Parking stories in the News/media

ParkingMad

@ Nellymoser said

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.

Oxford hospital parking fine impact 'blocked' from public

2 HRS AGOHEALTHTRANSPORTOXFORD

Exclusive by Matt Simpson

3A parking company has 'blocked' crucial information being made public after several motorists were hit with "unfair" parking fines.Dozens of drivers got in touch with this newspaper during the winter having been hit with £100 fines due to a change of rules at Oxford hospitals including the John Radcliffe.Many suspected the penalty charge notices were unfairly handed out with the new rules not made clear to motorists.At the time, this newspaper submitted a Freedom of Information request to Oxford University Hospitals Trust to find out the true extent of how many people were impacted when compared with the prior year.

But, months after the 20 day lawful deadline of providing information, this request was refused by the trust. It explained that its contractor Parking Eye did not allow the trust to have and provide the data for how many people were affected. The trust's response said Parking Eye deemed the information too "commercially sensitive" to make public. In its response and reasoning for refusal, the trust said: "Following a review of our records, the trust does not hold the information you have requested.

"The trust has a contract with Parking Eye to undertake parking enforcement activity at certain trust sites. "While the trust oversees the contract and receives high‑level assurance information the implementation and delivery is controlled by Parking Eye, not the trust. "It added: "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.

"Antoni Bajowski, who was hit with a fine when he was unaware of any changes to the Blue Badge parking policy at the John Radcliffe, but had his fine overturned, questioned the "excuses" used to "prevent processing valid and justifiable requests". He also questioned the set-up of the car park for disabled drivers, claiming there are not enough spaces and questioned why people have to walk to a "far" desk to get their badge validated.

A spokeswoman for Oxford University Hospitals Trust said: “Following this FOI, we can confirm that we followed the relevant procedures and policies. The trust does not hold the information requested. “In terms of wider concerns or issues about parking at our hospitals we are, as always, willing to deal with these directly. "We have worked hard over recent months to address these, including direct contact with people affected, and Parking Eye.”

Parking Eye and its agency Mediazoo both declined to comment.

Coupon-mad

Antoni Bajowski, who was hit with a fine when he was unaware of any changes to the Blue Badge parking policy at the John Radcliffe, but had his fine overturned, questioned the "excuses" used to "prevent processing valid and justifiable requests".

He also questioned the set-up of the car park for disabled drivers, claiming there are not enough spaces and questioned why people have to walk to a "far" desk to get their badge validated.

That is the crux of the matter.

ParkingEye make disabled people take extra steps and as 'registration' is an unexpected extra term, never required on-street nor in council car parks (because council parking isn't allowed to be run by ANPR) the disabled patients are immediately more vulnerable to a risk of punitive parking charge notices than able bodied visitors.

There would be no need to shift the burden to the disabled person if accessible bays on private land had to be policed on foot.

This is blatantly done for no other reason than that remote camera regimes are cheaper. It's debatable whether this extra burden put in disabled motorists is fair anywhere on private land, e.g. at stations, retail parks etc., why should the disabled motorist have to do more than just display their badge?

But at a hospital where most people are ill, anxious or stressed, and where data should not be harvested lightly (evidence of a driver's hospital visits should not be sent out to registered keepers as a first resort) it is beyond the pale.

"But we want to use cameras and send PCNs two weeks later by post because it's cheaper than bothering to check accessible bays" is not sufficient justification for obtaining special category data (of DVLA keepers who are disabled).

A windscreen PCN (or preferably just a warning note, first time) would avoid any data harvesting AND would avoid the unfair burden of 'registration of Blue Badges' completely.

I have said this to the MHCLG in a Public Consultation response but I don't think they understood the importance of protecting special category data, nor took it on board that forcing disabled people to take extra steps is clearly (IMHO) an Equality Act breach.

The fact ParkingEye thinks it's OK to place a "walk over to another building" burden on disabled people then refuse to release PCN numbers just sums up this whole industry.

GrannyKate

@Coupon-mad - I particularly agree with this - But at a hospital where most people are ill, anxious or stressed, and where data should not be harvested lightly (evidence of a driver's hospital visits should not be sent out to registered keepers as a first resort) it is beyond the pale.

It seems to me that hospitals have slid into a mistaken view that they are the same as any commercial property and that the very strict guidelines for Information Governance can be ignored for convenience. Although registration numbers may seem innocuous enough on their own, when you allow the collection of information which can be combined with other information to produce patient identifiable information then they are on a slippery slope. There is a tangible risk of special catgeory data (patient hospital attendance) being shared with the keeper who, when not the patient, will have no right to know.

As a general rule the health service shares very limited information about attendance even with the police. Limited information will be given for serious crimes involving assault, murder, sexual offences, safeguarding etc. The public interest in providing confidential healthcare is held to outweigh any public interest in sharing information on minor criminal offences and civil and contractual disputes would not justify a breach of confidence.

It also doesn't seem right to me that disabled people should have to go through extra hoops.

Coupon-mad

Civil Enforcement love to target clueless, easily led GP surgeries and once they are signed up to the ludicrously one-sided agreements, the medical centres are stuck with the (inappropriate & unfair for these sites) 'VRM registration' burden and patients & staff are abandoned and face being sued:

https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/26195207.barbourne-health-centre-100-parking-fines-spark-new-anger/

"The car park is administered by Civil Enforcement Limited. Visitors are required to enter their vehicle registration upon arrival or receive a £100 'fine'. The health centre supports appeals by providing proof of appointments, but even successful appeals leave patients with a £20 charge.

