Parking stories in the News/media

Car1980

It's very odd that lenders do turn down mortgage applications for such things. They're not charity cases and make shedloads of money from mortgage lending. So it seems very shortsighted from a business point of view to turn away valid customers.

Presumably because a CCJ is a CCJ and little information accompanies them in the files.

Kite2010

The solution regarding parking CCJs is simply to introduce a law which says any court cases regarding parking has to be heard within 6 months of the parking event.  Rather than being dragged out for multiple years with bottom feeders buying up the 'debts' and going to court if a letter comes back as "unknown at this address" etc.

As for Excel losing in court... Good.

Car1980

I could write an essay on what I think of the entire system, but at the heart is the absurdity of there being a legitimate local authority system and a cowboy side hustle.

1. Axe "Parking Charge Notices" and have "Penalty Charge Notices" as the only system in place.

2. Have standardised signs, designed by government appointed professionals. No more small print and scam signage. No more fake seventy quids for "recovery". 

3. Have standardised paperwork.

4. Ditch POPLA and its kangaroo brother.

5. Axe the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and the London Tribunal. Create a whole new Ombudsman to legitimately preside over council and private PCNs. Give them new powers to remove the ability to issue tickets at certain sites due to insufficient signage/lines etc. (even now councils can keep on ticketing even if their signage or TROs have been judged to be insufficient in a ruling).

6. County court claims are to be banned. All tickets to go through the current system we have for Penalty Charge Notices. All unpaid tickets to go through the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

Coupon-mad

Today's Observer points out that normally forgettable (which is a good thing) Ocean Parking are profiting from a 'fake match-day warden £10 cash to park' scam that they admit they know has been happening every match-day at a private road near to some average team's stadium up north.

NB: everywhere is 'up north' to me!

No sign of any U-turn on match-day park­ing scam

This is unfair ticketing because the parking operator KNOWS (or should know) what's happening.

I'd say the operator has a legal duty to reasonably ensure that nothing going on in their managed car park/road is misleading motorists.

Even if I'm wrong on that, these fake wardens are causing ambiguity of terms and a frustration of contract. In fact, the fake wardens are creating an 'alternative contract' which involved a meeting of minds and money changing hands to accept an offer to park in that road.

Lawyers might even say the fake contract is potentially just as valid as Ocean's contract, if you use the 'I could sell you Buckingham Palace' contract law doctrine which PPCs often trot out!

Either way, it misleads the motorist. So the PCNs issued to scammed drivers are clearly all unenforceable and Ocean must stop taking advantage of duped motorists.

These are compliant drivers, after all.

The BPA and IPC say they support fairness for compliant motorists. Yeah, right...

This repeating scam isn't fair on the public.

It sounds like Ocean are cashing in by (presumably) waiting till a match starts then ripping everyone off who was scammed by fake wardens, instead of taking these reasonable steps:

-  patrolling three or four hours earlier, and/or

- putting up some eye-catching 'red hand' extra signs at the entrance, permanently warning about this known scam, and/or

- using a barrier or A boards on match-days.

All of which would be reasonable steps to prevent the known risk here of misleading actions by scammers...which we must assume/trust is wholly unconnected to Ocean.

Imagine if it was a worse firm than Ocean. This would be a jolly wheeze to set up. PCNs galore.

The Government can't leave this loophole open because AOS members have a duty of fairness. They don't show any signs of that yet but the Government must create a more robust code.

It's not much different than the fake app QR Code scam at car parks.

Both are surely the responsibility of AOS members to actively tackle when they become (or should reasonably be expected to become) aware.

They call themselves 'parking management'. Manage it, then.

I think the new statutory Code should state that PCN issuance MUST be immediately suspended at a site when an AOS member becomes aware of an unresolved or repeating issue or activity that is disrupting the parking management of the location to the extent that it would cause motorists to make a transactional decision that they would not otherwise have taken.

e.g. the following are the AOS member parking management firm's responsibility to identify and take every reasonable step to resolve or even prevent known / repeating misleading information arising from issues such as:

- fake parking app QR codes;
- other changes made to signs or systems including graffiti or covered up payment machines;
- failing payment methods such as faulty machines, sticky keypads or apps that don't work;
- fake wardens enticing people to park for cash;

Ocean Parking:
Come on.

