Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Finally, something positive seems to be happening.
General No To Mob Discussion / Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Last post by Overlord on 31 March, 2021, 11:55:45 PM »
Human error my arse. Looks more like a phishing scam to me in the hope of conning money out of vulnerable people who are too scared to contest it!! SCUM!!! :-ev-:

“We suspect that human error may be the cause of the problem.”

No mate. It's the cameras that are the problem. If a human being was seen slapping tickets on legally parked vehicles this scam would have been nipped in the bud.

And the worst thing about this is that the new legislation (Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019), won't stop this kind of abuse.


£100 fine for parking to get Covid jab in Telford
By Deborah HardimanWellingtonCoronavirusPublished: Mar 20, 2021

Motorists parking near a coronavirus vaccine centre have been inadvertently issued with penalty tickets.

Terry Rickard, 62, was stunned to get a £100 parking ticket after visiting the coronavirus vaccination centre at AFC Telford

People travelling to AFC Telford, which is being used as a jab hub, are allowed to use a nearby car park with the vehicle registration details collected by centre staff and volunteers on arrival.

However, vaccine centre operators Wellington Pharmacy said they were mystified by complaints that £100 fixed penalty notices were being issued and added that human error may be to blame for the mix-up.

Terry Rickard, 62, of Church Street, Hadley, and his wife Christine, 61, received a notice after leaving their car near the Whitehouse Hotel on March 3.

“We drove there and followed the yellow signs for the vaccine centre. When we pulled in a young lady wrote down our registration number in a big book.

“We assumed we were doing everything right. We were there for less than 30 minutes.

"We were very surprised to get a fixed penalty ticket. We were now wondering if other people have received them.

“We’re concerned that some older people will feel a bit worried if they get one and might pay it without querying it,” Mr Rickard said.

Vaccine site manager Kishan Mehta said: “We are a little mystified about why people are getting parking tickets.

"The car park is managed by ES Parking and we have a device to log the registration numbers of the vehicles belonging to patients coming for their vaccines so there shouldn’t be any issues.

“We suspect that human error may be the cause of the problem.”
#182  Courtesy of Mr Mustard


22 March 2021
Barnet Hospital - ANPR - designed to cheat?

Mr Mustard doesn't get heavily involved in private parking charges as they can end up in the county court and he has no desire to spend half a day sitting around and he doesn't have audience rights without requesting them.

Sometimes though a friend wanders along with a demand which is so patently wrong and unreasonable that he has to put fingers, both of them, to keyboard.

Here are the images which were on the demand for £100

Let us call Mr Mustard's friend, Miss V. She was dropping her friend at the fracture clinic and then going back later to collect her, hospitals not liking extra people who aren't strictly necessary for medical or safety reasons, with the patient. Accordingly there were two or more other unseen photos both at around the same time as the two which were selected, which didn't prove that anyone was in any car park, staff or otherwise, for 1 hour and 52 minutes, Miss V (and her car) being safely at home enjoying a cup of tea and a read of the newspaper whilst she waited for a phone call.
Mr Mustard posted this letter off in the name of Miss V on 16 March.

Fast forward two days and Parking Eye have slammed the ANPR into reverse.

Their willingness to immediately cancel points to the veracity of the facts, there being two visits, not one and thus the alleged breach of contract did not take place and no parking charge was due.
If the same has happened to you, follow Mr Mustard's lead and demand all of your data. The interest of Parking Eye in your wallet or purse may rapidly wane.

ANPR is only as good as the way in which the data has been manipulated, clearly disgracefully in this instance in a one sided manner to suit their purpose of revenue raising.
Bring it on...

I foolishly parked at the Dalson Cross shopping centre last week to nip in to buy lunch. I thought I could take advantage of the 10 minutes free parking offered. Being in a van with a roof rack I parked in the open area. 10 minutes seems quite generous till you realise the access is up the longest ramp in the world, the shops are then another 200m on and despite spending less than a minute coosing lunch, I returned to the pay station at 13 minutes! the price of not running?

£3.50 minimum 1 hour thank you sir! Fecking yee-ha!
You know that the industry is properly pissed off when the both ATAs (BPA Ltd and IPC Ltd who were mortal enemies until now), band together to publish predictions of the end of civilisation if they are not allowed to operate at the levels where they can make outrageous profits.  :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:



23 MAR 2021

Government consultation response heralds the end of free parking for everyone

The two trade associations representing UK parking operators have expressed serious concern following publication of the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government’s response (20 March 2021) to the recent consultation to the enforcement framework for the forthcoming new Parking Code.  The British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC) say the response in its current form is not sustainable and will have a negative impact on the economic recovery, lead to higher parking charges for all responsible motorists and encourage a return of rogue operators who will act outside of the Code of Practice. 

