Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Purple-flower
    • By Purple-flower 7th Oct 19, 4:33 PM
    • 195Posts
    • 489Thanks
    Purple-flower
    Barnet Hospital Parking Eye fine help
    • #1
    • 7th Oct 19, 4:33 PM
    Barnet Hospital Parking Eye fine help 7th Oct 19 at 4:33 PM
    Hello everyone,

    A friend of mine received a parking fine from parking Eye at Barnet hospital so I pointed them here but they are not able to post due to new membership so I’m doing it for them.

    Thy were issued with two fines on two separate days for picking up a relative from work when the relative’s car was at the garage. As there is no mobile reception in the hospital, they had arranged to swing by at a certain time, if they were not at the entrance, to come back 30 mins later when they would be. The Parking eye ANPR read this as as one long stay even though the car had been in and out twice.

    The photo sent was so grainy and did not identify any positioning, landmarks, parking lines, nothing really. It is impossible to tell where the photo was taken.

    Following the advice on this forum, and appeal was made and rejected and Popla numbers generated. We have looked through the popla appeal thread but not really sure what to do.

    Really looking for advice as to grounds or direction to take when making the popla appeal.

    Thank you so much everyone, any help is much appreciated.
Page 1
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 7th Oct 19, 4:35 PM
    • 7,115 Posts
    • 7,456 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    • #2
    • 7th Oct 19, 4:35 PM
    • #2
    • 7th Oct 19, 4:35 PM
    Complain to the Hospital, if your relative works there, try the HR department otherwise you might go through PALS.
    • Purple-flower
    • By Purple-flower 7th Oct 19, 4:52 PM
    • 195 Posts
    • 489 Thanks
    Purple-flower
    • #3
    • 7th Oct 19, 4:52 PM
    • #3
    • 7th Oct 19, 4:52 PM
    Thank you Le_Kirk, we are still within the popla 28 day response period but depending on how long it will take to take this up with the hospital what happens if we start to approach the deadline? Should we reach out to parking eye to say we are pursuing this with the hospital?
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 7th Oct 19, 4:53 PM
    • 7,115 Posts
    • 7,456 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    • #4
    • 7th Oct 19, 4:53 PM
    • #4
    • 7th Oct 19, 4:53 PM
    POPLA codes last 32 days, keep chasing the hospital but don't miss the POPLA appeal deadline.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 7th Oct 19, 5:00 PM
    • 15,591 Posts
    • 16,357 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #5
    • 7th Oct 19, 5:00 PM
    • #5
    • 7th Oct 19, 5:00 PM
    Have you read this?

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

    Did they fully comply?

    In any case, PE signs are rubbish, read this

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5972164

    Nine times out of ten of these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

    Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

    Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

    Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Purple-flower
    • By Purple-flower 7th Oct 19, 5:30 PM
    • 195 Posts
    • 489 Thanks
    Purple-flower
    • #6
    • 7th Oct 19, 5:30 PM
    • #6
    • 7th Oct 19, 5:30 PM
    Thank you Le_Kirk and The Deep, I’m looking through the links now. Any ideas as to the best argument for the popla appeal? Should we just say it as described in the original post?
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 7th Oct 19, 5:33 PM
    • 3,338 Posts
    • 4,278 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    • #7
    • 7th Oct 19, 5:33 PM
    • #7
    • 7th Oct 19, 5:33 PM
    "Should we just say it as described in the original post?"



    that would be a certain loose at POPLA



    you need to study the newbies thread especially the section on POLA appeals ... you will find there several appeals for you to crib from






    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822



    .
    Oh ... and using a phone to browse the site can cause problems.. so please try a laptop/PC


    Ralph
    • Purple-flower
    • By Purple-flower 7th Oct 19, 5:59 PM
    • 195 Posts
    • 489 Thanks
    Purple-flower
    • #8
    • 7th Oct 19, 5:59 PM
    • #8
    • 7th Oct 19, 5:59 PM
    Thank you Ralph-y, looking at it now. Just had a quick look at the paperwork and one of the fines was sent twice same ref and date but one letter has a POFA and the other doesn’t! Not sure how to handle that... the other fine is has a POFA at the back
    • Purple-flower
    • By Purple-flower 7th Oct 19, 10:49 PM
    • 195 Posts
    • 489 Thanks
    Purple-flower
    • #9
    • 7th Oct 19, 10:49 PM
    • #9
    • 7th Oct 19, 10:49 PM
    Thank you so much to everyone for all the help. The letter is looking like this so far, do you think its good to go?

    1. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

    ''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

    Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.


    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

    2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

    The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

    It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


    3. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet
    PoFA 2012 requirements

    Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.
    PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:

    “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

    ParkingEye’s NtK simply claims that the vehicle “entered [xxx] at [xxx] and departed at [xxx]”. At no stage does ParkingEye explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by POFA 2012.
    ParkingEye uses ANPR (while failing to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR) to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the vast unbounded and unmarked area to calculate their length of stay.

    Any vehicle passing by will be captured by ANPR. ParkingEye, however, does not provide any direct evidence of its alleged violation. It is not in the gift of ParkingEye to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

    By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ParkingEye are not able to definitively state the period of parking.
    I require ParkingEye to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the
    NtK.




    4. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of
    Practice – non-compliance

    The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
    "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorized way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

    The NtK in question contains two close-up license plate images. Given the vast area that has neither been bounded nor marked as parking restricted, any vehicle passing by can be captured by ParkingEye’s APRN. As a result, these images cannot be used as the confirmation of the incident and ParkingEye claim was unauthorised. I require ParkingEye to produce evidence of the original images containing the required date and time stamp and images showing the car is actually parked in the location stated rather than just passing by. I require Parkingeye to produce images to show the vehicle engaged in the alleged contravention in keeping with point 20.5aa as previously stated. Given the unbounded nature of the venue, failing to produce such evidence would indicate the ParkingEye has been using APRN to engage random license plate collection of all vehicles passing by and send NtK with the aim to extract penalty. Such action is no different from sticking parking tickets to all vehicles passing by.

