My daughter parked up somewhere and didn't realise she needed to pay*. As the car is registered to me I've received the PCN - she's sent me the money to pay it, all good.
It has the option to transfer the liability. I'm assuming there's no downsides to me paying it in my name on her behalf without bothering to transfer it to her? Before I pay it, is there anything I've possibly missed?
*Her and her friends parked up at a local marina for about 40mins after midnight. I know it's private land and they can set the rules, but they were hardly being inconvenienced or deprived income at that time, seems a bit harsh.
I know it's private land and they can set the rules, but they were hardly being inconvenienced or deprived income at that time, seems a bit harsh.
What would you do if it was your land - welcome with open arms all the campervans who would see it as a free camp site next to the posh marina?
😉
What would you do if it was your land - welcome with open arms all the campervans who would see it as a free camp site next to the posh marina?
I like to think I'd find a middle ground which allowed people to enjoy the view for a little while out of hours, but prevented them from exploiting it. But who knows, my inner rampant capitalist might take over and I'd decide that over two quid a minute was reasonable price for using a parking space.
What would you do if it was your land - welcome with open arms all the campervans who would see it as a free camp site next to the posh marina?
I like to think I'd find a middle ground which allowed people to enjoy the view for a little while out of hours, but prevented them from exploiting it. But who knows, my inner rampant capitalist might take over and I'd decide that over two quid a minute was reasonable price for using a parking space.
Was there an option to pay? Presumably if they are enforcing it there are well lit signs that make clear charges apply. Not that they have to provide one - they are essentially selling exclusivity to the floating camper van market. Some marinas do have a problem with campers using their toilets and showers without paying - whilst they are often “secured” with a code it’s not difficult to sneak in behind someone or get a “helpful person” to remind you of the code! The “view” after midnight is probably not that impressive! However visitors at that time of night are probably perceived as a security risk - so customers expect CCTV etc.
Was there an option to pay?
From a quick check of Google Street View, this is the only sign I can see (to the right as you enter the car park), and it doesn't appear to be lit.
Just to be clear, I've no intention of challenging it, and it's taught her a lesson on being careful where she parks. I just feel the scale of the punishment doesn't really fit the crime.
TBF, I think that could be challenged – there doesn't appear to be any clear signage (either at the entrance, or in the marina) warning of parking charges.
Edit: In fact, they should be charged for their improper use of ALL CAPS.
I think I'd be challenging that. A quick scout around on google maps didn't throw up any more signs or a ticket machine.
or a ticket machine
I assume that there are no ticket machines because it is free parking, but overnight parking is not allowed. Which, tbf, could be challenged by the OP as they weren't there overnight (just 40 minutes at night) – just what does 'overnight mean? When does 'overnight' start and end? Being parked for how long constitutes 'overnight'?
Think I'll have a spin over there tomorrow evening and see what signage there actually is. There might even be a human to speak to...
That is weird. There is no mention of any charges from what street view shows, but the online reviews complain that you have to pay by app.
OTOH that streetview is 3y out of date so maybe it's changed since.
Ah, this is what she drove past...
There's a fair amount to wade through but it does clearly say no parking between 0000-0600 unless you have some permit
Ah, this is what she drove past...
Thanks, where did you spot that?
There's a fair amount to wade through but it does clearly say no parking between 0000-0600 unless you have some permit
I’d challenge that! Yes there is “small print”,that says no parking 00-06 without a permit but the more visible pricing box actually implies it’s free from midnight to 0600! The test might be to see what ringo says if you try to pay for 1hr at 0100.
yes the penalty charge is beyond the scale of the “crime” - but that’s precisely the point of penalty charges - they are deterrent. Pretty much anyone “fined” for anything thinks it’s an outrageous sum of money for whatever trivial misdemeanour they have done. There’s clearly profit to be made from penalty charges but to enforce their rules someone has invested an ANPR, paid dvla for your data, sent you a letter, set up payment systems etc. I can’t see the small print: is the * beside the £100 saying 50% off of paid in 14 days?
Just checked, and Ringo is pretty clear about it.
that’s precisely the point of penalty charges - they are deterrent
I largely agree with what you say about fining, my issue is that it affects people disproportionately.
I'd find a £100 (reduced to 60 within 14 days) annoying but bearable, whereas Elon Musk wouldn't understand what such a small value actually is. For a full-time student with a Saturday job, it's around quarter of her monthly take-home - seems a bit unfair for a simple mistake made by someone looking for a change of scenery after a day of revision.
