Parking stories in the News/media

Nellymoser

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8ek3g32j2o

A car park owner has defended newly introduced parking charges at a Lake District beauty spot, saying they are needed to help his nearby businesses "survive".

Jerry Huppert said revenue from motorists would help avoid passing on rising operating costs to guests at the holiday lets he owns opposite the car park, or by increasing the rent he charges the leaseholder of the pub adjoining them.

Huppert said there had been a "mixed response" to the charges, which he left to the private operator to set. "We've said it should be fair and that it shouldn't be more than similar car parks. "It's not to extort customers."

Film-maker Terry Abraham, who visits the inn regularly, said it risked alienating visitors and accused Huppert of not having "love, care and affection for the area". "It's a money-grabbing exercise - we've all seen increasing aspects of commercialism coming into the Lake District and I find that very sad."

Huppert dismissed Abraham's criticisms, saying "costs have been rising through the roof". "We have to survive, utility bills and business rates have gone up along with wages and national insurance."

Car1980

I don't there is anything wrong with his points. He can charge if he wants.

But he is very very naive if he thinks things will run smoothly with a PPC. How long before someone wrongly gets a PCN and Azure wont cancel it? What happens when the bad reviews come in and people stop coming?

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink-news/nightmare-parking-firm-hands-pub-33418079.amp

Nellymoser

Euro Parking Services hits Luton driver with £100 pcn for stopping to ask for directions

https://www.lutontoday.co.uk/news/people/luton-driver-hit-with-ps100-parking-fine-after-stopping-to-ask-for-directions-8824093

Simon Cordell’s wife, had been taking her 84-year-old mum to SpaMedica, in Capability Green, for eye surgery in May. She briefly stopped to ask someone for directions before parking in the clinic’s dedicated spots. Days later the couple were sent a pcn from Euro Parking Services.

The former police officer claims the appeals process failed because the mitigating circumstances were ignored. Simon said: “They won’t entertain any further discussion on it.”

Luton News approached Euro Parking Services but the company said it was unable to comment on individual cases. Simon is calling for more to be done to make the system fairer, as he fears vulnerable people are paying 'fines' unnecessarily.

The CMA have heard the calls Simon... investigations have begun....

patient_dream

How stupid and low life are EURO PARKING/ One of the BPA's money scammers

A charge for asking directions ? how pathetic, what next, stopping at red lights or crossing

This type of stupidity must be stopped.. I suppose DCBL will get involved with the crap they dish out until they chicken out

CMA please get tough with these rogue traders

GrannyKate

The FOIA request that I made to a hospital trust re their car parking contract and complaints on 21 June (details posted on this thread that day) remains unanswered after 6 weeks - the reply was due 17 July. Nor have I received any response to my reminder or a proposed new timescale. I will ask for a formal review if there is no reply by early next week.

Coupon-mad

Unfair PCNs for picking up parcels at 24/7 (open to the public) parcel lockers.

This isn't 'parking', it's brief loading or unloading, which on-street is exempt activity:

#1 ParkingEye

"Judy Ayliffe said she feared other people could be caught out after she parked in the superstore car park outside opening hours – despite the InPost lockers advertising 24-hour access.

She visited on 31 May and spent about 15 minutes in the car park while trying to retrieve a collection code from her phone.

"The InPost email very clearly stated 24/7 access and even told me which part of the car park to go to," Ayliffe said. I hadn't brought my glasses so I couldn't get the QR code to scan, so I was faffing around. I got my parcel and left.

I didn't stay for any other reason.

I thought the PCN has got to be an error because there's the InPost lockers, there's the EV charging – surely people can use the car park."

Ayliffe appealed to ParkingEye with evidence she had collected the parcel. But in a letter on 2 July, the company rejected this…"

COURSE THEY DID.

"Computer says no"

Her MP had to complain to Lidl to overturn it…and they still blamed her!

After Ayliffe contacted her MP, Lidl said the charge would be cancelled because it recognised "a genuine mistake was made by the customer"

…say what now?!