Much of the concern centres on the government’s decision to ignore the need for the parking charge to deter selfish parking. A deterrent level of parking charge for those motorists who park selfishly, coupled with an Appeals Charter, as put forward by the industry, is necessary for effective management of private land. The government’s limited approach is unworkable and unsustainable.

Over 80% of the public supported the industry’s approach, which was put forward as part of the BSI and MHCLG consultations to meet the specific objectives originally set out in Sir Greg Knight’s Private Members Bill.

The BPA and the IPC have both welcomed the introduction of the Parking Code of Practice Act 2019 to further improve the private parking industry but say that ignoring overwhelming public support for fair and proportionate parking charges renders the consultation process completely redundant.

They understand the government’s desire to put a cap on parking charges levied by the private parking companies and the popular demands to align them with the penalty charges used in the public sector but in the context of government’s overall proposal this is unworkable. Car park owners may now be forced to charge for previously free parking in order to cover their costs controlling abuse by a small number of selfish and irresponsible motorists.

It is incomprehensible to propose reducing them and especially at a time when there is more than enough evidence to show that the statutory penalty charges in the public sector are an insufficient deterrent. Witness the events of last summer at Britain’s tourism hotspots where motorists in their droves almost universally ignored parking controls.

The BPA and IPC go on to say that the government’s proposed approach risks a significant increase in selfish parking, depriving responsible motorists of readily accessible and convenient parking for shops, hospitals, residential developments, major leisure venues, centres of education and transport hubs. It would also risk squeezing out legitimate parking operators so that motorists are left at the mercy of rogue operators, who will be incentivised to operate without requesting DVLA data as part of their enforcement operations.

It would be unfortunate if the laudable intentions of Sir Greg Knight, and the significant collaboration between government and the parking sector these past two years led to a significant decline in compliance with existing parking rules, and higher parking charges for most motorists who will be at the mercy of more rogue operators. That cannot be the government’s intention and we call upon it to rethink its proposals. The BPA and IPC stand ready to work with government on delivering a parking service that is fair to everyone.

Ends - for immediate release
And about time too. In my opinion, it should be up and running by the autumn. As I've said before, greed is the downfall of many a criminal and this includes rogue parking companies.
« Last post by acer on 23 March, 2021, 06:42:52 PM »
Watch as the DVLA realises that their Data Protection efforts are a complete joke. Note how they never informed the ICO.

More to come ?????????????????????

Chapter 4: The level of parking charges
Q6 Which parking charge system is most appropriate for private parking? a) the Three-tiered system
b) Mirroring the Local Authority system

Q6.1 Please explain your answer. You may, for example, wish to make reference to other deterrent frameworks (for example, for railway tickets or traffic violations).

Q7 What level of discount is appropriate: 40% as is currently offered in private parking and suggested in the three-tiered system, or 50% as is offered in Local Authority parking?
a) 40%
b) 50%

Q7.1 Please explain your answer, including whether the discount should be set at a different level.

Q8 How should the level of parking charges be set and how should the levels be revised in future?

34. Currently, private parking charges are capped at £100 by the ATAs. Regardless of how serious the breach of terms and conditions, any breach will attract the same charge in a given car park.

35. In the consultation response, we asked respondents for views on a Three-tier system, with the charge level set by the severity of the breach, and the possibility of Mirroring the Local Authority system for Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). The latter also distinguishes between more and less serious breaches, and sets a higher charge for London.

36. Overall, 81% of respondents who answered question 6 supported the three-tier system, with 19% supporting Mirroring the Local Authority rate.

37. 49% of respondents, when asked to explain their answer, spoke of the need for the parking charge to be proportionate to the nature of the breach. 14% of respondents in suggested that the system must be able to protect disabled parking bays and areas where parking is prohibited from misuse.

38. Overall, 10% of respondents stated that the parking charges system should be clear and simple for motorists to understand and for the parking industry to implement. Of those who supported mirroring the Local Authority system, 24% gave this reason for their answer.

39. 9% of respondents argued that private parking charges should be consistent with other systems already in use. Of those who preferred the option of mirroring the Local Authority rates, 33% cited this reason in support of their preference.

40. The consultation also asked respondents to choose between a 40% and a 50% discount for early payment of parking charges (Q7). 75% of respondents preferred the 40% discount and 25% opted for the 50% discount.

41. Some respondents (42%) said that regardless of what the level that the discount was set, it should still be high enough to act as a sufficient deterrent to motorists and should be higher than the original parking tariff owed.

42. We also asked respondents how parking charges should be set and reviewed in future (Q8). 36% of respondents stated that it was important that there be regular reviews to ensure that the level of charges remained a sufficient deterrent. 27% said in particular that charges should be adjusted in line with inflation.