Similarly, if she'd rocked up in her camper van and stayed all night, it looks like the fine would have been the same. £60 to pitch up for the night is prob more than many campsites but not exorbitant, so to pay the same for a 40min mistake as a deliberate act again seems a bit unfair.
but the more visible pricing box actually implies it’s free from midnight to 0600!
No it doesn't .... it gives the prices for the times when you can pay to park there and below that it says you can't park there at other times without the correct permit.
There's no implication at all!
Thanks, where did you spot that?
Took a bit of sleuthing. After spotting the 2022 date on street view I went to the website of the museum to see what they said about visiting and it had that image with a warning about the parking rules.
BTW I do have some sympathy for the views of the poster saying that if you just read parking fees apply 0600-2359 you may assume free overnight, that's similar to how some local-to-me car parks put it and they are free outside of the charging period rather than an absolute ban!
I'd find a £100 (reduced to 60 within 14 days) annoying but bearable, whereas Elon Musk wouldn't understand what such a small value actually is. For a full-time student with a Saturday job, it's around quarter of her monthly take-home - seems a bit unfair for a simple mistake made by someone looking for a change of scenery after a day of revision.
So you are expecting means tested parking fines, may be over complicating it a tad.
but the more visible pricing box actually implies it’s free from midnight to 0600!
No it doesn't .... it gives the prices for the times when you can pay to park there and below that it says you can't park there at other times without the correct permit.
There's no implication at all!
Parking Tariff Applies 06:00-23:59 suggests that there is no tariff between 00:00 and 05:59. If there is no tariff why is there a Parking Charge. Then two boxes below this in smaller less prominent print it, says you need a permit. I just checked Ringo and its much clearer - "Parking between 00:00 and 06:00 is only allowed for permit holders and restaurant customers". And when you open the Tariff "6.00am - Midnight" has the same costs and "Midnight - 6.00am": £PRIVATE USE ONLY.
So to me it is clear if you make it to Ringo you will be kept right. BUT "Parking Tariff Applies 06:00-23:59" in large letters is misleading: why would you open Ringo to see the detail if a Tariff does not seem to apply? If we are expected to read the fine print of the sign in detail and take it literally then the opening line of the small print says charges are to be paid within 28 days. Clearly they mean the "Penalty" charge, but its an abomination of communication and graphic design. I wouldn't fight it in court (although I think its 50:50 chance) but I would challenge it, if not on the hope that it gets cancelled then for the possibility that someone gets told to improve the wording / prominance of the thing they actually want to stop.
The sign implies that they are in some way affiliated to the IPC. The current IPC Code of Practice rule 3.1.4* says "...must do so in a font of comparable size and boldness to the main body text on the sign, and where included on signs also displaying the parking tariff a font no smaller than the tariff text/numbers." Rule 8.2.2 requires a discount of at least 40% if paid within 14 days (doesn't need to be on the sign, just in the letter) and the letter must tell the keeper that the time is paused if they appeal (Rule 8.1.2e).
*3.1.4 isn't explicitly relating to the weird anomaly of a parking tariff that applies at some times and no parking is permitted the rest of the time - it applies to parking charges, but I think there is a strong argument that the prohibition should be just as clear and just as prominent. The bit in capitals at the bottom with the £100 should also be in Sentence case not ALL CAPS.
So you are expecting means tested parking fines, may be over complicating it a tad.
So we should just accept that poor people should be severely penalised for parking mistakes, but the rich should be able to shrug it off?
I didn't expect this to turn into a politics/class thread 😀
I didn't expect this to turn into a politics/class thread 😀
Hi, welcome to Singletrack World, you must be new here...
that’s precisely the point of penalty charges - they are deterrent
I largely agree with what you say about fining, my issue is that it affects people disproportionately.so legally they are not fines they are charges. Theoretically if they were fines the court could take into account her ability to pay when determining its fine (although an English court would ordinarily add a victim surcharge and prosecutions costs which would exceed the £60 you are being offered even without a fine). However all fines affect people disproportionately - even if you properly means test like Switzerland does - the impact of X% of your earnings is still far more for someone who ends each month with nothing in the bank and for someone who has to decide which of his favourite charities to donate to.
life is unfair but there's a general expectation that anyone who can afford to run a car, can afford £60 for a simple mistake. That's about the same as a tank of fuel. For some people its the difference between food on the table and not for two weeks, and for others its less than they spend on dinner every night. Life is unfair, and those with the least need to be extra careful where they park. Had they charged her a tenner would it really have been a deterrent? Personally I'd like to see the charges capped to the level that statutory parking offences get (£60 discounted to £30) - I think that is still enough to put people off intentional abuse, still covers the cost of recovery but is less punitive on slip ups.I'd find a £100 (reduced to 60 within 14 days) annoying but bearable, whereas Elon Musk wouldn't understand what such a small value actually is. For a full-time student with a Saturday job, it's around quarter of her monthly take-home - seems a bit unfair for a simple mistake made by someone looking for a change of scenery after a day of revision.
