A disturbing and cautionary tale

[Zero Gravitas]

But then there is nothing like a good fight over what is a principle - the only winning party is the lawyers whose fees will exceed anything that either party will have imagined. I think far too many cases are taken through the courts, the first step now seems to be litigate, the next step seems to be argue abut the decision. Next step, an appeal based the much abused Human Rights Act / European Courts.

 

Mr. Beavis's representation is, I understand,  being done on a pro bono basis by the barristers involved - including at the Supreme Court.  And that is mainly because, as Ryde-on-time has pointed out, there is a far bigger principle at stake here than a bloke overstaying in a car park.

[Zero Gravitas]

 

As you say, however, the final decision will rest with the Supreme Court which will hear the case on 21st July, though its decision will not be announced until later.  As a matter of interest, however, should the Supreme Court find in favour of Mr Beavis, how do you think that private parking should be regulated thereafter?  As the Appeal Court judges found, the park in this case was a busy one where a regular turnover of vehicles benefited the community as a whoe.  How would you propose that motorists would be deterred from just parking their cars there all day in future if all that could be claimed from them for breach of the conditions of their parking were basic liquidated damages?  You will of course doubtless take into account another comment by the court, namely that while "it would in theory be possible to charge motorists a much more modest amount for overstaying the free period it would be wholly uneconomic to enforce such charges by taking legal proceedings against them".

 

 

Surprisingly easy and I've already explained how - barriers and a sensible tariff for parking in line with what would be charged commercially at similar car parks.  First two hours free, up to 3 hours £3, up to 6 hours £8 and 24 hours £16 (all figures just for example).  Take a ticket at the entrance and pay when you leave based on how long you've been there. If you want to stay all day, then you pay for all day. Loads of car parks already work this way.

[EddieB]

But it is quite an important principle, of sufficient importance that the Consumers Association (Which) even got involved in the appeal because of their concerns about the wider implications for consumers

Absolutely.  Organisations such as Parking Eye make their money by trying to extort payment from many people they know to be legitimate users of the car parks they "manage".

 

I'd like to see them challenged on the legality of their "Parking Charge Notices" at a Tax Tribunal.  They are effectively penalty charges - except companies like PE aren't allowed to issue penalties - so they issue "parking charges" dressed up to look like penalties.  Fine (pardon the pun), except that private parking charges should include VAT, and as such notices represent an invoice which should include the VAT registration of the issuer.  (They don't, because they are only speculative).  I wonder whether PE have been fully audited for VAT on their PCNs?

[Zero Gravitas]

Absolutely.  Organisations such as Parking Eye make their money by trying to extort payment from many people they know to be legitimate users of the car parks they "manage".

 

I'd like to see them challenged on the legality of their "Parking Charge Notices" at a Tax Tribunal.  They are effectively penalty charges - except companies like PE aren't allowed to issue penalties - so they issue "parking charges" dressed up to look like penalties.  Fine (pardon the pun), except that private parking charges should include VAT, and as such notices represent an invoice which should include the VAT registration of the issuer.  (They don't, because they are only speculative).  I wonder whether PE have been fully audited for VAT on their PCNs?

 

Eddie - I agree 100% with your first comment - especially the use of quotation marks around the word "manage".

 

However - the way that Parking Eye operate is that they currently claim that their "Parking Charge Notice" is an invoice for liquidated damages arising from the motorist breaching the contract  - that is, the actual loss they have suffered as a result of the person overstaying in the car park. VAT is NOT payable on liquidated damages (leaving aside the fact that there is no way on earth they can have lost £100 by someone overstaying for 15 minutes - and  anyway, if that is their actual loss, how can they then offer a 40% discount for early payment?...).

 

Other private parking companies attempt to get round the fact that their charge cannot represent their actual loss by stating that it is the actual parking fee to park there.  That is, it is not charge for breaching the contract, but a tariff for providing a parking service.  If this is the case, then VAT IS payable, and a number of private parking companies are currently under scrutiny for this very reason.

 

Hope that helps clarify.

[Torper]

Surprisingly easy and I've already explained how - barriers and a sensible tariff for parking in line with what would be charged commercially at similar car parks.  First two hours free, up to 3 hours £3, up to 6 hours £8 and 24 hours £16 (all figures just for example).  Take a ticket at the entrance and pay when you leave based on how long you've been there. If you want to stay all day, then you pay for all day. Loads of car parks already work this way.

