Parking stories in the News/media

Coupon-mad

Sooooo... given he couldn't appeal because he DIDN'T GET THE LETTERS FROM HORIZON... what do you both think the supposed 'important work' of the DRA at pre-action stage is meant to include?

How about at the very least, a smidgen of checking the evidence prior to litigation?

As per the pre-action protocol.

How about the important matter of re-issuing the PCN at the original rate, because a new address was discovered?

As per the Code of Practice. The proper one coming in, not the IPC-led hatchet job.

What is this 'debt resolution/court buffer' of which your industry speak? Looks like a CCJ-seeking conveyor belt with no human checks to me.

Stonk

Oh, there's no doubt that the parking company and the debt collectors should have spotted the error and the case should never have started or continued as it passed from one organisation to the next. But we all know that in reality these cases are passed around as big spreadsheets on a conveyor belt and nobody meaningfully checks individual case details until they're really forced to.  The system sucks and it's a foul-up by everyone involved, but this one could and should have tripped and died at the first hurdle.

If Mr Lynn had satisfied his obligation to notify the DVLA of his change of address, then the parking company's administrative error (it happens) would have become a complete non-story with no media interest -- man receives PCN mixing up his car and someone else's car; man tells parking company of error; parking company looks at photo, says "duh", and cancels ticket, realising it won't survive any remotely-independent appeal, let alone court.

It just doesn't need to hit BBC News.  There is a near-infinite supply of better quality stories of terrible behaviour by parking companies than this one.  Oh well.

TomOrrow

Kaizen2024 said:

I tip my hat, it’s been a long wait to see some common sense here 🫡

There are a lot of cases here that can be nipped in bud quickly, either for £20 or cancelled FOC; but the advice to ignore everything except a LBC that pops up occasionally can only lead to spending a disproportionate amount time dealing with it at a later date (to serve the cause).

Yes, the critics will say ‘why should they take the time to appeal’; and the answer is simple… would you rather spend 5 mins appealing now or hours defending later?

£20 is still extortion, like being hit by Frank Tyson in the ring rather than two or three enforcers in an alleyway.

The £20 admin charge should  have been eliminated by now in any fair system if the original proposed code of practice had been followed.
It is still imposed for minor "customer typing errors" of reg number that in reality are caused by parking company software writing and hardware issues.
Parliament recognised their unfairness and attempted to remove them.
But was the industry's own code of practice willing to give up a nice little earner? NO!!

I'll listen to your occasional logic when your victim blaming stance disappears.

Half_way

Vehicle enters car park

Number plate captured by anpr and logged

wrong  number plate is entered

as this is not in the system an error message is returned

User then tries again



thats it, simple.

A well designed system takes into account human error.
unless the system has been designed to generate parked ng charge notices.
The crux of the issue is that the money is not in managing car parks well, but in generating as much money as possible by issuing as many parking charge notices as possible

Bazarius

Kaizen2024 said:

I tip my hat, it’s been a long wait to see some common sense here 🫡

There are a lot of cases here that can be nipped in bud quickly, either for £20 or cancelled FOC; but the advice to ignore everything except a LBC that pops up occasionally can only lead to spending a disproportionate amount time dealing with it at a later date (to serve the cause).

Yes, the critics will say ‘why should they take the time to appeal’; and the answer is simple… would you rather spend 5 mins appealing now or hours defending later?

Well that didn’t happen with a motorist named Mr Ferguson did it ? 

And there is also a live case at the moment where the motorist did appeal against a false allegation of overnight parking, she included a Ring Doorbell timestamped footage with her appeal  .  

They summarily rejected the appeal despite overwhelming evidence showing that her vehicle was parked outside her house overnight . 

To add insult-  the operator offered £30 discount to close the case or it will go up to £100 . 

You now understand the reason why people didn’t bother to appeal ? 

Now a formal Cease and Desist letter has been served - Should the operator fail to comply, legal proceedings will be initiated without further notice. 

Hopefully will be added  to your hall of shame if she is successful.

patient_dream

Trouble isthat parking companies make far too many mistakes and extort money from people

A few years ago Horizon tried to scam me, Tesco cancelled it but it put me off Tesco for life

Car1980

Yes, the critics will say ‘why should they take the time to appeal’; and the answer is simple… would you rather spend 5 mins appealing now or hours defending later? 

5 minutes? That's a guaranteed "appeal rejected" for starters.

And if you're spending "hours" defending a court claim that would appear that you're putting together a Witness Statement for your defence. Plus if the case is so cut and dried that a 5 minute appeal would have seen it cancelled why do we never see PPCs capitulating as soon as they receive the defence? 

A guy yesterday spent ages basically submitted a legal defence and WS for his "appeal" and was rejected with words along the lines of "your appeal is rejected for the following reason: we have decided to reject your appeal." 😆

daveyjp

Half_way said:

Vehicle enters car park

Number plate captured by anpr and logged

wrong  number plate is entered

as this is not in the system an error message is returned

User then tries again



thats it, simple.

A well designed system takes into account human error.
unless the system has been designed to generate parked ng charge notices.
The crux of the issue is that the money is not in managing car parks well, but in generating as much money as possible by issuing as many parking charge notices as possible

A well designed system already exists and has done for years.  When you start entering your reg after the first two or three characters your reg is shown on a screen, select it and job done.  Of course that reduces errors so of no interest to companies that need errors to generate income.

kryten3000

Bazarius said:

Kaizen2024 said:

I tip my hat, it’s been a long wait to see some common sense here 🫡

There are a lot of cases here that can be nipped in bud quickly, either for £20 or cancelled FOC; but the advice to ignore everything except a LBC that pops up occasionally can only lead to spending a disproportionate amount time dealing with it at a later date (to serve the cause).

Yes, the critics will say ‘why should they take the time to appeal’; and the answer is simple… would you rather spend 5 mins appealing now or hours defending later?

Well that didn’t happen with a motorist named Mr Ferguson did it ? 

I am helping with a case which is at the WS stage. Gladstones have sent the evidence images and they are of 2 different vehicles.  Same make/model but different generations with different tail light configuration.  It's clearly not the same car, so why has the case reached this stage?  Why are Gladstones not acting in the interest of the court and pointing out the obvious mistake to their client? 

kryten3000

A couple of stories about car parks which have been ordered to close simply carrying on regardless:

https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/25380367.queens-road-car-park-running-without-planning-permission/

https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/sheffield-parking-business-as-usual-at-bank-parks-ecclesall-road-site-ordered-to-close-5265831?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwMKk4pleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHs00XHlPqDHM7a9ckf_DPr-FR5mG-OdcmovpcfGRbaUUpi3FR3ZHgOHdIMlN_aem_mD3Gc1ySQv-wJhAOn1K_GA