43. We have considered the comments raised about both systems and have designed an approach that best responds to the issues raised in the consultation, set out at paragraph 54.

44. There was strong support for the principle that the parking charge should be proportionate to the nature of the breach. The Local Authority system of upper and lower tiers already delivers on this principle and is well understood by motorists. Therefore, we intend to bring private parking charges into closer alignment with Local Authority PCNs, including its system of 50% discounts for early payment and the distinction between London and Outside London.

45. In London, the new parking charge caps will mirror Local Authority Band A. This means that on all types of private land (for example, customer car parks, residents’ car parks or private land where parking is not invited), more serious breaches can attract a charge of up to £130, while less serious breaches are liable to receive a charge of up to £80.

46. Outside of London, we will mirror Local Authority Band 2 for the majority of private car parking spaces: car parks where parking is invited, either to any member of the public or to customers of public-facing business e.g. supermarkets or shopping centres. On these types of land, more serious breaches of the terms and conditions can incur a parking charge of up to £70 and less serious breaches up to £50.

47. The Scottish Government intends to align with the approach of bringing private parking charges closer to the principles of the Local Authority system. The approach in Wales will be confirmed as part of the process to finalise the Code of Practice.

48. The exceptions outside of London are on land where parking is not invited or is restricted (often through the use of permits) to specific groups, for example private residents or staff. In these cases, the current £100 cap will apply. This is in recognition that these types of land have no direct analogue in the Local Authority system and of the importance of balancing the rights of motorists with those of private landowners.

49. The government’s plans for parking charges will be reflected in the new Code of Practice. We will work with stakeholders on the further detail, including which breaches will be contained with the higher and lower tiers and the process for determining the appropriate level of the parking charge caps on individual car park sites.

50. However, indicative examples of a more serious breach include parking where parking is not permitted or is causes danger or detriment to others (for example, in front of a fire escape or blocking an ambulance bay). Less serious breaches include the overstay of maximum free period or paid-for tariff or parking in a space for parking in bays for other classes of vehicles such as motorcycles or scooters, bicycles or taxis.

51. In recognition of respondents’ views that any system should protect Blue Badge holders, parking in a Blue Badge bay when not eligible to will attract the higher charge in London of £130. Outside of London, abuse of a Blue Badge will not be reduced to £70 but will instead remain at the current £100 to provide a strong deterrent.

52. In keeping with creating greater consistency, parking operators will be required to offer a 50% discount. As respondents have argued, however, the discounted rate must still be higher than any tariff owed. Therefore, if the tariff owed is higher than the discounted level of the parking charge, payment of the full tariff may be sought.

53. Many car parks for designated groups only will be enforced using the permits. We are aware that there can be problems with permits, such as motorists receiving parking charges when a permit has recently expired or if it has been forgotten. These instances are covered in more detail by the Appeals Charter (Chapter 5).

54. Overall, the system will contain the following set of parking charge caps, illustrated by the following examples:

Private ground level or multi-storey car park
Type of breach   Parking charge cap outside London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)   Parking charge cap in London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)
Overstaying free or paid period   £50   £80
Not paying at all   £50 or tariff owed, whichever is higher   £80 or tariff owed, whichever is higher
Abusing a Blue Badge bay   £100   £130
Entering a wrong vehicle registration number   £0-20 with the Appeals Charter   £0-20 with the Appeals Charter
Publicly-accessible customer car park
Type of breach   Parking charge cap outside London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)   Parking charge cap in London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)
Overstaying free or paid period   £50 or tariff owed, whichever is higher   £80 or tariff owed, whichever is higher
Not paying at all   £50 or tariff owed, whichever is higher   £80 or tariff owed, whichever is higher
Abusing a Blue Badge bay   £100   £130
Entering a wrong vehicle registration number (with evidence it is a genuine mistake)   £0-20 with the Appeals Charter   £0-20 with the Appeals Charter
Residents’ permit-only car park
Type of breach   Parking charge cap outside London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)   Parking charge cap in London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)
Parking when not a resident   £100   £130
Land on which parking is not permitted
Type of breach   Parking charge cap outside London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)   Parking charge cap in London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)
Parking   £100   £130
No stopping’ zone e.g. in an airport road
Type of breach   Parking charge cap outside London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)   Parking charge cap in London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)
Stopping   £100   £130
55. We intend for the level of parking charges to be reviewed as part of the general review of the Code of Practice by the Scrutiny and Oversight Board which will take place every two years.

56. In all of the cases mentioned above, the Code of Practice will introduce higher standards to ensure that signage clearly displays the price (if parking is paid for) and the terms and conditions of parking, and consequences for any breach of the terms. This means that motorists will be fully informed when making a decision about whether and where to park.