I get it but the same disparity happens if you park on a double yellow for 10 minutes of 4 hours. There's a balance between trying to engineer something that's fair for all and works to achieve its objective. You can probably be sure that she will check all future parking signs more carefully - in some ways that sort of diligence is what we would expect from drivers.Similarly, if she'd rocked up in her camper van and stayed all night, it looks like the fine would have been the same. £60 to pitch up for the night is prob more than many campsites but not exorbitant, so to pay the same for a 40min mistake as a deliberate act again seems a bit unfair.
Looking at that sign and not reading the small print, to me it says parking charges apply until midnight, absolutely implying they don't apply after that, ie free.
I've seen this before: charges apply during busy hours, free when it's likely to be empty. Case in point, Heaton Park in Prestwich:
It's free after 5pm.
I don't disagree with any of that, but it doesn't change my opinion that as the fines/charges stand they're ultimately unfair. Ten quid isn't a deterrent to her, in the same way that £60 isn't to someone much more well off.
As said, main outcome I want from this is for her to check more carefully before parking somewhere.
I'm planning to head over there on tomorrow night's ride to see if the sign is the same as thecaptain posted above. If it is I'll try an appeal - it looks like I've nothing to lose, the 14 day clock pauses during the appeal, if I lose I'll pay.
So we should just accept that poor people should be severely penalised for parking mistakes, but the rich should be able to shrug it off?
Yes, that is how the world works. A shifty unfair world but I don't see universally applied parking fines as one of the things that really needs attention...
Yes, that is how the world works. A shifty unfair world but I don't see universally applied parking fines as one of the things that really needs attention...
No-one said it was. I just think it seems a little unfair to charge someone 100 quid (or even 60 quid) for 40mins of out-of-hours parking. I didn't think that would be controversial 😀
This place is slipping - we're bogged down in legal arguments when we should be guessing what they were doing there at gone midnight for 40 minutes!! 🤣
Clearly admiring the view of Felixstowe docks by night...
No-one said it was. I just think it seems a little unfair to charge someone 100 quid (or even 60 quid) for 40mins of out-of-hours parking. I didn't think that would be controversial
Nothing controversial about it, screwed up - have to pay fine. It is also unfair that she may have to pay £3 to park somewhere for 2 hours which is a lot more money to her than that wealthy person but again expecting means tested parking pricing is a big leap in a world of general unfairness.
Parking Tariff Applies 06:00-23:59 suggests that there is no tariff between 00:00 and 05:59.
To me it just says what the charge is between those hours. What it doesn't say is that it's free at other times. Take it to court - see how it goes.
There's a fair amount to wade through but it does clearly say no parking between 0000-0600 unless you have some permit
I'm not the only one who thinks it's clear enough.
As said, main outcome I want from this is for her to check more carefully before parking somewhere.
Her paying the fine will do that; you paying it, maybe not so much. Part of learning to be an adult is taking this stuff on the chin.
I like to think I'd find a middle ground which allowed people to enjoy the view for a little while out of hours, but prevented them from exploiting it.
Trouble is that there will always be someone that exploits it and ****s it up for others that wouldn't abuse it.
I've explained this before but i used to run a company in a small industrial unit just outside the town centre itself. As part of this, I paid to rent some parking spaces from the landlord, for my staff to use as well as the building itself.
The local residents were free to use the spaces out of business hours, we had signs made up to make this clear - as long as after 6pm, and gone by 8am, then help yourself. But 8am became 815, then 830, so staff couldn't get parked. And then shoppers would park there 'but I'll only be 10 minutes' and then when I asked people to move they got abusive and then someone took the signs and threw them all over the hedge and ..... so what was once a co-operative thing became a bloody headache. The police came one time and told me that being abusive and nicking parking spaces was a civil offence, and recommended either locking it so no-one could use it out of hours, or getting a parking firm in to manage it.
