Parking stories in the News/media

prowla

ParkingMad said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdd94j587m2o

'Five-minute fine' prompts private car parks review

Private parking firms have pledged to update their rules to ensure motorists are not penalised if they do not pay to park within five minutes.

It comes after motorist Rosey Hudson was taken to court last year after accumulating £1,906 in fines for taking more than five minutes to pay for parking in Derby.

Ms Hudson was given 10 Parking Charge Notices in the space of several days after walking away from her car in order to find phone reception so she could use an app to pay for a space.

Now two industry bodies say they will revise their code of conduct to "protect genuine motorists" and "reflect technological advancements".

The British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC) have announced that a panel will revise the private parking sector's code of conduct to ensure it "protects genuine motorists who have difficulty making prompt payment on entry".

The BPA said a key priority will be to urgently review Ms Hudson's case, which has been called the five-minute payment rule.

It said that a revision to the code addressing payment difficulties would come into effect by February 2025 and the full review could be expected by the following April.

Ms Hudson was one of several people taken to court by private car park operator Excel Parking.

In December, Excel dropped its case against her without explanation, and did the same for Garry Kay, who parked at the same car park in Derby and was preparing to fight fines of £255.

In November, analysis of government data by the RAC Foundation found that private parking companies were issuing an average of 41,000 parking tickets per day.

Each ticket can be up to £100, meaning the maximum total daily income from fines to drivers would amount to £4.1m.

A bill to introduce a government-backed code of practice for private parking companies received royal assent in 2019 but it was withdrawn in June 2022 after a legal challenge by parking companies.

That code included a £50 cap on most fines, a grace period for lateness and a fairer appeals system.

In June, the BPA and IPC published their own code of practice which is what will be overseen by the new panel.

The move to introduce the panel shows that private parking firms are "serious about raising standards but also making decisive changes to the code when issues arise", BPA chief executive Andrew Pester said.

IPC chief executive Will Hurley said the panel "shows the commitment the industry has to improving the reputation of our sector".

I read that - lazy "reporting" from the BBC:

• The lady wasn't taken to court, as they dropped the case before she went.
• They continue to call the charges fines.
  

ChirpyChicken

They wouldn't need a review if there was a proper consideration period 

Umkomaas

In June, the BPA and IPC published their own code of practice which is what will be overseen by the new panel.

And I wonder who our new panelists will be?

Osner?
Clure?
Robinson?
Renshaw?
Williams?
McManus?
Kurpil?
Boynes?
Whitehouse? (nah, scrub that! 😀)

Is there consumer representation?

inthedepthsofthesea

If I recall correctly, Rob turned his bike around as the sign showed a motorbike in a red circle, which any ordinary person would interpret as "motorbikes prohibited" but Bristol Airport claimed meant "motorbikes allowed". Good to see he's fighting on and bringing the questionable policies of Bristol Airport to the local press.

Motorcyclist says drivers unable “to stop for pedestrians” at crossings in Bristol Airport

Rob Hinks says that the no stopping zone makes drivers fear that they will be fined for stopping at pedestrian crossings, making the experience unsafe for everyone.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/motorcyclist-says-drivers-unable-to-9854193

Mr Hinks said: “Before setting off I checked the airport's website which told me that the motorcycle bay was in the multi-storey car park and that any bikes parked elsewhere would be removed. When I got to the multi-storey car park I found a no motorcycle symbol on the entry sign, so I negotiated a U-turn (without stopping) and went to the short stay car park.

I would also feel more comfortable if drivers felt able to stop for pedestrians on the crossing. Drivers fear stopping and being fined for waiting for pedestrians and it means that it is unsafe for pedestrians. I felt unsafe.”

inthedepthsofthesea

"Bristol Airport said that it has had problems for many years with vehicles stopping in unsafe areas on the roadways." 

Which should actually say...

"For many years we have been charging £6 for drop-offs and punishing drivers for stopping without giving us some money."

ChirpyChicken

Umkomaas said:

In June, the BPA and IPC published their own code of practice which is what will be overseen by the new panel.

And I wonder who our new panelists will be?

Osner?
Clure?
Robinson?
Renshaw?
Williams?
McManus?
Kurpil?
Boynes?
Whitehouse? (nah, scrub that! 😀)

Is there consumer representation?

Exactly or relations of people in the parking industry or just parking firm employees
Friends of Will.  Cheer leaders of the IPC/BPA
It really is very obvious
Patrick Troy in with a shout?

Thorndorise

prowla said:

ParkingMad said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdd94j587m2o

'Five-minute fine' prompts private car parks review

Private parking firms have pledged to update their rules to ensure motorists are not penalised if they do not pay to park within five minutes.

