Parking stories in the News/media

Nellymoser

Euro Car Parks issue PCNs to Morrisons customers claiming they "parked on the ramp"

Customers say ECP are mistaken.

One regular shopper Jeanne Waas says she has now stopped shopping at the Ealing Morrisons store for fear of receiving further pcns. She already has two pcns for "parking on ramp". Morrisons manager told her the pcns would be cancelled, but this did not occur.

Euro Car Parks did not respond to questions and Morrisons referred enquiries back to Euro Car Parks.

https://www.ealingtoday.co.uk/default.asp?section=info&page=eaparking011.htm

Half_way

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81959746#Comment_81959746

Yet more evidence that ANPR is not fit for the purpose of so called enforcement.

The use of ANPR on private land should be into line with the same rules that govern its use on council/local authority owned land

Kaizen2024

As I understand it, the inability to use ANPR on local authority land for parking enforcement has nothing to do with the technology.

There is a preference for the motorist to be advised of the penalty at the time of the event, hence why it is postal penalties that are not permitted (there are limited exceptions); rather than any given method of detection.

Nellymoser

Birmingham family says parking firm has 'no jurisdiction' as driver given £100 fine

Euro Parking Services and the IAS disagreed and rejected the appeals.

The Land Registry plan showing ownership ends at the end of the drive was supplied to the IAS but ‘they were saying the ownership extends to the pavement’.

A highways map search suggests that it is not the case – the pavement and road are city council land.

The council confirmed the land owned by the owners of 60 Holyhead Road ends at the end of their driveway and does not include the pavement or road.

Think this one will need settled in court

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newsbirmingham/birmingham-family-says-parking-firm-has-no-jurisdiction-as-driver-given-100-fine/ar-AA20AALw?ocid=ob-fb-enph-370

kryten3000

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81958134#Comment_81958134

If you look at this carefully there is (almost) zero mention of income from parking tariffs, it's all about the PCNs.
Other tactics include a capped whitelist with a maximum 100 vehicles allowed, then a one in, one out scheme.

Nellymoser

Agree with Kryten3000 it was all about "issuance" ticket value and volumes, recovering and growing.

Shows Will Hurley IPC is way off the mark with his public statements:

• "But the reality is, the vast majority of money that comes in in the parking industry comes from people paying for parking."

• "Parking firms don't want to issue tickets"

Well it sounded like Smart do especially in countries where the ticket value is high like Denmark.

And it looked to be Smart's focus in Perth, Scotland before they were finally kicked out in 2025 of 'managing' the Kinnoull St car park

https://www.perthandkinrossconservatives.org.uk/news/smart-parking-insider-slams-revenue-raising-meters

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-05-06/parking-industry-leader-if-the-signs-are-unclear-park-somewhere-else

Coupon-mad

From Facebook:

The IPC must be so proud of their member making a disabled guy so frightened that he can no longer enjoy a swim to benefit his arthritis.

Shame on you, UKPPO.

Trying to rinse a disabled person of £300+ by scaring him witless with non-prominent 'rules'v(as ever with this rogue sector, designed to trap people).

Reportedly ONLY cancelled once they knew the Manc Evening News was running this story.

Coupon-mad

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/whats-on/shopping/waitrose-shoppers-slapped-100-fines-33755262.amp

Waitrose shoppers slapped with £100 fines after December rule change

Waitrose has been blasted after customers were slapped with £100 parking fines. Waitrose has come under fire after customers at its Romsey store were hit by high parking fines, which they claim were introduced without their knowledge.

Shoppers have been issued fines of up to £100 after Britannia Parking was introduced back in December. Previously, the supermarket on Alma Road offered shoppers up to two hours of free parking. 

Regular customer Debbie said: "People are so used to how it was before I think it would be a big shock to suddenly get a ticket. It will definitely deter people from shopping here, especially when it can take hours to do a full shop."

A spokesperson for John Lewis Partnership, which operates Waitrose, said:

"We want to make sure that parking is available for all our customers - so we've revised the maximum stay while still leaving plenty of time for customers to carry out a full shop and visit nearby businesses. The parking limits have been clearly communicated to customers through signs which have been up since December."

In other words, IMHO, Britannia probably said:

"Our experience of other Waitrose stores tells us that you need to increase the rate of customer turnover at the Romsey store. Good news! We can supply 'new tech giving you the benefit of rich data' with just one tweak needed: a shorter free stay time to ensure higher footfall".

What the spiel really means:

"We won't issue enough PCNs with a 2 hour free stay. So whilst we are only the 'tail' and you are the big dog, you must let us wag our tail and get our own way otherwise we won't rinse enough money from your slower shoppers (you know, the elderly and disabled people who are most likely to pay up and least likely to make noise). We want a shorter time limit (and we'll dress it up as good news)".

And Waitys fell for it.

Again.

When are supermarkets going to wake up?

Half_way

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81961844#Comment_81961844

If I'm not mistaken, wasnt there a/some reported cases of PPCs targeting cancer patients at a hospital as these were easy to make a bit of money from?

Its a logical assumption to conclude that Disabled people are a similar easy target, and as it stands the purpose of the parking companies is to maximise revenue, so the easy targets are a good go to for that purpose, as are overly complex made up rules around what should be a simple task - parking.

The Paking companies want to increase revenue

The trade associations are there to look after their members, so the likes of the IPC, BPA etc will more than likely be extremely "proud" of this innovative use of ANPR vehicle registration and vulnerable people to maximise revenue.

The BPA and IPC are doing a fantastic job, as if they were not then the current business model of the PPCs would have been legislated out of existence.

Coupon-mad

"If I'm not mistaken, wasnt there a/some reported cases of PPCs targeting cancer patients at a hospital as these were easy to make a bit of money from?"

Yes, Tony Taylor said exactly that about his old employers, UKPC.