Chapter 5: Appeals Charter
Q9 Do you agree or disagree in principle with the idea of the Appeals Charter?

Q9.1 Please explain your answer.

Q10 Do you agree or not that the examples given in the Appeals Charter are fair and appropriate?

Q10.1 Please explain your answer. You may wish, for example, to suggest additional cases to be covered in an Appeals Charter or query existing examples.

57. Building on industry best practice, the government asked for respondents’ views on the concept of an Appeals Charter to ensure fairness, public confidence, transparency, proportionality and improved standards in the private parking sector.

58. The Appeals Charter is a statement of the way certain grounds of appeal based on innocent error or mitigating circumstances will be handled by the parking operator. It is intended as a safety net to ensure that responsible motorists who overstay or make an error are not penalised unfairly for doing so.

59. The vast majority of respondents (at least 80%) were in agreement with the Appeals Charter. The themes and views below are, therefore, largely reflective of this viewpoint.

60. The most popular response (40% of respondents) was that the introduction of an Appeals Charter would create a fairer system. Additionally, there was a feeling (from 11%) that the appeals charter would help to minimise and reduce the issues faced by motorists. A majority of these mentioned that this would help reduce charges for genuine mistakes, as the parking companies would be more considerate in issuing charges. A popular comment was that, alongside the benefits for motorists, the reduction in issues for motorists could improve the industry’s reputation in the press. 39% of respondents agreed with the examples given in the Appeals Charter, with reasons stated including that they were fair, sensible and provided an allowance for honest mistakes. Overall, 42% of respondents felt that the driver would be treated fairly under an Appeals Charter based on the examples given for possible appeals in the consultation.

61. Some respondents (15%) felt there was room for additional exemptions or gave further examples for inclusion. Some popular suggestions were: thorough explanation of what constitutes mitigation and parking tickets falling off the dashboard.

62. A smaller number of respondents (8%) also found issue with some, or all, of the examples given. Those examples most found issue were: the failure to display permit; and non-evidenced mitigation. It was felt that both of these examples were too rife for consistent abuse and misuse.

63. Some respondents (16%) flagged the issue of addressing the alleged abuse of parking permits. It was felt that with the examples given there was too much of an opportunity for abuse, a commonly mentioned example being families sharing blue/visitor badges when only one is entitled to it.

64. Based on the consultation response, our intention is that the Code will require operators to sign up to a single Appeals Charter. This will outline the process they will have to follow for appeals on the grounds of innocent error or mitigating circumstances.

65. We will work with key industry and motoring stakeholders to finalise the design of the Appeals Charter, including how to address the concerns raises around permits.

66. However, at a minimum the Appeals Charter will cover the issues outlined in the consultation, including keying errors, breakdowns, mitigating, pay & display tickets, permits and Blue Badges.

Chapter 6: Levy
Q11 Do you agree or disagree that the parking industry should contribute towards the cost of the regulation?

Q11.1 Please explain your answer.

67. As outlined in the consultation, Section 7 of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act allows the raising of a levy for the purposes of meeting the costs of the new regulation. These costs include the development and enforcement of the Code and costs associated with the appeals service.

68. Most respondents to this question (62%) felt that as car park operators benefit financially from parking enforcement, they should then contribute to the cost of introducing higher standards. A small proportion of respondents to this question (17%) had the view that there should be no public money being used to fund the new Code.

69. A group of respondents (16%) felt that neither car park operators nor motorists should be fully responsible for financing the cost of regulation. Instead they believed that these two groups should bear this burden together in some format.

70. There was more support for this from those who agreed (11%) with the notion of parking industry contributing than those who disagreed (4%). However, the driving force behind the view that the burden should be shared was those who neither agreed or disagreed with it, with 31% of that cohort taking this view.

71. A few of those responding to this question (14%) were of the view that the parking industry should contribute as long as the costs were appropriate and transparent. 13% of respondents felt that it was not necessary to introduce a new levy or additional regulations, in particular if current requirements were carried out properly. Support for this primarily came from those who disagreed with the idea of the parking industry contributing to the costs of regulation, with 31% of this group saying this.

72. The government is supportive of the principle, reflected in the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, that the industry should contribute towards the costs of the new Code, its enforcement and the appeals service.

73. We intend to raise a levy, subject to HMT approval, no more than annually, on the parking trade associations, who will be responsible for collecting it from their members. The levy would be raised by a statutory instrument, following the negative procedure.

74. We envisage that the levy will be split between the trade associations according to the parking related turnover of their members. This ensures that larger parking operators contribute more towards the costs of the new system, limiting the burden on Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10