And that's why we can't have nice things.
As said, main outcome I want from this is for her to check more carefully before parking somewhere.
I'm planning to head over there on tomorrow night's ride to see if the sign is the same as thecaptain posted above. If it is I'll try an appeal - it looks like I've nothing to lose, the 14 day clock pauses during the appeal, if I lose I'll pay.
Whilst I would appeal, if your mission is she learns a lesson then appealing and winning will teach her: I can park with impunity and dad will sort it! You could suggest SHE appeals, there's a good life lesson there - but I expect she'll shrug and pay it.
To me it just says what the charge is between those hours. What it doesn't say is that it's free at other times. Take it to court - see how it goes.
I know what it says and I'm not disputing that when read properly it is actually clear. The question is, is it clear ENOUGH. Their own parking trade body seems to suggest that important stuff should be just as prominent as the tariff information. I'm not expecting you to agree with me on this but IF their objective is to deter overnight parking they could easily design the sign in a way which achieves that better than the current one.
"Take it to court" is not how it works - if the OP/daughter feels they've been misled it doesn't go to court in the first instance - it goes to appeal (twice) and then IF the parking company feel their case is strong enough they take you to court. You can settle at that point or ask a judge to decide.
I don't think I've ever seen a car park that has a charge during the day and a prohibition at night (with an exception for permit holders to add slightly more confusion) and if the Judge is the same, you might just win because at a glance that sign looks remarkably like the MCC one posted above and many others where parking is paid at certain times and free the rest. I do know that is not what it says, but its unusual enough that its quirk should be more obvious IMHO.
Managed to find a space around the corner from Doncaster station in a place with no height barrier as I was in my van...
1.50 / hr, not bad I suppose but the app must have been designed by Parking Bastard.
It took 45minutes and three phones to find it, register for an account, find the email with the security code, log in, make a password, find the actual location with google maps and another code, enter my address, get booted out as I live in Germany, go back and set it all up again, get booted out with a forrin number plate, abandon this and my mate with a UK phone does it all after two attempts and pays for a couple of hours, total GBP3.
What an absolute omishamblesfustercluck. 45mins ****aboutery and 2hrs paid parking.
No-one said it was. I just think it seems a little unfair to charge someone 100 quid (or even 60 quid) for 40mins of out-of-hours parking. I didn't think that would be controversial 😀
Can you see though that if they have a problem with campers using it out of hours, that actually having a rule that says nobody here without a permit at a time when 99% of people except campers don't want to use it, is quite a simple approach. Your daughter has been caught in the cross fire - which may or may not help if she appeals.
if they have a problem with campers using it out of hours
What is the problem of campers using it? A camper could pay to use the car park at 23.59, why can't they pay for it (or use it free of charge, whatever the misleading sign says) at 00:00? It's a bloody stupid rule in the first place.
Her paying the fine will do that; you paying it, maybe not so much. Part of learning to be an adult is taking this stuff on the chin.
As mentioned above, she's paying it. She's already sent me the money.
Whilst I would appeal, if your mission is she learns a lesson then appealing and winning will teach her: I can park with impunity and dad will sort it! You could suggest SHE appeals, there's a good life lesson there - but I expect she'll shrug and pay it.
She had borrowed my car, as per the original post, the PCN is in my name. Her appealing a fine that's in my name complicates things.
My only "mission" is to get the fine dealt with for the least cost to her/us.
As far as I can see there appears to be no downsides to challenging it.
Can you see though that if they have a problem with campers using it out of hours, that actually having a rule that says nobody here without a permit at a time when 99% of people except campers don't want to use it, is quite a simple approach. Your daughter has been caught in the cross fire - which may or may not help if she appeals.
I can see that, but doing the same with a 1hr grace period would achieve the same thing and be a little more fair at the same time.
as you noted in your OP there is an option to give them your daughters details so she sorts her own mess. In your shoes I probably wouldn’t but if this is about life lessons it would be more effective!Her paying the fine will do that; you paying it, maybe not so much. Part of learning to be an adult is taking this stuff on the chin.
As mentioned above, she's paying it. She's already sent me the money.
Whilst I would appeal, if your mission is she learns a lesson then appealing and winning will teach her: I can park with impunity and dad will sort it! You could suggest SHE appeals, there's a good life lesson there - but I expect she'll shrug and pay it.
She had borrowed my car, as per the original post, the PCN is in my name. Her appealing a fine that's in my name complicates things.