    Recent investigation (27 Apr 2018) by BBC
    (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43912327) shows that the private parking industry is unregulated and does not have any accountability. Various cases show the industry’s priority is maximizing the penalty received from the motorist without due regard to the integrity of the evidence. Private parking operators are financially incentivized not to use the original image as evidence, but putting partial evidence together to generate a case biased towards generating a penalty fee. Based on the fact above, I require ParkingEye to produce strong evidence, audited by qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial objective.


    5. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

    ParkingEye’s NtK simply claims “that the vehicle “entered [xxx] at [xxx] and departed at [xxx]”. ParkingEye states the images and time stamps are collected by its ANPR camera system installed on site.

    In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, POPLA please take note and bin your usual 'ANPR is generally OK' template because:
    The British Parking Association DOES NOT AUDIT the ANPR systems in use by parking operators, and the BPA has NO WAY to ensure that the systems are in good working order or that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has NOT found that the technology is 'generally accurate' or proportionate, or reliable at all, and this is one of the reasons why Councils are banned from using it in car parks.

    As proof of this assertion here are two statements by the BPA themselves, the first one designed to stop POPLA falling into error about assumed audits:

    Steve Clark, Head of Operational Services at the BPA emailed a POPLA 'wrong decision' victim back in January 2018 regarding this repeated misinformation about
    BPA somehow doing 'ANPR system audits', and Mr Clark says:
    "You were concerned about a comment from the POPLA assessor who determined your case which said:
    "In terms of the technology of the cameras themselves, the British Parking
    Association audits the camera systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate"
    You believe that this statement may have been a contributory factor to the POPLA decision going against you, and required answers to a number of questions from us.

    This is not a statement that I have seen POPLA use before and therefore I queried it with them, as we do not conduct the sort of assessments that the
    Assessor alludes to.


    POPLA have conceded that the Assessor's comments may have been a misrepresentation of Clause 21.3 of the BPA Code which says:

    ''21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.''

    Our auditors check operators compliance with this Code clause and not the cameras themselves.''


    As POPLA can see from that, excessive use of ANPR is in fact, illegal, and no-one audits it except for the ICO when the public, or groups, make complaints.

    ParkingEye is put to strict proof that the system has not failed visitors to the hospital.

    POPLA cannot use your usual 'the BPA audits it' erroneous template that needs consigning to the bin.

    Kindly stop assuming ANPR systems work, and expecting consumers to prove the impossible about the workings of a system over which they have no control but where independent and publicly available information about its inherent failings is very readily available.


    6. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what
    the ANPR Data will be used for

    The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair
    Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.
    Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks,
    as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this
    technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

    ParkingEye’s signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.

    There is no information indicates that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices.
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 9th Oct 19, 11:10 AM
    • 3,338 Posts
    • 4,278 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    please be patient.... there are not that many forum members who will critique POPLA appeals / witness statements ... ect ....



    the forum is busy at the min ... and some members are away / busy.


    I am sure you will be advised soon


    Ralph
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 14th Oct 19, 9:19 AM
    • 3,338 Posts
    • 4,278 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    what is your deadline for the POPLA appeal?


    Ralph
    • Purple-flower
    • By Purple-flower 15th Oct 19, 6:08 PM
    • 195 Posts
    • 489 Thanks
    Purple-flower
    Hi Ralphy thank you for getting back - the deadline was yesterday but we submitted anyway. There is another one that we haven’t heard anything back about - parkingeye emailed back saying they wanted the driver details within 29 days or they may reject it or give a popla code but it’s been over 30 days and they haven’t got back with a response or popla code. We called to find out what was going on and what to should do and we spoke to the rudest person ever - she actually put the phone down on us after refusing to say who was driving!

    Barnet hospital have given me a form to fill in anyway - my question is though - should we say who was driving in the form to Barnet hospital or not?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 15th Oct 19, 6:11 PM
    • 25,331 Posts
    • 32,518 Thanks
    Redx
    I would not reveal who was driving to anyone

    The royal we is usually ok
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Purple-flower
    • By Purple-flower 21st Oct 19, 10:21 PM
    • 195 Posts
    • 489 Thanks
    Purple-flower
    Thank you Redx - we will keep it vague
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 21st Oct 19, 10:38 PM
    • 4,934 Posts
    • 7,246 Thanks
    Half_way
    Quick question, if this was a double dip, then why are you playing merry hell with the Hospital?
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Oct 19, 10:45 PM
    • 78,028 Posts
    • 91,581 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Thank you so much to everyone for all the help. The letter is looking like this so far, do you think its good to go?
    Not yet, if this was two visits misread as one! Why isn't #1 of the POPLA appeal that point? Write your own version telling POPLA. Can you prove it? Dashcam? Google location on the driver's phone?

    Or was the car in fact within the Hospital site all the time? Read this:

    https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/03/parkingeye-lose-in-court-accuse-drivers.html

    Have they used two photos from two DIFFERENT parts of the hospital with different rules in each? The drop off point has noticeable markings.

    Your POPLA appeal should be put on the back burner till day 30 from rejection.

    FIRST, you should be playing merry hell with the Hospital and ParkigEye again first, telling them this was an ANPR camera error/double visit misread, if the car actually left the entire site then returned.

    Read this too:

    https://www.britishparking.co.uk/ANPR

    ''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:

    a) Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.

    b) Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner''.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,060Posts Today

6,355Users online

Martin's Twitter