 

In an ideal world that would be fine, but we don't live in such a world - we live in an increasingly selfish society where many people tend to care only about themselves and to pot with everyone else.  A speedy turnover of vehicles in some busy carparks is to the advantage of most, but that is defeated if people stay longer than the allotted time.  You can no longer rely on peoples' goodwill for that, so instead some deterrent is necessary.  An extra £3, as you suggest, is not a deterrent, nor is £16 for 24 hours.  Irresponsible people, or people who were prepared to take advantage of the benefits of parking in the carpark but didn't want to accept the rules for doing so, would end up blocking spaces for people who were prepared to follow the rules and do what the owners of the carpark required of them.

 

If there are rules, there have to be measures to persuade people to stick to them - if everyone went around breaking rules, most of which are for the benefit of society as a whole, we'd have anarchy.  "Look, Barry, we've been parked for nearly two hours, time to get back to the car park"...."No, don't worry, it's only an extra £3".  It just wouldn't work.  So what would be a deterrent?  £20 for staying over?  Possibly - it would deter me.  But isn't it a "penalty"?  And it wouldn't work at the barrier.  Irresponsible rule breaking drivers would kick up a fuss, some wouldn't have the cash to pay, there would be queues to get out, some probably so long that people who were going to leave in time would find that their time expired while they were having to wait.  So it would be back to a £20 parking ticket which people would just ignore because the sum is too small to make it worthwhile trying to collect it.  In any event, £20 would probably not be much of a deterrent to someone who decided to leave their car all day in a busy short-term car park. Maybe you'd have to think about £50 for that.  But can you imagine a driver being required to pay that at the barrier and, of course, it would be a penalty and you seem to take the view that people who break the rules shouldn't be penalised.

 

It may be a hard lesson, but people who are arrogant enough to think that rules applied for the benefit of society as a whole shouldn't apply to them and can be ignored deserve to be penalised.  Barry Beavis is a particularly undeserving case and while i have no idea what the Supreme Court will do I rather hope that it finds against him.  On the other hand, if the case had been brought by someone who had a really good and unforeseen reason for staying over and hadn't stayed for anything like as long as 56 minutes over the allotted time I might well take a different view.

 

DT

[Enterprisingwestern]

Any chance we can shift all this legal b*ll*cks and barrackroom lawyers willy waving to somewhere else and let Brian get on with the facts of his problem.

I refer m'learned friends to post #45.

 

Mike.

[Zero Gravitas]

Any chance we can shift all this legal b*ll*cks and barrackroom lawyers willy waving to somewhere else and let Brian get on with the facts of his problem.

I refer m'learned friends to post #45.

 

Mike.

 

It's all legal b*ll*cks right up to the point at which it happens to you :-).  And I would refer you to post 47, where I tried to summarise the situation as I understood it, and asked Brian some questions - the answers to which will then help to advise him on the next steps.

 

Whilst we're waiting for him to get back here, one man's willy waving is another man's engaging discussion...

[Torper]

Any chance that people who don't like this thread can shut up and let those who do like it get on with it?  If Brian wants to post and tell us how he's getting on I look forward to hearing from him.

 

DT

[Enterprisingwestern]

It's all legal b*ll*cks right up to the point at which it happens to you :-).  And I would refer you to post 47, where I tried to summarise the situation as I understood it, and asked Brian some questions - the answers to which will then help to advise him on the next steps.

 

Whilst we're waiting for him to get back here, one man's willy waving is another man's engaging discussion...

 

But beggar all to do directly with Brian's experience which he is trying to explain to us, which as I understand it, was the purpose of him starting the thread in the first place.

 

Mike.

Any chance that people who don't like this thread can shut up and let those who do like it get on with it?  If Brian wants to post and tell us how he's getting on I look forward to hearing from him.

 

DT

 

All of a sudden you're a moderator?

 

Mike.

[BoD]

 

All of a sudden you're a moderator?

 

Mike.

  

Any chance we can shift all this legal b*ll*cks and barrackroom lawyers willy waving to somewhere else and let Brian get on with the facts of his problem.