You are from a consumer-facing industry considered to be rogue. This crap does you no favours. Sort it. How about doing something to improve public confidence in you and your ilk, for once?

As a parking management firm you can't exempt yourselves from accountability, even though I'm sure the scam is unconnected. Ocean - you cannot keep issuing PCNs and can't be heard to say 'it's not under our control'.

Nope:

https://juro.com/learn/exemption-clauses

No exemption clause can make what you are doing (rocking up to issue PCNs after the match has started) fair:

"Courts tend to look more favorably on limitation clauses, while being suspicious of exclusion clauses as they take away all responsibility. In fact, exclusion clauses can be deemed problematic given that they often leave innocent parties without access to any legal remedies if they are wronged.

• Section 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999says that a contractual term will be deemed “unfair” if it: “… causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

J63320

Coupon-mad said:

Today's Observer points out that normally forgettable (which is a good thing) Ocean Parking are profiting from a 'fake match-day warden £10 cash to park' scam that they admit they know has been happening every match-day at a private road near to some average team's stadium up north.

NB: everywhere is 'up north' to me!

No sign of any U-turn on match-day park­ing scam

This is unfair ticketing because the parking operator KNOWS (or should know) what's happening.

I'd say the operator has a legal duty to reasonably ensure that nothing going on in their managed car park/road is misleading motorists.

Even if I'm wrong on that, these fake wardens are causing ambiguity of terms and a frustration of contract. In fact, the fake wardens are creating an 'alternative contract' which involved a meeting of minds and money changing hands to accept an offer to park in that road.

Lawyers might even say the fake contract is potentially just as valid as Ocean's contract, if you use the 'I could sell you Buckingham Palace' contract law doctrine which PPCs often trot out!

Either way, it misleads the motorist. So the PCNs issued to scammed drivers are clearly all unenforceable and Ocean must stop taking advantage of duped motorists.

These are compliant drivers, after all.

The BPA and IPC say they support fairness for compliant motorists. Yeah, right...

This repeating scam isn't fair on the public.

It sounds like Ocean are cashing in by (presumably) waiting till a match starts then ripping everyone off who was scammed by fake wardens, instead of taking these reasonable steps:

-  patrolling three or four hours earlier, and/or

- putting up some eye-catching 'red hand' extra signs at the entrance, permanently warning about this known scam, and/or

- using a barrier or A boards on match-days.

All of which would be reasonable steps to prevent the known risk here of misleading actions by scammers...which we must assume/trust is wholly unconnected to Ocean.

Imagine if it was a worse firm than Ocean. This would be a jolly wheeze to set up. PCNs galore.

The Government can't leave this loophole open because AOS members have a duty of fairness. They don't show any signs of that yet but the Government must create a more robust code.

It's not much different than the fake app QR Code scam at car parks.

Both are surely the responsibility of AOS members to actively tackle when they become (or should reasonably be expected to become) aware.

They call themselves 'parking management'. Manage it, then.

I think the new statutory Code should state that PCN issuance MUST be immediately suspended at a site when an AOS member becomes aware of an unresolved or repeating issue or activity that is disrupting the parking management of the location to the extent that it would cause motorists to make a transactional decision that they would not otherwise have taken.

e.g. the following are the AOS member parking management firm's responsibility to identify and take every reasonable step to resolve or even prevent known / repeating misleading information arising from issues such as:

- fake parking app QR codes;
- other changes made to signs or systems including graffiti or covered up payment machines;
- failing payment methods such as faulty machines, sticky keypads or apps that don't work;
- fake wardens enticing people to park for cash;

Ocean Parking:
Come on.

You are from a consumer-facing industry considered to be rogue. This crap does you no favours. Sort it. How about doing something to improve public confidence in you and your ilk, for once?

