Parking stories in the News/media

Nellymoser

Parking firm iPark at Gatwick 'left holidaymakers stranded'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx26g25g3dlo

A woman has spoken of her "nightmare" experience of trying to find her car at Gatwick Airport, after using a meet and greet firm she claims are scam operators.

Lauren James from Worcestershire booked with iPark at Gatwick while away in France. She called the firm as directed when she landed to prompt iPark to return her car from off-site parking, but when it kept going straight to voicemail "alarm bells were already going off".

And she was right. There was about 60 people waiting for their cars - young children, families and the elderly.

Lauren said "It gets worse - some people's cars hadn't been taken out of the short-stay car park, so they've got back from holiday and they've been whacked with £500-plus worth of fines to actually be able to exit the car park."

Lauren's car was eventually located on a site outside the airport. The police were on site. There was a car with about four men and a boot was open and there was just a boot-full of car keys in individual plastic wallets.

"People's cars had been left filthy, muddy. Petrol had been used. People had things stolen from their cars - disability badges and service books - which is all quite bizarre and strange".

She did not think anything had been taken from her car, but the wheels were covered in some kind of concretey-mud.

She said she had continued to call the company and emailed them but heard nothing. She had also contacted the airport but not received a reply.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82038396#Comment_82038396

And iPark are an AOS member. Wow!

Apart from the alleged thefts and mud on car tyres, some blokes based in an unsecured car with a load of clients' car keys and an urgent 'arrivals' contact number that goes to voicemail doesn't fill you with confidence.

Nellymoser

Restrictions will vary depending on where you park.

https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/26185736.new-parking-rules-lidl-m-s-shoppers-swindon/

As of June 2026, shoppers using the Asda car park at the shopping centre will continue with a max stay of 5 hours.

However, shoppers parking near Lidl, M&S, Next, New Look and Everlast Gym will be under new regulations. The max stay time has been reduced to 4hrs between 5am and 10pm with a one-hour max stay between 10pm and 5am.

Group Nexus told the Adver: "The recent updates to the parking restrictions were implemented at the specific request of our client to better serve the needs of visitors to the retail park."

Sounds like Nexus client got it wrong as the changes have already faced some backlash online "A four-hour limit is predatory. It is easy for somebody who goes to M&S, stops at the Cafe, goes into Next, then Superdrug to hit four hours," wrote Josh Willock.

Coupon-mad

Ex-GP takes on Total Parking Solutions Ltd in court, over parking charge notice issued at Lakeside Stamford surgery car park

https://archive.ph/BzL7O

The parking charge notice was from Total Parking Solutions, whose automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras were installed two months earlier, in March 2024.

"The case was heard at Peterborough County Court on May 29 this year.Dr Babbs outlined to the court that Total Parking Solutions’s contract was with Lakeside Healthcare, but that Lakeside was neither the owner nor leaseholder of the surgery site until a lease contract was signed with the owners — two former colleagues of Dr Babbs — in February this year.As a result, District Judge Falvey agreed that Total Parking Solutions had no legal authority to issue parking charge notices in the surgery car park before the signing of the lease this year.


TPS was asked by LincsOnline if it will refund all the fines it has issued to people parking at St Mary’s Surgery between the installation of ANPR cameras in March 2024 and the signing of the lease in February 2026. It has not responded.


Lakeside Stamford practice manager Teri White - firstly made some very naive excuses - and then added that Lakeside shares patients’ concerns about the current situation and is in ‘urgent talks’ with Total Parking Solutions and was looking for ‘rapid improvements in their communications and responsiveness’."

Quelle surprise!

She seems to have had no idea what this ANPR & keypad regime would do to patients & staff, pulling their pants down and whacking them with court cases.

Nellymoser

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82019566#Comment_82019566

There's been two FOI requests to Oxford University Hospital for data relating to pcns

https://ouh.disclosurelog.co.uk/disclosures/d8c77674-0ed7-4cf0-b62f-15006f3c87d2?preserveHistory

https://ouh.disclosurelog.co.uk/disclosures/3d635863-9fd6-416c-b7a5-16d8e006e368?preserveHistory

OUH replies - "the Trust does not hold the information you have requested."