Lidl aren't you ashamed of what ParkingEye did by introducing their usual cynical '5 minutes only' (or no parking) after hours? These ANPR firms always say it's "to stop unsociable behaviour/ boy racers" and the retailers fall for it every time.

It doesn't seem to come from the retailers.

Too much control, ParkingEye…

**************************************

#2 NGPM seem to have misled the BBC by implying they have a 10 minute consideration period (by merely talking about the - totally irrelevant - grace period, to muddy the waters) yet the evidence shown to the BBC is several charges based on just two minutes covert (illegal) surveillance:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8dn68erpnmo

Drivers have been left "shocked and upset" after receiving £100 fines for using a pub car park to access parcel lockers, a councillor says.

People were handed the fines after parking outside the Church Inn in Llanishen, Cardiff, for what they said was "two or three minutes" to use the lockers.

They argue there is a lack of clear signage, saying a grace period should be implemented.

New Generation Parking Management, an external company that runs the car park, said parking charges were not issued unfairly or without reason.

It also said drivers were given a 10-minute grace period.

But the Reverend Canon Gareth Rayner-Williams, who received a 'fine' has spoken to others who were penalised.

She said:

"Among the most striking cases were two locker users who received £60 charges after being on site for just two minutes and five seconds, and three minutes and seven seconds respectively.

"It's difficult to see how any observer could regard these brief stops as parking. These are not isolated incidents."

Sion Davies, who lives in the area, used the locker and was also fined.

"I was only two minutes posting a parcel and I then received a parking ticket for £100 from New Generation Parking," he said.

So a notorious parking firm has caused local parcel lockers to be removed. Nice work.

Who do we believe about this consideration period?

(A) … a Reverend who has actually seen some PCNs, or

(B) …Ex-wheelclamper thugs and IPC member NGPM, who admitted & were convicted of offences under the CPUTRs in Merthyr Tydfil in 2017?

Coupon-mad

What APCOA are doing at Manchester Airport is somewhat of an embarrassment for Andy Burnham and No 1O North, don't you think?

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/revealed-eyewatering-sum-manchester-airport-34263306.amp

"Booming Manchester Airport generated revenue totalling £630m last year - but estimates suggest almost a third of it came from parking charges. An estimated £189m of the revenue came from parking charges including controversial late payment fees at the airport's new barrierless parking system, the Manchester Evening News can reveal.

The figure is up by £20m compared to the year before.

The revelation has prompted Oldham MP Jim McMahon, who has previously criticised the 'unfair' parking regime in parliament, to call on airport bosses to be 'transparent and break down the income it receives so that the public can see what is generated through parking'.

Airport bosses refuse to say how much money is generated through late payment charges.

{MEN's analysis} shows that the company made almost as much from parking as it did from aviation, with parking representing 30 per cent of the total revenue."

Wonder how much APCOA are raking in.

Coupon-mad

ParkingEye this time, Hospital again:

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/26420248.concerns-parkingeye-fines-james-cook-hospital/

Hospital visitors in Teesside claim they have been hit with "unfair" parking charges despite never actually parking their cars.

Visitors at James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, have raised concerns about the way parking charges are being issued.

Some have claimed they received notices after simply driving around the site looking for spaces or turning their cars around after getting lost.

The complaints were sparked by a series of social media posts from one hospital visitor, Mark Blakey, who has since been contacted by dozens of others reporting similar experiences with hospital's parking operator, Parkingeye.

He claims he was dropped off near the south entrance after no disabled spaces were available nearby. The car then continued around the site before eventually parking elsewhere while displaying a Blue Badge."

NB: The Blue Badge Trap:

Later in the article, ParkingEye's excuse is that the car was "on a double yellow line". But the usual meaning of those surface markings (which are a communication to drivers and thus, a 'consumer notice' per the CRA 2015) is that on roads, Blue Badge holders are legally permitted to park on double or single yellow lines for up to 3 hours.

Because many drivers think this right carries over to private property, the new statutory code mandates that operators must put up clear, low-placed signs explicitly stating that Blue Badge holders are not permitted to stop on those yellow lines. Section 3 says, regarding driver communication:

“It is particularly important that parking operators make clear to drivers where the rights available to Blue Badge holders on public roads do not apply e.g. rights to stop on yellow lines”.

