Another parking ticket myth finally slain.

[MrMoonX]

I must be one of the few people who can :

A- Park inside the lines.
B- tell the time.

For this ruling to effectively mean nothing to me.
Why are parking fines such an issue for people?
I actually got a ticket while working when I went to see a customer, I literally just bumped the car up on the pavement on a single yellow line to drop some duplicate invoices off, was in there five minutes and got a ticket.
So when I got back in the office I went online, paid the £65 and got on with life.

I have to agree with Dolph in a way, if you don't like the parking conditions, don't shop there.

Worst example ever this isn't a council/state issued ticket it's a private company being greedy.

 

[wez130]

I must be one of the few people who can :

A- Park inside the lines.
B- tell the time.

For this ruling to effectively mean nothing to me.
Why are parking fines such an issue for people?
I actually got a ticket while working when I went to see a customer, I literally just bumped the car up on the pavement on a single yellow line to drop some duplicate invoices off, was in there five minutes and got a ticket.
So when I got back in the office I went online, paid the £65 and got on with life.

I got a parking ticke......ACTUALLY, i got a reminder, (i never received a NtK), that i had overstayed my welcome (2 hours) in a retail park in Whitehaven with 3 shops in it in January this year. I know full well that i had not been there for over 2 hour as i had visited one store (B&M). However, i did return later the same afternoon to collect an item i had ordered and as such i guess i was double dipped.

I'm still fighting the case now using advise gained from PePiPoo. Last letter i received from them (UKCPS) was in June this year. I received a letter last week from solicitors demanding £275. (£150 legal costs). I have replied and await a response. However, i could be screwed as i'm away for 6 1/2 weeks from the end of this month so any reply i will not see unitl i get back - and it may be too late

 

[Danthus]

You are right, it isn't about 2 hours, it is about the landowners right to set rules on how others use their property and enforce them.

What rights needed to be protected when I parked on an empty Morrisons car park after it had closed one evening?

 

[peterwalkley]

Is there a legal argument to one of the points fox raised about there being no means to pay for an "excessive" stay ? For example, Motorway service stations usually have a 2 hour limit, BUT they also enable you to pay for a longer stay.

I would be more sympathetic to the 85 quid "we've suffered a loss" argument if there was an option to pay for people who know they are going to need more than the 2 hours free time. There has to be a balance between drivers just taking the mick and those who need a bit of flexibility.

 

[atpbx]

Worst example ever this isn't a council/state issued ticket it's a private company being greedy.

It's entirely the same.

The parking company can set what ever tariffs it likes to use its products and/or services.

Same as any orther company.

I always make sure I am back in time for parking as I know there is a chance of getting hit with a ticket.

With the ticket I got, I knew there was a chance of a ticket, I took the risk, got caught paid the fine, but it was an action I chose to take.

Same as if I decide I am going to stay past the time I have paid for in a car park.

It's not an issue.

 

[Nasher]

Since these parking spaces are private land, what's to stop someone simply removing their number plates while parked in one? Your only required to display plates on public highways

That would certainly throw a spanner in the works.

 

[atpbx]

I got a parking ticke......ACTUALLY, i got a reminder, (i never received a NtK), that i had overstayed my welcome (2 hours) in a retail park in Whitehaven with 3 shops in it in January this year. I know full well that i had not been there for over 2 hour as i had visited one store (B&M). However, i did return later the same afternoon to collect an item i had ordered and as such i guess i was double dipped.

I'm still fighting the case now using advise gained from PePiPoo. Last letter i received from them (UKCPS) was in June this year. I received a letter last week from solicitors demanding £275. (£150 legal costs). I have replied and await a response. However, i could be screwed as i'm away for 6 1/2 weeks from the end of this month so any reply i will not see unitl i get back - and it may be too late

I got the same thing delivering to tescos in sleaford many years ago.

I went through the cameras delivering in the morning, went through them again collecting later in the afternoon.

Got a letter saying I had been there all day.
I took it to the store manager and explained the situation and he made it go away.
In your case however, it's a clearly a mistake on their part, but the issue isn't the amount being charged,it's a mistake you are being charged it and that's unfortunate.

 

[wez130]

I wonder if i went into the B&M with the receiptfor the day, they would be able to help out, even though it was in Janaury. I've just been following the advice of PePiPoo so far.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I must be one of the few people who can :

A- Park inside the lines.
B- tell the time.

Me neither, I have never once received a parking invoice from any of these firms - I'm aware of what I'm doing, I check properly and I don't allow myself to get caught out.

That doesn't mean I think it's fair and reasonable for private firms to invoice people 85 quid for spending 2 hours 15 minutes in Pizza Hut instead of 1 hour 59 minutes.

