Parking stories in the News/media

patient_dream

Maybe a sign of things to come .....

Man arrested after parking signs were torn down at Winnie-the-Pooh's Hundred Acre Wood in Ashdown Forest amid row over new charges

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12669495/Man-arrested-parking-signs-torn-Winnie-Poohs-Acre-Wood-Ashdown-Forest-amid-row-new-charges.html

HORIZON PARKING

I am confused though, DOES ASHDOWN FOREST  take the money and pay Horizon or the other way around ?

Half_way

patient_dream said:

Maybe a sign of things to come .....

Man arrested after parking signs were torn down at Winnie-the-Pooh's Hundred Acre Wood in Ashdown Forest amid row over new charges

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12669495/Man-arrested-parking-signs-torn-Winnie-Poohs-Acre-Wood-Ashdown-Forest-amid-row-new-charges.html

HORIZON PARKING

I am confused though, DOES ASHDOWN FOREST  take the money and pay Horizon or the other way around ?

The usual set up is that the PPC makes its money from issuing parking charges , so when that situation occurs it would be in the PPCs best interest to issue as many parking charge notices as possible using whatever means possible

This is /could be of interest though:

Each sign costs £99

Umkomaas

I suspect it's less to do with the hourly/daily parking fee, much more to do with letting loose a PPC to wreak havoc on locals at £x a pop. Can't see the PPC charge level on any of the signs (missing, or too indistinguishable) - oh, a definite loss then for Horizon at POPLA, if only those afflicted knew - unfortunately Comments have been disabled. 

Coupon-mad

Half_way said:

patient_dream said:

Maybe a sign of things to come .....

Man arrested after parking signs were torn down at Winnie-the-Pooh's Hundred Acre Wood in Ashdown Forest amid row over new charges

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12669495/Man-arrested-parking-signs-torn-Winnie-Poohs-Acre-Wood-Ashdown-Forest-amid-row-new-charges.html

HORIZON PARKING

I am confused though, DOES ASHDOWN FOREST  take the money and pay Horizon or the other way around ?

The usual set up is that the PPC makes its money from issuing parking charges , so when that situation occurs it would be in the PPCs best interest to issue as many parking charge notices as possible using whatever means possible

This is /could be of interest though:

Each sign costs £99

There is no way each crappy sign costs £99.

Ludicrous. Also they can use the old undamaged signs and just put them back up.  Costs peanuts. And probably some of the deluded forest volunteers will do it, thinking they are helping.

I am not condoning this but locals are very angry.  No-one wanted a poxy ANPR rip off 'PCN machine' regime at Ashdown Forest.

Coupon-mad

Disabled man dares to stop to take meds and receives a ParkingEye £100 rip-off auto-PCN:

https://www.northwichguardian.co.uk/news/23868585.home-bargains-wharton-100-parking-fine-disabled-man/

"A NORTHWICH man with kidney failure was fined £100 for parking on Home Bargains car park in Winsford for just 15 minutes while he took his meds."

Of course ParkingEye don't want the bad publicity right now, so they've cancelled it the minute the paper got onto the story.

Lift the BPA carpet and sweep any dust under it, again, eh ParkingEye?  If consumers/the press make some 'noise' you can't cancel the odd one like this fast enough can you?

But hey - never mind the cancelled ones when you churn out TWO MILLION AUTO-PCNs PER YEAR, with little/no checks to exempt disabled people, eh?

Sit back and let all the weaker ones pay and go buy your supercars with their money.

The BPA must be so proud.

This is parking management, is it?  This is how your members make their money for their yachts and McLarens?

It is a nasty joke and Britain should be ashamed of letting this so-called 'industry' evolve.  Retail parks and Supermarkets have enabled an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard, 2018) sub-industry that they never needed.

Half of what ANPR parking firms do should be illegal IMHO.  No other country would allow this crap.

It's excessive 24/7 highly intrusive surveillance and it takes no account of disabled or elderly people and/or drivers' circumstances.

It attacks the slowest and the vulnerable.

ANPR is not fit for purpose in the hands of private firms IMHO and the next thing the Government should do is start eroding where it can be used.  I'll be pushing for that if I have any role to play in future.