My only "mission" is to get the fine dealt with for the least cost to her/us.
As far as I can see there appears to be no downsides to challenging it.
their land their rules. Some marinas have capitalised on the camper market by making space available for them, and opening toilets and showers to them. Others are quite unwelcoming - whether that’s based on real problems, concerns about planning compliance or keeping their paying customers happy I can’t say. It may not go down well if your marina clients realise if would be cheaper to keep a van than a yacht!if they have a problem with campers using it out of hours
What is the problem of campers using it? A camper could pay to use the car park at 23.59, why can't they pay for it (or use it free of charge, whatever the misleading sign says) at 00:00? It's a bloody stupid rule in the first place.
as you noted in your OP there is an option to give them your daughters details
i wouldn’t. The fewer places that have details stored online for them to lose in a data breach the better IMO.
Regarding the appeal I would imagine your first appeal following the appeals process will be rejected as she is in breach of the terms, however badly worded or displayed. If she had dropped someone off there and received a penalty or there was some other mistake then you would probably get it revoked but not in the situation described albeit seemingly unfair. Your best bet is to follow the appeals process and let them take you to court if they don’t give in and hope the judge points out their poor signage and finds in your favour..
As mentioned above, she's paying it. She's already sent me the money.
Apologies, missed that, fair enough.
I'm not the only one who thinks it's clear enough.
It is clear enough - if you take the time to read all the blue boxes.
There's possibly an argument to be made that people should always read the small print, and it's not that small in this case, but they could have still made it a lot clearer. Even switching the positions of the 2 blue boxes would help a lot, so the important bit is above the (to most people) irrelevant waffle about some Shipwreck scheme.
Personally I'd roll up there, look at the sign and see that parking charges don't apply after midnight. End of. I'd be really miffed to subsequently find out that it really means no parking allowed after midnight.
As far as I can see there appears to be no downsides to challenging it.
Certainly this, either way!
Update... I'm going to check the signage tonight and see if there's a friendly human who's willing to speak to me about it and might be willing to get the parking company to waive it. If that fails we're just going to pay it.
While I do feel the sign could definitely be clearer, she made no effort to read it. She also technically arrived a few mins before midnight, which wouldn't help her appeal either.
I let her know I'd help her appeal if she wanted to, but given she's bogged down in A-Level finals she'd rather it all just went away and is "happy" to pay it.
Cheers for the input
Update... I'm going to check the signage tonight and see if there's a friendly human who's willing to speak to me about it and might be willing to get the parking company to waive it. If that fails we're just going to pay it.Good luck with that! As a non-customer with multiple businesses on-site I can't imagine any of them being bothered, especially now you've disclosed this extra rather important change:
She also technically arrived a few mins before midnightwhich kind of contradicts the whole sign not clear argument and your OP:
after midnight.
which kind of contradicts the whole sign not clear argument and your OP:
My OP was purely around whether I needed to change the name on the PCN, I didn't feel 100% accuracy about the timing was important at the time, especially as she was so close to midnight as to make little difference. I also had no intention of appealing it until more info came to light.
Like I say, with the full info and some time to think about it I don't intend to appeal as it's a pretty weak case.
Sounds like your daughters paid up quickly to avoid the embarrassment of you having to spend too long questioning the details of what people get up to for 40min in a secluded car park after midnight 😂
Sounds like the OP needed an excuse to go down there and find what people get up to for 40min in a secluded car park after midnight.....
To answer your original question there is no downside to you paying on her behalf. Stop over thinking the invoice value, it was set in 2015 through Beavis vs Parkingeye and was based on the cost of enforcement and the deterrent value. It hasn't gone up since then so in real terms the cost has dropped.
FWIW that signage isn't acceptable, the no parking restrictions should be a lot more prominent.
Pay it with your daughters money and move on.
As for sliding scale charges based on income, the implications of that are mental, if nothing else do you really want a private parking company having access to your financial data. The cost of managing that would also be crazy.
What we actually need is proper regulation by the government and a clear out of the less ethical companies. The Torys tried to do this but made an absolute mess of it and got their arses handed to them by the industry when the government completely failed to follow their own rules on consultation.
Edit: In fact, they should be charged for their improper use of ALL CAPS.
Nah, I’d give them a pass on that, upper/lower case on the large headline text, all caps to emphasise the smaller, but important text underneath. There are far worse crimes against good, legible typography than that! 🙃