I refer m'learned friends to post #45.

 

Mike.

Pot. Kettle. Black?

[Zero Gravitas]

In an ideal world that would be fine, but we don't live in such a world - we live in an increasingly selfish society where many people tend to care only about themselves and to pot with everyone else.  A speedy turnover of vehicles in some busy carparks is to the advantage of most, but that is defeated if people stay longer than the allotted time.  You can no longer rely on peoples' goodwill for that, so instead some deterrent is necessary.  An extra £3, as you suggest, is not a deterrent, nor is £16 for 24 hours.  Irresponsible people, or people who were prepared to take advantage of the benefits of parking in the carpark but didn't want to accept the rules for doing so, would end up blocking spaces for people who were prepared to follow the rules and do what the owners of the carpark required of them.

 

If there are rules, there have to be measures to persuade people to stick to them - if everyone went around breaking rules, most of which are for the benefit of society as a whole, we'd have anarchy.  "Look, Barry, we've been parked for nearly two hours, time to get back to the car park"...."No, don't worry, it's only an extra £3".  It just wouldn't work.  So what would be a deterrent?  £20 for staying over?  Possibly - it would deter me.  But isn't it a "penalty"?  And it wouldn't work at the barrier.  Irresponsible rule breaking drivers would kick up a fuss, some wouldn't have the cash to pay, there would be queues to get out, some probably so long that people who were going to leave in time would find that their time expired while they were having to wait.  So it would be back to a £20 parking ticket which people would just ignore because the sum is too small to make it worthwhile trying to collect it.  In any event, £20 would probably not be much of a deterrent to someone who decided to leave their car all day in a busy short-term car park. Maybe you'd have to think about £50 for that.  But can you imagine a driver being required to pay that at the barrier and, of course, it would be a penalty and you seem to take the view that people who break the rules shouldn't be penalised.

 

It may be a hard lesson, but people who are arrogant enough to think that rules applied for the benefit of society as a whole shouldn't apply to them and can be ignored deserve to be penalised.  Barry Beavis is a particularly undeserving case and while i have no idea what the Supreme Court will do I rather hope that it finds against him.  On the other hand, if the case had been brought by someone who had a really good and unforeseen reason for staying over and hadn't stayed for anything like as long as 56 minutes over the allotted time I might well take a different view.

 

DT

 

I would suggest your comment about people caring only for themselves and to pot with everyone else describes Parking Eye pretty well :-)

 

And let me be quite clear on this - I do not believe that people who break the rules should just get away with it.  That's what laws are for, and that's one reason why we have governments and other statutory bodies to decide what the rules (laws) are and what the penalties are for breaking those rules (laws) - generally for the benefit of society as a whole.  What I do not agree with is private organisations setting arbitrary rules and then seeking to penalise those that they say have broken those arbitrary rules for their own benefit.

 

By way of an example - Parking Eye "manage" a lot of Aldi's car parks.  Quite often, as part of the planning consent for new Aldi stores, a condition is that the store should provide 3 hours free parking.  The store is built, is opened, and everyone is happy - except Parking Eye. The three hour limit means that very few people are overstaying and they are not making any money. So they unilaterally reduce the free parking time to 90 mins, so that there are more overstayers and Parking Eye make more money.

 

Interestingly, an (admittedly unscientific) poll of the stores at the shopping centre where Mr. Beavis overstayed showed that the majority of the retailers felt that Parking Eye were actually harming their businesses, rather than helping.

 

And in the example I gave of the car park charges - £3 or £16 is not a deterrent, it is the charge for parking.  It's exactly what they do at the Oracle in Reading ( see http://www.theoracle.com/visitor-info/parking foe details of their charges) and at loads of other car parks around the country.  I've never seen anybody kicking up a fuss at the barrier or have had to queue to exit.

 

Finally, I'm actually not that interested in Mr. Beavis himself - as I have said before, I am interested in the outcome because of the wider implications of private companies suddenly being able to penalise people in unfair and unreasonable ways for transgressing arbitrary rules.

 

PS: Splendid discussion, by the way, whatever Mr. E. Western might say.

