I'm not defending anything, simply stating fact.
There were three options.
1/ Pay at the machine.
2/ Pay by app.
Both have to be paid 'in advance' - this was laid out on the signs. I stood and read them on Sunday
3/ Pay up to 24 hours after using the website, with a QR code to access it.
There was nothing to say you can pay after using the app.
would anyone genuinely think there is a difference between the app and the website, and it’s hardly fair that you potentially only find out the difference when it’s too late
Look, I see the argument but the attitude that it was 'entrapment' is simply the interpretation of people who want to find fault. The fault may be in not being clear enough, I'll give you that. But if it was meant to trap people why would they simply cancel the charge - they're contractually in the right.
The parking company knew fine well he’d paid, and fine well they had no chance of winning the argument if he appealed. But they sent the charge anyway, hoping that he’d pay up for an easy life
Alternative view . More than 11m Parking charge notices are issued per year. If someone could review a PCN for validity every 10 mins, that's over 1100 FTE's working non-stop on them. Parking companies don't decide who to send tickets to; a computer does following an algorithm that says something like
When did they park? / When did they leave? / How long did they stay?
Did they buy a ticket within 20 mins of arriving via app or machine? OR Did they pay for their parking on the WEBSITE within 24 hours of parking?
and-
Does their payment cover the time they were parked based on ANPR entry and leaving times?
If the computer finds a failure in that, the PCN is issued.
Humans don't actually look at the circumstances until an appeal is made and then errors can be corrected or a decision made about whether someone was really trying to avoid paying. In this case a wholly reasonable decision being reached.
Yes, APCOA could enable the app to be used up to 24 hours after. They could extend the algorithm to see if a ticket was bought at all, and compare time paid for > time stayed. All would be improvements I agree but simple fact is that's not what the rules are.
PCN was correctly issued based on the T&Cs. Fact
OP appealed according to the procedure. Fact
PPC agreed to waive charge despite OP breaching the T&Cs. Fact.
Good result all round, and well done the PPC for being reasonable.
as for
Come on dude. You’re normally one of the voices of reason here.
As I have been in the early posts, and advice to the OP.
I'm arguing against the 'All PPCs are evil and doing anything they can to entrap people' - by simply pointing out the facts of the incident, and that technically the PPC are in the right AND YET have cancelled the charge. What evil bastards they are indeed.
But if you can't see the facts for what they are no amount of reiteration will change that, so no point continuing to state them. I'm out.
Carry on like this is why the terms for private parking should be prescribed, not something cowboys can print on a sign and use to bully people who aren’t even trying not to comply.