I'm not at all sure that clause sounds legal or fair either. IMHO, the statutory CoP position should be that surface markings must have their USUAL MEANING if copied on private land. If the operator wants to communicate 'no blue badge parking' they could easily add kerb 'blips' and no loading signs as local authority streets display for that reason.

The article continues:

"However, he later received a parking charge notice. Mark says that the vehicle had remained in the same location for 59 minutes. He said: "The photo on the letter is so bad you could not tell where the car was.

When I inspected the photos on the website, the car is in two different places.

How can they charge for this? It's unfair."

{The duped victim actually PAID it!}

The article continues:

"Other drivers have claimed on social media that they also received notices despite never using a parking space.

Some claim they have been charged after entering the site to drop off patients, look for parking, or turn around when no spaces were available. One Facebook user said: "I got a parking fine for being in a staff car park. What actually happened is we had an appointment round the back of the hospital where I’d never been before. I turned around in a staff car park then parked in a patient disabled space.

I sent them this info, plus a Google Maps image showing where I parked and asked for evidence that I’d been in a staff space for three hours - they cancelled the fine."

Another commented: "I'm disabled and registered my blue badge with the help of hospital staff. I still got fined, and appealed. They decided that I must have put my number plate in wrong (which I didn't) and I still got fined."

When James Cook introduced an ANPR parking system last year, local MPs and residents raised concerns that it could lead to an increase in unfair parking fines.

Labour MP Luke Myer received thousands of signatures on a petition opposing the new system. He argues that a pay-on-arrival model is unsuitable for people attending hospital in an emergency, as they often have no way of knowing how long they will need to stay.

Locals like Mark are most concerned that in these stressful and vulnerable situations, visitors can easily enter their registration details incorrectly or forget to extend their parking session - and receive hefty fines as a result."

Hmmm… regulars might think that description from Mark Blakey rings a bell?

Yep, it brought to mind this blog detailing the same thing a few years ago by ParkingEye, who sued someone for driving in two different areas of Barnet Hospital:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/03/parkingeye-lose-in-court-accuse-drivers.html?m=1

At Barnet Hospital, the report says:

ParkingEye lose in court - accuse driver's evidence of being unreliable, but their own evidence destroys their case

07/03/2016 Case B7FC00H1 – Parking Eye v Mrs B, before District Judge McKinnell at St Albans

This was a Barnet Hospital case, where the defendant had gone to pick up her daughter, and spent 34 minutes driving around the access roads trying to find out which department her daughter was likely to be in. She had parked for a brief period in the 20 minute drop off zone, but never parked in any of the Patient & Visitor car parks. ParkingEye alleged that she did, and therefore owed the Hospital £2, which ParkingEye escalated to £100.

Mrs B's helper 'Mr Mustard' made a meticulous site visit, photographing and documenting all aspects of the car park.
This is the photograph ParkingEye filed as evidence claiming that it was of Mrs B leaving the Patient & Visitor Car park.

Mr Mustard noticed the writing on the road. There is only one place in the hospital with writing like this - the 20 minute free stay car park:

ParkingEye's own evidence was essentially worthless. Their pictures show the vehicle entering the Patient & Visitor Car Park but leaving a completely different car park!

The Judge sent the parties out for 20 minutes while she considered her verdict, and then went through the case in her judgment.

She found Mrs B to be a credible witness, and accepted her evidence that she never parked. ParkingEye had not made out their case to prove that she parked for 34 minutes, or at all, and the claim would fail on that basis.

She also commented that ParkingEye's signage only talks about ‘parking’, and doesn’t claim that the clock starts ticking once you pass the ANPR cameras.

Costs were awarded to the defendant of £47.50 for a half day off work, plus £7.50 parking, total £55."

Prankster Notes:
"Mr Mustard recreated Mrs B's journey and then made a subject access request to ParkingEye. The results show he was detected 42 times by cameras as he traversed the site.

When Mrs B made a similar request ParkingEye stonewalled her and refused to supply the data. The Prankster believes the data would have backed up her claim to have been driving around the site and that ParkingEye  should therefore have vacated the claim.

