Parking stories in the News/media

Nellymoser

Parking enforcement firm CPM slammed over mistake issuing fines to elderly couple on hospital visit

https://haringeycommunitypress.co.uk/2026/06/02/parking-enforcement-firm-slammed-over-mistake-issuing-fines-to-elderly-couple-on-hospital-visit/

Although the penalties have been dropped, the couple’s daughter has described the company as operating like “cowboys”.

Her parents visited the North Middlesex University Hospital for roughly an hour, starting from around 12.50pm, and then returned home. The following day, they received two parking charges from UK Car Park Management (CPM). The first was timed at 12.52pm and the second at 14.52pm on the same day. According to Emma, they were both accompanied by images time stamped at around 12.50pm.

Emma said: “I think they’re just cowboys, and if my mum and dad didn’t have me, they would have paid either one or both of those, just out of fear of it going up to £100 for each of them.”

A spokesperson for Agena Group, which includes CPM apologised to the family for the distress caused. Hospital visitors deserve to be treated with fairness, and on this occasion we fell short of that.

Coupon-mad

Private parking firms that operate in a way where they make ALL or MOST of their money if they issue PCNs have no place in GP surgery or hospital car parks IMHO.

A Royal Free London spokesperson said:

 “We are sorry that Mr Boland had a poor experience of our parking services while visiting North Middlesex University Hospital. As we carry out major building work, including the development of a new urgent treatment centre, we recognise the temporary pressure this has placed on parking for patients, visitors and staff.

To help maintain safe access to and from the site, we ask that all parking continues to take place within designated bays."

Useless! That helps nobody.

That final bit should have said:

"We recognise we need a temporary relaxation on parking enforcement, to be fair to our service users. To ease the pressure caused by the major building works, we have asked our parking provider to cease all PCN issuance to vehicles parked closely alongside kerbs, as long as access, doorways, other vehicles and ambulance bays are not obstructed."

IN.MY.DREAMS...!

Le_Kirk

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82024783#Comment_82024783

I'd love to see the airport's justification for the increased price; which costs to the airport have increased? Surely this should be part of the overheads and costs of running an airport and already paid for by airlines and other users of the airport. How many airports went bust in the last 50 years because they weren't able to charge passengers and dropper-offers a fee? Also was this increase advertised BEFORE the price went up? According to one Taxi firm it happened overnight!

patient_dream

"We cannot keep absorbing these increased costs without passing some of the additional burden on to our customers."

WHAT COSTS ….. WHAT A SCAM

Nellymoser

Yes indeed Le_Kirk no airports have gone bust. Do airports not realise how greedy and selfish that sounds. Every UK citizen has had to absorb increased costs within their financial budget. As individuals we've no-one to pass these cost increases onto. We either have to stop using these services, pay them or search for cheaper and/or alternative options.

While many of us will again see our spare income reduce or be nonexistent I bet we'll see airports report another profit increase this year.

Coupon-mad

Given the extra millions APCOA makes from its Airport contracts alone, why don't the Airports simply charge a fiver at every site, and a lower rate for taxis (I think they already allow zero for blue badge holders) and insist on a 10% (or higher) cut of PCNs?

That's tens of thousands more annual income at every Airport, never mind the fivers. And it's not as if they wouldn't be able to find an ANPR provider on those terms or better.

Le_Kirk

My point is why do airports need to charge anything; they are paid by passengers when they buy their ticket (Airport Tax) and by the airlines (landing fees)?

patient_dream

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82026317#Comment_82026317

TOTAL GEED on top of the rents to retailers and landing fees for airlines plus eye watering salaries to the exec's

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82026317#Comment_82026317

I do see why there's a small charge. They are encouraged to deter car use, and to be proactive in encouraging using public transport, park & ride shuttles, etc.

Hence why I suggested put it at a fiver, share that with the PPC and share the PCN proceeds too. Make that, say, a £15 reminder or discount - like NCP did at Gatwick - so that the ANPR firm can't massively rely on & profit from PCN issuance alone.

Let's not forget though, that the worst aspect is the fact these sites now use a barrier-less MO. We used to have kiosks to pay by card and it was fast (never saw a long queue to leave at Gatwick) and no PCNs were risked.

It is the fact that drivers cannot pay on site that the MHCLG needs to ban outright.

Otherwise we'll see more copycat sites. Has already been seen with pseudo tolls as reported very recently.

It will absolutely take off if the clear scammery of 'running private land with no method to pay while stopped/parked' is not banned outright by the MHCLG who must also state that charges dressed up to have the effect of 'entry/site use tolls' on private land are not allowed, except if approved on a case by case basis by the DFT and ONLY if run under the Transport Act, Countryside Act, Housing Acts (as applicable per site) with ONLY penalty charges and a proper appeal tribunal.

No more joke 'contract law tolls' popping up. Excel need to be stopped from avoiding the statutory Code with this new ruse.

kryten3000

Absolutely C-M. This has never been about reasonable parking management with a fair exchange of money for services, it is all about the greed of the parking industry at large who paint the average motorist as the bad guy when the opposite is true.