It comes after motorist Rosey Hudson was taken to court last year after accumulating £1,906 in fines for taking more than five minutes to pay for parking in Derby.

Ms Hudson was given 10 Parking Charge Notices in the space of several days after walking away from her car in order to find phone reception so she could use an app to pay for a space.

Now two industry bodies say they will revise their code of conduct to "protect genuine motorists" and "reflect technological advancements".

The British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC) have announced that a panel will revise the private parking sector's code of conduct to ensure it "protects genuine motorists who have difficulty making prompt payment on entry".

The BPA said a key priority will be to urgently review Ms Hudson's case, which has been called the five-minute payment rule.

It said that a revision to the code addressing payment difficulties would come into effect by February 2025 and the full review could be expected by the following April.

Ms Hudson was one of several people taken to court by private car park operator Excel Parking.

In December, Excel dropped its case against her without explanation, and did the same for Garry Kay, who parked at the same car park in Derby and was preparing to fight fines of £255.

In November, analysis of government data by the RAC Foundation found that private parking companies were issuing an average of 41,000 parking tickets per day.

Each ticket can be up to £100, meaning the maximum total daily income from fines to drivers would amount to £4.1m.

A bill to introduce a government-backed code of practice for private parking companies received royal assent in 2019 but it was withdrawn in June 2022 after a legal challenge by parking companies.

That code included a £50 cap on most fines, a grace period for lateness and a fairer appeals system.

In June, the BPA and IPC published their own code of practice which is what will be overseen by the new panel.

The move to introduce the panel shows that private parking firms are "serious about raising standards but also making decisive changes to the code when issues arise", BPA chief executive Andrew Pester said.

IPC chief executive Will Hurley said the panel "shows the commitment the industry has to improving the reputation of our sector".

I read that - lazy "reporting" from the BBC:

• The lady wasn't taken to court, as they dropped the case before she went.
• They continue to call the charges fines.
  

Totally agree, also the ATAs (I must stop using that as I'm not really sure what the 'accreditation realates to having had a barney with DVLA about it)....state

"The British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC) have announced that a panel will revise the private parking sector's code of conduct to ensure it "protects genuine motorists who have difficulty making prompt payment on entry"."

Protects genuine motorists (rather than the non-genuine motorists)? and who have 'difficulty' making 'prompt' payment on entry...it's loaded with slaps...horrible vermin

Coupon-mad

I'm going to predict that the revised clause will place the burden on the consumer and try to extract money anyway, like this:

If a motorist appeals within the relevant timeframe and can show evidence that there was a valid reason for the delay in paying to park, the operator must offer to settle at £20 and debt recovery must be paused to allow the motorist to appeal.

(then they can decline it as always, and sue for £170 anyway).

And people who don't raise it will be pursued mercilessly and told it's "too late" to dispute that the machine or app failed.

What the clause in the real statutory CoP should say is something like this:

On camera-monitored land, Motorists who have paid in full for their period of parking whilst on site (or who raised the issue with an employee, the landowner/retailer or helpline) must not have DVLA data accessed nor any type of Notice of Parking Charge issued at all. Genuine paying motorists - including those who are prevented from paying but raise an appropriate concern whilst on site - must not be penalised for a delay in payment. Whatever the reason for delay, there is no reasonable cause to obtain data, contact or charge motorists whose payment on the day (or retrospectively, where allowed) covered their parking period in a camera-monitored site. 

Where a car park is manually patrolled (and not camera-monitored for the purpose of parking enforcement), wardens must check whether motorists are queuing or trying to pay and if so, should offer assistance. Operators with patrols in payment car parks must not issue a NPC until an observation period of at least ten minutes has passed with the vehicle stationary and unattended, and with no payment made or in the process of a genuine attempt to be made. Particular attention is drawn to railway, tram, park & ride or similar car parks where the motorist may not be on site but could reasonably be in the process of paying by phone whilst already on public transport.

daveyjp

BBC report throwing the word 'fines' around like confetti in a terrible report.

The_Slithy_Tove

prowla said:

ParkingMad said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdd94j587m2o

'Five-minute fine' prompts private car parks review

I read that - lazy "reporting" from the BBC:

• The lady wasn't taken to court, as they dropped the case before she went.
• They continue to call the charges fines.
  

Not just lazy, but the whole item stank of being largely drafted by the PPCs/BPA/IPC with little input from any journalist. It gave the impression that the PPCs are trying to be reasonable now and being ever so gracious. Whereas we all know they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to every concession or doing anything favourable to the motorist.

BTW, what is the state of the government imposed COP? Is it in the eye of the new government?