Instead, they spent more than £500 pursuing a claim for an underpayment £2, which it turns out was never owed in the first place.

It is clear that the ParkingEye system at Barnet hospital is unreliable and is issuing tickets which it has no rights to issue. Moreover The Prankster believes that ParkingEye are, or should be, fully aware of this from analysing the camera tracks of Mrs B's journey.

It is also clear that the system at Barnet Hospital is in direct contravention of government guidelines, which state that:

Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, eg ‘income from parking charge notices only’

Hospital car parks are huge sources of revenue for ParkingEye, and The Prankster believes this is a serious abuse which needs rectifying. Alternative methods of fairly managing hospital car parks should be used instead, with parking companies getting a management fee only and not a fee based on issuing parking charges."

And that was a DECADE ago.

Here we go again ParkingEye…

Evidence for the CMA, methinks.

Coupon-mad

UKPC at an Oxford Hospital, still threatening a disabled person with litigation 9 months after she did everything right:

This one explains everything that's wrong with the parking industry's newish 'moneymaking at all costs and then we'll sue you anyway' invention of the £20 settlement scam

and

the 'register your Blue Badge or risk a 'fine' because we want to use ANPR as a first resort' scam: It shows everything that's wrong with the newish jolly wheeze of 'bay monitoring' and keypad/screen systems that require disabled people to take extra steps (that able bodied people don't have to take) EVERY time they visit.

All because UKPC 'want' to run accessible bays remotely rather than on foot, which doesn't pass the DUA Act 2025 'double justification' needed in UK GDPR article 6 and article 9, to process health related data (Blue Badges identify a data subject with health needs)…

…AND making disabled people jump through extra hoops breaches the Equality Act 2010, to boot.

So much illegality in this one.

Oh, and the story features a flaky non-functioning ipad screen, too!

A perfect storm affecting disabled patients:

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/26294747.patient-hit-170-parking-fine-oxford-nhs-hospital/

"A disabled patient has raised concerns after receiving a £170 parking charge despite following instructions at a specialist Oxford hospital.

Amanda Burls, Emeritus Professor of Public Health at the University of London, was due to attend a spinal surgery outpatient appointment at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre (NOC) on October 23, 2025.

She parked in a designated blue badge bay, displayed her valid badge, and registered her vehicle on a tablet with a receptionist inside the hospital.

Her vehicle was later issued with a £80 parking charge notice (PCN) by operators UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC). Dr Burls appealed the charge and provided full details of her blue badge, including photographic evidence.

She submitted a formal complaint in March 2026 but did not receive a substantive response, instead prompting a GDPR-related reply that failed to address the issues raised.

Instead, she was offered the option to settle the charge for £20, reduced from £170, in what UKPC described as a “gesture of goodwill to close this matter".

🤨

NB:…

How on earth did the CMA not spot the £20 is a scam offer, in cases where it's not the motorists fault and/or where the person is disabled, with a legal right to use accessible bays and should NEVER have the added burden of taking extra steps and 'register' to exempt themselves (data intrusive and probably illegal under the DUA Act) and risk being penalised if the shonky system goes wrong?

And CMA - back to basics - just look how non prominent this screen is! It looks like a NHS staff tablet among a pile of desk clutter and there's no UKPC warning sign or arrows pointing to it (see the historical but still used 'Red Hand Rule' in contract law):

"Dr Burls said: “It seems wrong to me that disabled people are being bullied into paying money when they have done nothing wrong.”

During a follow-up visit to the NOC in April 2026, Dr Burls asked staff for proof that her vehicle had been registered on the day in question.

She said this was declined and staff told her the registration system “kept breaking down”.

She also said two other patients, including one elderly lady was experiencing the same issue, with a witness available to support her account.

UKPC and ZZPS were contacted for comment but did not respond.

Course they didn't, they want her to pay the double recovery scam of £170… something else the CMA need to realise is unlawful…

The BPA must be so proud of pulling the wool over the CMA's eyes (so far). Watch this space…

1505grandad

And the money spinning for the DVLA - the source of these scams - rolls serenely on without a care in the world.