A disturbing and cautionary tale

[Zero Gravitas]

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.

 

Call me old-fashioned if you will, but if someone describes something as "all this legal b*ll*cks and barrackroom lawyers", I would tend to think that their opinion of it is somewhat less than splendid...

 

Clearly my mistake :-)

 

However, you do have a point. I'm fine to take the discussion elsewhere, but I'm afraid I wouldn't know how to split out the relevant/irrelevant (depending on your opinion) bits of the thread.

[Torper]

I think I agree largely with Ryde-on-Time's posting, but am not sure how the parking companies can ascertain who is and is not innocent, or what the test of innocence should be.  It seems to me that in the first instance, if a car is parked for longer than the time allowed it's fair game.

 

DT

[MarkSG]

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

 

There's no breach of planning conditions involved in that one.

[MarkSG]

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

I'm not arguing that it works perfectly all the time. The situation described by the OP right at the top of this thread is a very good example of where it didn't work correctly. The fact that it doesn't work correctly all the time is precisely why the parking companies were forced by the government to fund the independent appeals authority, PoPLA - and, as I've already mentioned, PoPLA upholds appeals by motorists more than 50% of the time. So there is, clearly, a lot that parking companies could do to minimise errors in the way their system works.

 

What I do not accept is that these errors are, in fact, the result of some evil conspiracy by the parking operators who are deliberately trying to trip up innocent motorists, or that it could all be avoided by some magic bullet solution of using a different parking management system. Nor do I accept that the charges imposed on those who do breach the parking conditions are excessive. They are designed to be painful, certainly, but if someone is knowingly parking in contravention of the rules then I have very little sympathy for them. I have much more sympathy with legitimate users of car parks who find that they can't get a space because people who shouldn't be there are parking there.

 

Incidentally, most hotels have a planning condition that they can't have more than one parking space per room. Given that, outside city centre locations, the vast majority of guests arrive by car, that means that if the hotel is full or close to full, it only takes a few selfish people parking there who aren't guests for legitimate users to have trouble finding a space. That's why enforcement of parking in those circumstances is so important.

 

[Ryde-on-time]

I'm not arguing that it works perfectly all the time. The situation described by the OP right at the top of this thread is a very good example of where it didn't work correctly. The fact that it doesn't work correctly all the time is precisely why the parking companies were forced by the government to fund the independent appeals authority, PoPLA - and, as I've already mentioned, PoPLA upholds appeals by motorists more than 50% of the time. So there is, clearly, a lot that parking companies could do to minimise errors in the way their system works.

 

There are 2 problems for me, firstly with popla, that the only way to win is on technical details which are very complex and would be beyond most people if it was not for the likes of MSE being there to guide people in the right direction. Not sure if you have seen a typical successful popla appeal?

 

Secondly, because high rate of popla appeals which are successful many parking comapnies are jumping ship from the BPA to the IPC whos 'IAS' appeal service really is a kangaroo court. When looking at the recent European Direct on Alternative Dispute Resolution which outlines minimum standards for an independent appeals service the IAS Fail on almost every point.

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5239891&highlight=adr

 

My view remains the same, parking companies issue tickets intentionally to people they know have not abused parking and the 2 parking appeals services are on the one hand too technical and the other a joke. I really can't see how anyone in a postion of authority could defend the IPC and its IAS

[jamie92208]

When I first started following this thread I had never heard of Parking Eye. Lo and behold, the hotel in which the timeshare I'm in this week, in Bournemouth, has it's parking managed by ..........Parking Eye. SWMBO made sure that she entered our Reg No into the system as soon as we arrived.

 

Jamie

[Horsetan]

There are 2 problems for me, firstly with popla, that the only way to win is on technical details which are very complex ...

They are certainly not complex, or beyond the wit of any man. The standard grounds that I formulated for my old man have worked every time.

[Torper]

They are certainly not complex, or beyond the wit of any man. The standard grounds that I formulated for my old man have worked every time.

 

And do they always involve telling the truth?

 

DT

[Ryde-on-time]

No you're not! 

 

The MSE forum discussions / suggestions/advice on this subject led to me formulating standard POPLA appeal grounds that my old man could use. As stated earlier, these haven't failed to produce the desired result yet.

 

 

They are certainly not complex, or beyond the wit of any man. The standard grounds that I formulated for my old man have worked every time.

 

But they were fomulated with guidence from MSE which was my point?