[MarkSG]

Surprisingly easy and I've already explained how - barriers and a sensible tariff for parking in line with what would be charged commercially at similar car parks.  First two hours free, up to 3 hours £3, up to 6 hours £8 and 24 hours £16 (all figures just for example).  Take a ticket at the entrance and pay when you leave based on how long you've been there. If you want to stay all day, then you pay for all day. Loads of car parks already work this way.

 

Barrier controlled "pay on exit" car parks work well for places like shopping malls and city centre retail area parking, where every user pays for them and there is a high turnover of vehicles, meaning that the income easily exceeds the operating costs and makes running the car park profitable. But there are many scenarios in which they don't work as well, or where making them work isn't cost-effective.

 

The main issue is that barrier controlled car parks cost considerably more to run than open access car parks, either free or pay and display. As well as the capital and maintenance costs of the barrier mechanisms, barrier controlled car parks must, by law, have staff on duty all the time that the car park is operational, either on site or monitoring via CCTV from a location where they can reach the car park quickly if there are any problems (eg, a barrier failing and trapping cars inside the car park, or a car stopping for some reason in the exit route and bocking the egress of other vehicles). For something like a hotel car park, as in the original post, which never closes, that means staff on duty 24 x 7. Which is not cheap. And that money has to come from somewhere. When the car park is free to legitimate users (eg, again, a typical hotel car park), that can only come from adding the costs to the service being provided (eg, the cost of a room).

 

Barriers also create problems if access to the car park is shared with service access to the premises (something which, again, is common at places like hotels). You need to have a way of letting delivery vehicles and taxis in and out without charging them. That, again, adds to the cost and complexity. And barriers only work at all of there is no way out other than via the official exit - so you need fences and/or bollards to prevent people getting in and out over the kerb.

 

Some hotels do have barrier controlled free car parks, where in order to exit the car park you have to collect a token from reception. But they typically tend to be larger, more upmarket hotels in city centre locations, where the cost of the barriers can be absorbed into the cost of the room. Such a solution is much less likely to be cost-effective for most budget hotels, which - let's be honest here - are more likely to be used by the typical model railway exhibition exhibitor!

 

I think most legitimate users, in those circumstances, would prefer an open access car park with costs only imposed on non-legitimate users - which is how the system operated by Parking Eye and other, similar companies works. It may not be ideal, but it is effective, and - most importantly - when working correctly, imposes no costs on either the car park operator or legitimate users of the car park.

 

There is no one single "best" way to run a car park. Every method of controlling and monitoring access has its advantages and disadvantages. Barriers work in some cases. Pay and display works in others. CCTV monitoring works for some. Having a parking attendant going round ticketing cars that overstay works in others. It's all about finding the best solution to the specific circumstances.

[MarkSG]

 

By way of an example - Parking Eye "manage" a lot of Aldi's car parks.  Quite often, as part of the planning consent for new Aldi stores, a condition is that the store should provide 3 hours free parking.  The store is built, is opened, and everyone is happy - except Parking Eye. The three hour limit means that very few people are overstaying and they are not making any money. So they unilaterally reduce the free parking time to 90 mins, so that there are more overstayers and Parking Eye make more money.

 

Can you give an example of one where this happened?

[Jonboy]

Can you give an example of one where this happened?

 

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9031524.Aldi_fined_for_breaking_law_on_parking_charges_at_Portslade_store/

[Zero Gravitas]

Can you give an example of one where this happened?

 

Yes, I can - Aldi in Portslade, near Brighton.

 

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9031524.Aldi_fined_for_breaking_law_on_parking_charges_at_Portslade_store/

[MarkSG]

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9031524.Aldi_fined_for_breaking_law_on_parking_charges_at_Portslade_store/

 

I meant one where no enforcement action was taken by the local authority.

[Torper]

Yes, I can - Aldi in Portslade, near Brighton.

 

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9031524.Aldi_fined_for_breaking_law_on_parking_charges_at_Portslade_store/

 

That article suggests that it was Aldi that arbitrarily reduced the parking time, not Parking Eye, which is not mentioned: "Aldi wrote to the council, saying it had reduced the free parking times because its customers could not get a space when visitors to other shops used its car park."