I don't know how the ANPR fat cats actually sleep at night...anyone?

Coupon-mad

Now something different:
TFL red route bays:

This High Court case was heard today:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/transport-for-london-tfl-high-court-parking-tickets-cctv-b1116055.html

Ivan Murray-Smith, a parking tickets campaigner, told the Standard ahead of Thursday's judicial review hearing:

“It’s very significant for TfL. They rely extensively on CCTV cameras to enforce parking bays on Red Routes. If they lose, then they’re going to refund everyone, going back to the beginning of the last financial year."

But this doesn't bode well...

The judge, Mr Justice Swift, refused to allow Mr Murray-Smith to address the court on behalf of Commercial Plant Services, which received numerous tickets after its vans and HGVs parked in parking bays.

He said there were no “exceptional circumstances” to merit granting Mr Murray-Smith a “right of audience” and said Commercial Plant Services, which has £63m annual turnover and a fleet of 400 vehicles, should have paid for a lawyer.

But this meant that Ms Bagnell, who has no legal training, was forced to present her case to the judge while being helped with whispered instructions by Mr Murray-Smith.

Timothy Corner KC represented TfL.

Hardly a level playing field when a crusty Judge refuses Rights of Audience, thus forcing one party to have to whisper instructions to a person with no legal training.

Why are Judges so pedantic? Why couldn't the person who had prepared the case speak? Well done Ms Bagnell.

Coupon-mad

Apparently, Tesco has swallowed that:

- APCOA's VRM registration system is working perfectly (despite evidence that it isn't), and

- "customers were complaining" a few years ago that "people were parking at this store without using it."

...errmmm... how would these anonymous people know whether cars drivers were shopping or not, and how come we hear this EXACT SAME RHETORIC EVERY TIME in articles about Supermarkets? Almost as if these complaints are made up by "someone" in order to support the agenda of ANPR firms: 

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/drivers-claim-unfairly-received-fines-8864426.amp

Has Tesco never smelled a rat about all these convenient exact same 'complaints' that conveniently lead (AGAIN & AGAIN) to the 'solution' of VRM keypad regimes that catch more people out?

When will the penny drop with Supermarkets?

Fruitcake

Not a private parking issue, but still proof that even ANPR cameras that are "an approved device" are still not fit for purpose when there are no manual checks carried out by human beans.

ULEZ photo FAIL: Furious driver is sent London green zone fee for his car that is off the road... after camera captured a council van's licence plate but failed to snap the full registration number (msn.com)

The infamous case of the KNITTER lady comes to mind.

1505grandad

https://www.contestorlegal.co.uk/blog-3/parking-wars-how-contestor-legal-services-parked-bw-legal-and-pps-in-the-no-win-zone-

Despite the usual flowery language I thought this was interesting (logo):-

"Channeling(sic) the landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis, Mr. Yamba accentuated the court's duty in assessing parking ticket fairness. Given PPS's signage flaunting the BPA logo, they were unequivocally bound by the BPA Code of Practice. This mandated PPS to grant a £20 discount for registration blunders. With our client's registration being recognised yet incomplete, PPS's neglect in offering this discount was a blatant breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The court, swayed by Mr. Jackson Yamba's compelling arguments, delivered a verdict in our client's favor. PPS's claim was thrown out, and they were slapped with the costs.

Castle

1505grandad said:

https://www.contestorlegal.co.uk/blog-3/parking-wars-how-contestor-legal-services-parked-bw-legal-and-pps-in-the-no-win-zone-

Despite the usual flowery language I thought this was interesting (logo):-

"Channeling(sic) the landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis, Mr. Yamba accentuated the court's duty in assessing parking ticket fairness. Given PPS's signage flaunting the BPA logo, they were unequivocally bound by the BPA Code of Practice. This mandated PPS to grant a £20 discount for registration blunders. With our client's registration being recognised yet incomplete, PPS's neglect in offering this discount was a blatant breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The court, swayed by Mr. Jackson Yamba's compelling arguments, delivered a verdict in our client's favor. PPS's claim was thrown out, and they were slapped with the costs.

It should say, reduced to £20, not a discount of £20.