[jjb1970]

I've only ever had one parking charge, I appealed to Popla and the charge was dropped. I do appreciate that parking needs to be regulated and that there should be penalties for abuse but in my case I was done because me and the boy went off site to look at trains whilst the wife and daughter went shopping in a shop on the retail park which was served by the car park on the not unreasoanble grounds that if there is a good place to watch trains near by why get dragged around shops.. If they had CCTV footage of two of us leaving the site presumably they also had CCTV of my wife and daughter going to the shop. I included the receipt of the clothes they bought with the appeal and it went OK but it still left a sour taste, when I complained to the shop (Next) the branch manager unleashed a torrent of similar tales of woe, shortly after the retail park changed parking company so I'm guessing that the company concerned was not a shining example of the breed.

[Horsetan]

And do they always involve telling the truth?

Choose your words carefully.

[Torper]

Those involved in this discussion might be interested to know that Mr Beavis lost his appeal to the Supreme Court.  To quote from the court's judgment:

 

"Mr Beavis had a contractual licence to park in the car park on the terms of the notice posted at the entrance, including the two hour limit. The £85 was a charge for contravening the terms of the contractual licence. This is a common scheme, subject to indirect regulation by statute and the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice. The charge had two main objects: (i) the management of the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets and their users by deterring long-stay or commuter traffic, and (ii) the generation of income in order to run the scheme...............However, the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices  However, that decision does not give parking companies the right to charge whatever they want".

 

It will be noted that the decision was made on the basis that the £85 was not an excessive charge.  It does not give carte blanche to parking companies to charge "extravagant or unconscionable" fees.

 

DT

[jcm@gwr]

I recently had a letter from ParkingEye, trying to charge me for

parking overnight in the retail park less than 2 miles from my

home.

They supplied 2 photos of my van arriving at 7:30 Sat evening

and leaving at 10:00 the next morning, both photos correctly

showed my van, but conveniently omitted the other 2 photos

showing I had left at 7:45 after picking up my daughter from

work and dropping her back next morning at 9:45 without me

even getting out of the van! (while in the car-park that is!)

 

Luckily SWMBO also works at that Argos branch, (she's one

of the manager's), she 'had a word' and it was dropped, but

I wonder how much hassle I would have had with no receipt

from shopping at any of the outlets there?

[BoD]

Any news about the original problem?

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

Beavis has now appealed the High Court decision which will not be heard in the Supreme Court until July 2016

 

Popla have made a statement that all POPLA cases where the operator relies on the ParkingEye v Beavis result will be stayed until the case is heard at the Supreme Court.

 

 

This appeal was actually heard recently and Beavis lost. According to the judges Parking Eye 'penalty' charges are no worse than Council ones and they have upheld Parking Eye's right to recover as a civil debt. Sad days although two car parks local to me that have previously had a camera installation, no longer do so. This doesn't mean that they can't still issue a penalty charge as long as the signeage is there and visible. Also I note that one car park very close to my home ( that I have not used in many years ) has had the management contract expire and the management company liquidated with the local Council now responsible for managing the car park. There seems to be a sea change in these car parks and I strongly suspect that effective zero cost contracts, relying on penalty charges for profit are no longer considered viable.

[Torper]

Er.... see post 137 above?  A correct decision I felt, taking into account that the court also made it clear that while £85 was not excessive, an extravagant or unconscionable charge (which they did not define) would be.

 

DT

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

Er.... see post 137 above?  A correct decision I felt, taking into account that the court also made it clear that while £85 was not excessive, an extravagant or unconscionable charge (which they did not define) would be.

 

DT

 

Yes I missed that until later. I don't personally agree that £85 is reasonable. That caveat on the judgement sounds very much like a warning shot across the bows for the parking agent. I have seen this before; the courts are more or less saying that these charges ARE unreasonable but they are reluctant to unleash the firestorm that might result if they defined it as unreasonable in a judgement that will then cascade downwards to lower courts. Judges are always shy of defining anything like that as the law can be very slow and expensive to reflect changes. Perhaps this vague judgement is why these parking companies are withdrawing from zero cost that was such an attractive proposition for landowners.

 

My local Aldi has an arrangement with Parking Eye which is still going. The ASDA I work at cancelled its management contract last November ostensibly because one of these camera arrangements would replace it. To date this has not happened.

[jjb1970]

I now avoid shops that have these two hour windows (or whatever it might be) followed by parking charges. After my experience I wondered what the position of the parking company would have been if my wife had not bought anything and been able to produce receipts. The shops I might use that have these arrangements sell things I can buy just as well via the Internet or at shops in the central shopping area. I have to pay to park in the centre of MK however parking charges are reasonable and if we want to spend time in the centre, get something to eat etc its easy enough to pay for as long as we need, if necessary we can buy another ticket if we want more time. Our Asda megastore has a parking arrangement however I can easily substitute other supermarkets so never go to that shop anymore.