 

DT

[MarkSG]

And, further to my previous comment, it's interesting that people have assumed that the reason for the reduction in free parking time is in order to increase the income from penalties. A more neutral observer might assume that it's to ensure that there's a more rapid turnover of spaces and prevent people using the car park for purposes other than those related to the owner. After all, who really needs three hours in Aldi? For that matter, who really needs 90 minutes?

 

The idea that supermarkets are always, or even usually, told by the local authority how long they must offer free parking for is common. In reality, though, such planning conditions are actually fairly rare. It's a common enough belief, though, for people to have queried it via FOI requests. Here are some examples of cases where people have not got the answer that they seem to be hoping for:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/aldi_parking_consent

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_restrictions_6

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/aldi_parking_consent_leyland

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/aldi_planning_consent

[Zero Gravitas]

That article suggests that it was Aldi that arbitrarily reduced the parking time, not Parking Eye, which is not mentioned: "Aldi wrote to the council, saying it had reduced the free parking times because its customers could not get a space when visitors to other shops used its car park."

 

DT

 

Aldi were prosecuted, because they were the organisation to whom planning had been granted. Parking Eye were not prosecuted as they were only Aldi's agent.

 

I meant one where no enforcement action was taken by the local authority.

 

Bearwood, near Smethwick - http://bearwoodblog.com/2012/02/27/warning-aldi-car-park/

 

And, further to my previous comment, it's interesting that people have assumed that the reason for the reduction in free parking time is in order to increase the income from penalties. A more neutral observer might assume that it's to ensure that there's a more rapid turnover of spaces and prevent people using the car park for purposes other than those related to the owner. After all, who really needs three hours in Aldi? For that matter, who really needs 90 minutes?

 

The idea that supermarkets are always, or even usually, told by the local authority how long they must offer free parking for is common. In reality, though, such planning conditions are actually fairly rare. It's a common enough belief, though, for people to have queried it via FOI requests. Here are some examples of cases where people have not got the answer that they seem to be hoping for:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/aldi_parking_consent

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_restrictions_6

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/aldi_parking_consent_leyland

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/aldi_planning_consent

 

In the Portslade example, the planning conditions included that the car park would be used by people visiting other local facilities in the town, and not just Aldi. In that case, you can see how up to three hours might be appropriate, particularly for the elderly and not so fleet-of-foot.

 

Interesting that there are other examples that are not related to planning conditions.  Even if it's not an actual planning condition, if I wave Ockham's razor at the reasons for the time being reduced - then my conclusion based on what I know of the way that Parking Eye operate is that it is intended to increase the number of PCNs they can issue. Your conclusion is probably different :-)

[Zero Gravitas]

Barrier controlled "pay on exit" car parks work well for places like shopping malls and city centre retail area parking, where every user pays for them and there is a high turnover of vehicles, meaning that the income easily exceeds the operating costs and makes running the car park profitable. But there are many scenarios in which they don't work as well, or where making them work isn't cost-effective.

 

The main issue is that barrier controlled car parks cost considerably more to run than open access car parks, either free or pay and display. As well as the capital and maintenance costs of the barrier mechanisms, barrier controlled car parks must, by law, have staff on duty all the time that the car park is operational, either on site or monitoring via CCTV from a location where they can reach the car park quickly if there are any problems (eg, a barrier failing and trapping cars inside the car park, or a car stopping for some reason in the exit route and bocking the egress of other vehicles). For something like a hotel car park, as in the original post, which never closes, that means staff on duty 24 x 7. Which is not cheap. And that money has to come from somewhere. When the car park is free to legitimate users (eg, again, a typical hotel car park), that can only come from adding the costs to the service being provided (eg, the cost of a room).

 

Barriers also create problems if access to the car park is shared with service access to the premises (something which, again, is common at places like hotels). You need to have a way of letting delivery vehicles and taxis in and out without charging them. That, again, adds to the cost and complexity. And barriers only work at all of there is no way out other than via the official exit - so you need fences and/or bollards to prevent people getting in and out over the kerb.

 

Some hotels do have barrier controlled free car parks, where in order to exit the car park you have to collect a token from reception. But they typically tend to be larger, more upmarket hotels in city centre locations, where the cost of the barriers can be absorbed into the cost of the room. Such a solution is much less likely to be cost-effective for most budget hotels, which - let's be honest here - are more likely to be used by the typical model railway exhibition exhibitor!