"In line with our duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16 of the FOIA, the Trust has made enquiries with Parking Eye, the service provider. 

Parking Eye have confirmed that the information is commercially sensitive, relying on section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act (commercial interests) as the basis for not disclosing it to the Trust.

As there is an applicable exemption under the Freedom of Information Act, we are unable to provide the figures you have requested."

Wonder if the ICO would agree.

Online June news articles -

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/26189830.oxford-hospital-parking-fine-impact-blocked-public/

Anyone able to access this article? I can only find it posted where you need to subscribe to read it.

GrannyKate

It is important to be aware that FOIA only applies to information held by a public body. In certain circumstances a non public body contracting with a public body may have an obligation through their contractual terms to provide certain information to the public body. This generally applies where public funds are purchasing the service. I am assuming no payment is made to the parking firm.

I think there could be some mileage in asking questions about the contract, what mandatory reporting is required by the Trust and how it audits compliance with Information Governance in light of the fact that it is allowing a third party to film and identify persons attending the site. Attendance at an NHS facility is sensitive personal data and subject to a much higher standard of confidentiality than attendance at a shopping centre. (An example might be that they are sending a NTK to a keeper who is totally unaware that his wife or daughter is attending clinic). Whilst the parking company may say the contract is commercially sensitive that is only true to some extent and NHS contracts are generally released with limited redactions generally relating to finance and business model sections.

Half_way

Wasn't there a case a good few years back regarding an NHS trust refusing to release data as they labelled it "commercially sensitive" only fort that commercial sensitivity decision to be overruled as the NHS trust was/is a public body.

So while a parking company may not divulge the information, the NHS trust is/was forced to

The news publication appears to be going after the parking company as opposed to the hospital- as the NHS guidance makes clear the NHS organisation is responsible for the actions of the parking companies.

Its yet another case of going for the monkey instead of the organ grinder, and people barking up the wrong tree.

People and journalists especially should be going for those who allow PPCs to operate on their land, instead of the PPCs and their trade associations

GrannyKate

I have handled many FOIA requests involving contracts within the NHS and it is usual to release a redacted contract - the option of a blanket no does not really exist here for public bodies as a section 43 exemption (which includes commercial interests)is a qualifed exemption. This means that a public interest test must be applied to every section of the information which you seek to redact.

GrannyKate

I've read the FOIA requests and responses now. The replies are a bit of a muddle and I don't think the ICO would support the wording. They do not hold the information - the straight answer is exactly that. I do not think section 16 is relevant here other than to tell the person that the contractor is not required to share the information under the terms of the contract and agreed audit processes. To convolute this to a section 43 exemption on the part of a non public body is a bit of a stretch.

I think what one wants to know are what does this part of their response mean: While the Trust oversees the contract and receives high‑level assurance information and can one have a copy of the privacy impact assessment done for this contract.

I guess I could ask.

GrannyKate

I sent a FOIA request. Don't live near there but I once did. Will see what they reply.

I have become aware of recently published FOIA responses relating to car parking at your sites. I am aware that certain information is apparently not held by the Trust but only by the contractors. I would like to ask for information as follows:

1. A recent response includes the statement - the Trust oversees the contract and receives high‑level assurance information - please can you provide information on the manner in which the contract is overseen and what high level assurance is received. This should at the very least cover evidence of compliance with NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022
2. Please can you state how many formal and informal complaints (PALS) enquiries you have received relating to parking at any of your sites for the last 2 years.
3. Please can you advise how many of the above resulted in the cancellation of PCNs.
4. A parking contract with an external provider allows a non NHS provider to come onto your site and obtain registration details for vehicles belonging to patients and their families. The KADOE contract with the DVLA then allows the contractor to obtain names and addresses of the legal keepers of the vehicles. This means you are facilitating a third party to obtain highly sensitive data (hospital attendance) over which you apparently have no control. Please can you provide a copy of the mandatory Privacy Impact Assessment that was completed and risk assessed before the latest contract for car parking was agreed. I am particularly interested in any discussion relating for the potential for third parties to be made aware of someone's attendance at a health facility without their consent.