As a parking management firm you can't exempt yourselves from accountability, even though I'm sure the scam is unconnected. Ocean - you cannot keep issuing PCNs and can't be heard to say 'it's not under our control'.

Nope:

https://juro.com/learn/exemption-clauses

No exemption clause can make what you are doing (rocking up to issue PCNs after the match has started) fair:

"Courts tend to look more favorably on limitation clauses, while being suspicious of exclusion clauses as they take away all responsibility. In fact, exclusion clauses can be deemed problematic given that they often leave innocent parties without access to any legal remedies if they are wronged.

• Section 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999says that a contractual term will be deemed “unfair” if it: “… causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

This story has also appeared today on the Guardian website and lots of ignorant people are commenting - plus one or two who do know what they are talking about and have already pointed readers, and Anna Timms, to this forum.
It seems Ocean have admitted their signs say “No parking …” so surely these are forbidding signs and a win at court is guaranteed.

Snakes_Belly

Thorndorise said:

Parking firm told to pay £10k in five-minute rule row

EXCEL Get another beating in court, very similar case to Rosies.

Poor signal for Hannah, Poor choices for EXCEL

BBC News - Excel Parking ordered to pay £10,240 in five-minute parking rule row - BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2040xy9yn6o

I read about this and it seems as if she had always paid but because of the signal on her app she could not always make the payment immediately and fell foul of the 5 minute rule. I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but Hurley specifically said on BBC breakfast that anyone who paid before exiting the car park should not get a PCN. This does not seem to be the case for this person. It's sad that a young person just starting work has to put up with this. I am so glad that she had the courage to fight them. SRS needs to know that karma is a b--ch. 

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1329275731428064

kryten3000

Not just parking, but moving traffic offences for a cloned plate.

Car cloning made me dread the morning post

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz03k4nlpyjo

Jenni_D

Car (plate) cloning is much rarer than people believe - having a cloned plate on the same make/model/colour car is rarer still.

Half_way

Jenni_D said:

Car (plate) cloning is much rarer than people believe - having a cloned plate on the same make/model/colour car is rarer still.

If its a same colour/make/model clone then there should be something in place with the DVLA to put a marker on such.

 

If its a different colour/make/model then this should be picked up, and people responsible for pursuing such semi cloned plates should face disciplinary action/legal action and particularly in the case of private companies  have their access to the DVLA data base removed not just on a company level, but with the directors/management personally, to prevent them setting up a new company in the same business, likewise for ANPR mis reads where an M is mistaken for a W and to an extent with number plate letters that are interchangeable as the font is identical such as Zero and O, 1 and l and so on

And on the subject of car parking stories in the media, a Church has gone down the PPC rabbit hole in Margate, Kent

A church has come under fire for installing ANPR cameras at its car park, which has seen traffic spill out onto the nearby road.

Signs put up at Holy Family Catholic Church in Park Wood, Maidstone, warn anyone who leaves their vehicle at the site and isn’t visiting the church faces a fine.

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/church-defends-disgraceful-decision-to-install-anpr-camera-322603/

This is the location: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Holy+Family+Catholic+Church,+Parkwood/@51.2386703,0.5562489,77m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x47df31ee6b344c8f:0x36533aef5410f0d0!8m2!3d51.2386161!4d0.5565152!16s/g/11m3977hd2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDQwOC4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDU1SAFQAw==

Solution: Fence off the car parks top end, where a roadway joins and add a gate, or gates.

 and add a gate at the other end ( there are two ways in and out)

And question: do they have all the planning permissions/advertising consents in place?

Half_way

And after that story in Kent we head to the North to Derby for this, where excel are throwing their toys out of the pram:

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/derby-car-park-company-hits-10095866

quote from article:

An Excel Parking Services spokesman said: "We take exception to the tone of Mr Shanker's and Ms Powell's choice of words and would ask them to refrain from using such terminology in the future. Instead we would ask them to engage with us in order to discuss their concerns, rather than relying on their parliamentary privilege to preach behind closed doors.