 

I think most legitimate users, in those circumstances, would prefer an open access car park with costs only imposed on non-legitimate users - which is how the system operated by Parking Eye and other, similar companies works. It may not be ideal, but it is effective, and - most importantly - when working correctly, imposes no costs on either the car park operator or legitimate users of the car park.

 

There is no one single "best" way to run a car park. Every method of controlling and monitoring access has its advantages and disadvantages. Barriers work in some cases. Pay and display works in others. CCTV monitoring works for some. Having a parking attendant going round ticketing cars that overstay works in others. It's all about finding the best solution to the specific circumstances.

 

Absolutely agree with this - there is not a one-size-fits-all solution.  But in a circumstance where there is an issue with car park management, then I think that the barrier approach is the best solution.  What I am certain of is that the worst solution will always be to hand over the "management" of the car park to any organisation whose sole income for performing that management is from transgressions of their own rules. And once the initial offenders have been eliminated, how does the parking company maintain its revenue stream?  Remember that in the Beavis case, Parking Eye were paying (paying, not being paid) £1000 per week to the Mall owners - that's quite an incentive to issue tickets...

[Torper]

Aldi were prosecuted, because they were the organisation to whom planning had been granted. Parking Eye were not prosecuted as they were only Aldi's agent.

 

 

Bearwood, near Smethwick - http://bearwoodblog.com/2012/02/27/warning-aldi-car-park/

 

But in neither of these cases was any criticism levelled at the parking enforcement company.  In the first instance you said: "The store is built, is opened, and everyone is happy - except Parking Eye. The three hour limit means that very few people are overstaying and they are not making any money. So they unilaterally reduce the free parking time to 90 mins, so that there are more overstayers and Parking Eye make more money."  There is no evidence at all to support that allegation.  The report to which you yourself referred said that it was Aldi's decision and made no mention at all of Parking Eye.

 

Again, in the second instance, there is no suggestion that it was anyone other than Aldi that decided to lower the parking time limit.  I know that you, and many others, would like to blame the parking company, but until you can come up with some actual evidence that it was done at their request for their benefit the case against them, if there is one, is not remotely proven.

 

DT

 

P.S.  Can i just say that I liked the last sentence of post 111, but didn't press the "like" button because I didn't agree with the rest of it!

[beast66606]

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/aldi_parking_consent_leyland

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/aldi_planning_consent

 

Despite being "signed" by different people, you'd have to get up very early to convince me there's no connection.

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

PS: Splendid discussion, by the way, whatever Mr. E. Western might say.

 

I didn't say it wasn't a splendid discussion, I was just observing the fact that the thread had been hijacked and we seem to have lost track of Brians original point. It would stand alone as a thread on unscrupulous parking companies and leave the way clear for Brian to keep us updated.

I personally was interested in the outcome of the original problem.

 

Mike.

[Zero Gravitas]

P.S.  Can i just say that I liked the last sentence of post 111, but didn't press the "like" button because I didn't agree with the rest of it!

 

Yes - yes, you can :-)

 

PS: It makes no difference to me, but there are separate buttons for "like" and "agree", so you could like something without actually agreeing to it...

[Ryde-on-time]

 

I think most legitimate users, in those circumstances, would prefer an open access car park with costs only imposed on non-legitimate users - which is how the system operated by Parking Eye and other, similar companies works. It may not be ideal, but it is effective, and - most importantly - when working correctly, imposes no costs on either the car park operator or legitimate users of the car park.

 

 

I whole heartedly agree with your general sentiments except that at present I do not agree that the parking campanies are 'working correctly'

 

Many of the companies have evolved from clamping companies since clamping was banned, people who I feel are scum with no morals. Such a company is ANPR who have finally been kicked out the BPA and (only because of external pressure and embarressment) been dropped by Preston council because of their behaviour which has been unchecked for years

 

Although I have difficulty agreeing with parking companies being able to fine people, if they only did it to those who genuinely abused the provision in car parks I would see it as a necessary evil. The fact that the private parking companies are fully aware that targeting the inocent is a much bigger money earner is why I feel they need to be kept in check

 

Although you do not agree with the advice given on MSE, perhaps you should spend so time reading threads on there to see why people have received private parking tickets?