 

[Pudney]

Good old dolph defending the right of capitalistic greed

There is no right for any company to fine or charge anyone these excessive fees, this is a horrible decision which I hope gets challenged later on

There is very much a right for a company to charge. That's exactly what this ruling means, and it won't be challenged as it's gone as high as it can go.

Although it's not particularly fair (in my view).

 

[Pudney]

Me neither, I have never once received a parking invoice from any of these firms - I'm aware of what I'm doing, I check properly and I don't allow myself to get caught out.

That doesn't mean I think it's fair and reasonable for private firms to invoice people 85 quid for spending 2 hours 15 minutes in Pizza Hut instead of 1 hour 59 minutes.

That's not what this ruling means. It means, for the specific circumstances of the retail park in question (where there is no restaurant except a McDonalds), if someone overstays by nearly an hour it is perfectly fine to charge £85.

Cases like this tend to revolve around the facts in question and if you had a retail park with different facts (e.g. overstaying by 15 minutes due to Pizza Hut being busy) then I'd imagine there'd be a good chance to get a different result. Such is English law.

 

[muon]

That's just it. Mitigating circumstances are irrelevant. If you watch the videos it is all about whether the contract is valid. Anything else has nothing to do with the two parties to the contract.

Since it is because it isn't excessive in its terms, nor is there an imbalance in rights, it is enforceable as there is a commerciallly justifiable reason for the deterrent charge and the right of management to be ceded to ParkingEye.

 

[Pudney]

That's just it. Mitigating circumstances are irrelevant. If you watch the videos it is all about whether the contract is valid. Anything else has nothing to do with the two parties to the contract.

Since it is because it isn't excessive in its terms, nor is there an imbalance in rights, it is enforceable as there is a commerciallly justifiable reason for the deterrent charge and the right of management to be ceded to ParkingEye.

No, mitigating circumstances are not irrelevant. In this particular case they were irrelevant because the judges didn't consider there could be a reasonable mitigating circumstance. That's drastically different.

 

[Mr-White]

I think Mr Beavis hasn't properly defended himself.

He's definitely done something wrong, I parked for 12 hours a day, 5 days running in a car park which was 2 hours no return and monitored by Parking Eye. I contested and successfully won.

MW

 

[Dolph]

Presumably you are just going to parrot the term 'property rights' throughout this entire thread so any chance of an interesting discussion has probably gone.

However would you have the same view if a branch of McDonalds setup ANPR cameras to automatically fine anyone who stayed in the carpark for more than 7 minutes?

If not, that rather suggests perhaps there is a threshold of reasonableness.

There is indeed a reasonableness test within the judgement, whether the above example is reasonable would depend on additional factors rather than just the time.

 

[Rich_L]

Nah they were just holding onto your £425 in fines pending the outcome of this case

 

[muon]

No, mitigating circumstances are not irrelevant. In this particular case they were irrelevant because the judges didn't consider there could be a reasonable mitigating circumstance. That's drastically different.

They were specifically discussing the contract and the reasonableness of terms. No mitigating circumstance other than liability from ParkingEye themselves is relevant.

A shop taking a while to serve you for example is not connected to the contract you have agreed with ParkingEye. ParkingEye are not acting as an agent for the retail park but actually themselves have the right to manage the parking. Something they have bought from the retail park.

They make it pretty clear that the reasonableness argument is solely in terms of whether the someone would agree to them when entering the car park and whether the charge is excessive when compared to other benchmarks.

 

[[TW]Fox]

He's definitely done something wrong, I parked for 12 hours a day, 5 days running in a car park which was 2 hours no return and monitored by Parking Eye. I contested and successfully won.

MW

Unless you are trying to set somebody up by preparing to declare BUT ACTUALLY I HAD PERMISSION LOL then this sort of behaviour is exactly why we are in this mess in the first place.

 

[Randomface74]

Just stop paying for parking, solved.

 

[Pudney]

They were specifically discussing the contract and the reasonableness of terms. No mitigating circumstance other than liability from ParkingEye themselves is relevant.

A shop taking a while to serve you for example is not connected to the contract you have agreed with ParkingEye. ParkingEye are not acting as an agent for the retail park but actually themselves have the right to manage the parking. Something they have bought from the retail park.

They make it pretty clear that the reasonableness argument is solely in terms of whether the someone would agree to them when entering the car park and whether the charge is excessive when compared to other benchmarks.

The point I'm making is that drawing the conclusion that mitigating circumstances are irrelevant in all cases is incorrect. It is only irrelevant in the specific circumstances of this case.