Parking Code evidence - pictures of signs with no £ DRA fee quantified or prominently stated

Switcher_Sam

M25 Cobham Xtra services; Today.
Also a £100 one.. "debt recovery costs" and "administration charge" mentioned, but no amount stated..

(No operator stated on the main sign - this is not the entrance sign, there are very many of these throughout the car park. CP/Nexus appears on the data protection notice only, and Premier has been blocked out with red tape on the "pay at terminal" signs))

Coupon-mad

Euro Car Parks at Blackburn College from this current thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6605420/parking-fine-euro-car-parks/p1

Nothing whatsoever about any debt recovery fee.

The industry want the MHCLG to buy the spin that the DRA fee is part of the 'parking related charges' (POFA 'maximum recoverable sum') that the driver would have faced on the day, and that the escalation has a deterrent value.

Hogwash! In most car parks, people only find out that they are facing £170 after getting the first DRA threatogram.

Earth to PPC World:

That's not how a deterrent works.  

Coupon-mad

Another Euro Car Parks one below.

I will get more, now that I'm sending my Sussex & London based sprogs out looking for me:

This is at the Goldstone Retail Park in the lovely city of Brighton & Hove today.

Nothing about a DRA fee:

 

timpster

Crown Street car park Bolton April 2025 No DRA 

Fruitcake

Taken today, Friday the 30th of May 2025. Small retail car park, Worle, just off the main road into Weston-super-Mare from the M5 J21.

Two damaged signs. On both, the amount of charge is covered up/missing, so not only is there no deterrent, there is no charge if a motorists doesn't pay the early discount.

The comments about further costs could be interpreted as meaning that TPS may incur these costs. There is no mention that these costs may be passed on to the motorist, therefore they do not act as a deterrent. 

Note the prohibited premium rate 'phone numbers, dating the installation of signage to before 2013 I believe.

Note that there is no mention of parking in a bay marked with graffiti, yet someone has gone to great trouble to mark some bays with meaningless graffiti, or is that a symbol for a steam-iron?

pinkelephant12

This sign doesn't meet any of C-M's criteria but I have included it to show that, even where they do include relevant information, it is too small to be read and unlikely to amount to a deterrent.

This is Riverside Retail Park, Chelmsford (the Beavis v Parkingeye car park).  This sign states, "If the Parking Charge remains unpaid beyond 28 days from issue, Parkingeye Ltd may incur additional costs in respect of further recovery action taken and may mean additional charges apply to recover these costs from you."

Nellymoser

Scotland DD5 High St

Additional charges (amount not stated) mentioned in small font section.

Same signs and wording at
DD3 retail park


DD2 4SR stand alone store


DD2 1UG stand alone store. Older sign, same wording. A bit faded! 

Coupon-mad

pinkelephant12 said:

This sign doesn't meet any of C-M's criteria but I have included it to show that, even where they do include relevant information, it is too small to be read and unlikely to amount to a deterrent.

This is Riverside Retail Park, Chelmsford (the Beavis v Parkingeye car park).  This sign states, "If the Parking Charge remains unpaid beyond 28 days from issue, Parkingeye Ltd may incur additional costs in respect of further recovery action taken and may mean additional charges apply to recover these costs from you."

Thanks - in facf, this  does meet the criteria.

Useful to see evidence that:

- the £85 when Barry Beavis parked there eleven years ago in 2014, has not changed

- there is nothing readable that could be described as a 'DRA fee cluebat' deterrent

Remember that ParkingEye admitted in court in the Beavis case that they paid the landowner. This let them penalise slower (disabled, elderly, shoppers with kids or like Barry, delayed through no fault) customers.

Ten years ago, it was said in court that they were "paying the landowners c£1000 per week on average" out of the profits made from issuing as many PCNs as possible. At £85 a pop (but let's say a third cancelled / complained about / never paid, and the majority of the approx 2 thirds that were paid, were at £50), they HAD to issue 30 PCNs per week to the slowest shoppers to even make a few quid.

For ParkingEye sports car driving top bananas to even get out of bed and consider the place "monetised" (their word), it would have been a LOT more PCNs at each site than 30 per week.

How is this set up in any way OK?

What really riles me is that ParkingEye even make council applications to reduce the free parking time (not the retailer). e.g. Aldi Portslade, where they succeeded in the end:

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9031524.aldi-fined-for-breaking-law-on-parking-charges-at-portslade-store/#:~:text=Aldi%20has%20admitted%20breaking%20the,after%20pleading%20guilty%20by%20letter.

It's the tail wagging the dog mindset, effectively "we aren't ripping off enough victims so we need to reduce the free stay time" (which rumour had it was reportedly 3 hours at Riverside, Chelmsford before). Wonder who reduced it... 

Coupon-mad

UKPS at the Coventry Rugby Club Butts Arena in this current thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81473156/#Comment_81473156

Crystal86 said:

Parking Charge Notice from UKPS. The notice shows the Vehicle entering the car park and leaving within approx. 9 minutes.

As you can see here terms and conditions were on the back of the sign behind this one. 

Nothing readable about adding any extra charges (nor about ANPR surveillance, which is a breach of the DPA/UKGDPR).

Even if people read that hidden t&cs board about permits, people would only see the £PCN sum and do not know about the fake fee add-on. So it cannot in a million years have any deterrent value.

This sort of alleged contract surely creates a 'drip-pricing' structure - or similar misleading omission - which is illegal under the CPUTRs. Offences under those regulations are now newly enforced (just weeks ago) by the Competition and Markets Authority, who must be consulted about the ban on DRA fee escalation (long overdue).

NCC1701-A

Prohibitive term contracrno mention of added fees, taken today 31 May.