Alex Mace, councillor for the area, was contacted by a Worcester resident who was referred to a physiotherapy appointment at the centre by their GP at another surgery.

He said:

"You cannot hide behind the idea that ‘there are signs’ when legitimate users of the car park are regularly getting fined, and forced to pay even £20 when they did have an appointment, just for a simple mistake…

…what they have implemented is not working as it needs to. Patients using the surgery can easily be imagined to be in a state of stress and vulnerability. They may receive a life limiting diagnosis, or simply be anxious of receiving one, and miss the signs, and then receive a £100 fine.

Regular visitors must correctly enter their registration every single time to avoid a fine. If they successfully appeal, they are still left with a £20 fine to pay.

With almost a third of houses in fuel poverty in Worcester, that will not be a trivial amount of money for many."

Practice manager Debbie Weston said:

{Errrrrr… no! She made the usual CEL-spoon-fed excuses about signage that are not worth quoting}.

Stupid, deluded apologist.

The BPA and Debbie must be so proud.

Coupon-mad

https://newleatherheadliving.wordpress.com/2026/06/18/elmbridge-off-street-parking-fine-refunds-begin-to-be-made/

Refunds for SIX YEARS worth of off street parking penalty charge notice 'errors'.

Dawn Crewe, Strategic Director at Elmbridge Borough Council, said:

“We are very sorry that a procedural error led to some parking fines being issued incorrectly. Once we identified the issue, we worked quickly to put things right and introduce a refund scheme.

We have designed the process to be as straightforward as possible so that anyone affected can reclaim their money, and we aim to issue refunds within two weeks of a valid claim submission.”

If you think you may be eligible, please check the details on our website and submit a claim.

Link below: > >

About the parking fine refund scheme: information and guidance about the scheme.

Why wasn’t this picked up earlier?

The issue relates to a procedural error affecting how some parking arrangements were legally put in place. Once this was identified, we took steps to develop a refund scheme and put things right. We sincerely apologise for this error.

How much is this expected to cost Elmbridge Borough Council?

The total estimated cost of the refund scheme is approximately £308,000.

How is the refund scheme being paid for?

The refunds will be paid for from the council’s existing budgets (parking reserves).

What is the council doing to prevent this happening again?

Alongside the refund scheme, we are putting the correct legal framework in place to:

• Increase the number of council car parks offering 30 minutes free parking (as a trial)
• Reduce charging hours in town centre car parks

We expect these changes to come into force from July 2026.

Why can’t the council contact people directly about refunds? 

We don’t have access to contact details for people who received these parking fines. The information linked to a vehicle registration number is held by the DVLA and is protected for privacy reasons. We are not able to use that data to contact drivers about refunds.

That last bit seems an odd and not fully believable excuse?

I know initially these will have been windscreen PCNs but having obtained the DVLA data after that in many cases, the council still holds that data for all things connected to the individual PCNs, surely!

Coupon-mad

David Ross replying for (useless on all things private parking) 'Honest John', what planet are you on? Couldn't you have just spent 5 minutes checking your facts?!

😮

"Ask HJ

I received a parking fine for not displaying blue badge - can I appeal?

"I parked in a disabled space and forgot to display my badge (I had my mum with me who has cancer and wasn’t well) I received a fine a week later and immediately appealed.

The fine should have been on hold until the outcome and then said I could still pay the £60 reduced fee if unsuccessful. I’m still in their time frame for a response.

However I received a debt collector letter demanding £170. No matter how many times I’ve told them I’m in appeal and sent evidence, they keep saying I was out of time to appeal (I wasn’t).

This has stressed me so much I have paid the initial £60 but I'm worried the debt company will still not accept this. I’ve written to them and the parking company and Tesco where I parked, is there anything else I can do as they have not followed their own terms?"

Clueless Answer from David Ross (I've snipped the link to their useless 'Guide'):

So he actually thinks and is telling the public that non-AOS operators can process DVLA data and use POPLA or the IAS!

Found that underneath this appallingly tone-deaf article calling drivers at Tesco 'cheats':

https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/driving/2026-06/half-of-brits-support-stiff-fines-for-drivers-abusing-parent-and-child-parking-bays/

Fruitcake

Motorist gets penalty charge notice at Bedford railway station following the fatal rail crash, despite being held up on a different train, and told by the police not to go to the station to collect their car.

Driver whose car was stuck at Bedford station during train crash is 'issued with parking ticket'

Half_way

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82044551#Comment_82044551

If these were issues by the local authority then they should be easily appealable.

Unless its a lease car where the lease company could well just pay and deduct from wages/add to next bill.

One of the reasons why lease/rental hire agreements clauses to automatically pay, and add admin fees on top should be an automatic unfair term.

Thats also compounded by the ticket the vehicle first ask questions later policies of council and others.

If its a private company then anything goes , odds on any so called appeal will be rejected

kryten3000

David Walsh at the Sheffield Star has another good news story featuring the usual suspect: Excel.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/excel-parking-court-defeat-8753941

kryten3000

Meanwhile, over on LinkedIn, WillH continues to peddle the same old rubbish about the increase in the number of PCNs being issued being because more locations are being managed 24/7.

He also repeats the claim that repeat offenders are a big part of the problem.

I'm not sure this tallies with a 3 million increase year on year.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/will-hurley-45077141_record-17m-private-parking-tickets-will-be-activity-7474461978850279424-ftbT?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAAnKEUBmVOlJy1rOdt3GdZyIL4rpWqIlWw