Parking Eye (1 Viewer)

[Deleted member 29692]

I'm sorry but that is incorrect. Since I am a Director of the company then I am paying it.

Doesn't matter if you're a director or not. Parking charges are still a legitimate business expense so are tax deductible.

I had a bollocking from my accountant for not claiming enough stuff like that.

 

[GeebeeJaybee]

But it wouldn't be very good business practice if I was constantly paying charges for not getting back to the car on time! Hence I make sure I do whether on business or personal use.

 

[Deleted member 29692]

But it wouldn't be very good business practice if I was constantly paying charges for not getting back to the car on time! Hence I make sure I do whether on business or personal use.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the initial parking fee, not penalty charges.

I think you can still claim them if you want to though.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Glandwr]

I'm sorry but that is incorrect. Since I am a Director of the company then I am paying it. In addition I obviously drive for personal use as well and pay to park accordingly. I paid £3 on Saturday to park for 4 hours in Bakewell. I also made sure I was back within the 4 hours. Its not hard really - just buy a watch!

Also I said I can't use my passport after it has expired - what on earth was the relevance of your response? If my passport has expired it is not valid after the expiration.

I assume like all au fait people if you had returned 5 mins late (maybe because your watch was slow) you would have made representations and had the charge cancelled.

As Nick said it is the stupid, the simple, those that don't like to cause a fuss and the inadequate that pay.

Last month I called on a recently widowed elderly cousin who is in the third catorgary. She was in the process of sending a cheque to PE. The Aldi in Oswestry had recently changed its system from timed entry and exit to a system where you have to enter reg. number in terminal at the till.

She had forgotten, I think understandably as she was just bereaved. "I've got to pay or I could be in court" she said. Then went on to say how they had got one 3 weeks earlier at the Shrewsbury hospital, they had overstayed by minutes because her husband's last oncology consultation had overran and they of necessity were in a timed disabled space.

Now I don't know what kind of dent 2 of these fines would make in the monthly pension of a methodist minister's widow but suspect it wold be quite a big one. I offered to sort the Ali one which took just one letter.

Face it, they make money from bluffing those that are the most vulnerable in society and that it is easy for the articulate and au fait to avoid these fines and condemn those that pay as stupid.

Dick

 

[PeteH]

I assume like all au fait people if you had returned 5 mins late (maybe because your watch was slow) you would have made representations and had the charge cancelled.

As Nick said it is the stupid, the simple, those that don't like to cause a fuss and the inadequate that pay.

Last month I called on a recently widowed elderly cousin who is in the third catorgary. She was in the process of sending a cheque to PE. The Aldi in Oswestry had recently changed its system from timed entry and exit to a system where you have to enter reg. number in terminal at the till.

She had forgotten, I think understandably as she was just bereaved. "I've got to pay or I could be in court" she said. Then went on to say how they had got one 3 weeks earlier at the Shrewsbury hospital, they had overstayed by minutes because her husband's last oncology consultation had overran and they of necessity were in a timed disabled space.

Now I don't know what kind of dent 2 of these fines would make in the monthly pension of a methodist minister's widow but suspect it wold be quite a big one. I offered to sort the Ali one which took just one letter.

Face it, they make money from bluffing those that are the most vulnerable in society and that it is easy for the articulate and au fait to avoid these fines and condemn those that pay as stupid.

Dick

THAT is typical. But what do you expect from the "Greed is Good" society??

Pete

 

[2bob]

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/resources/images/4455340.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=mc3

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Wildbill]

Don't do that in Edinburgh (buy 2 tickets) as you will still get a fine in the council car parks.

Here in the Borders they take where your wheels are in relation to the white lines as being in or out of the permitted space. Our works van was parked with one wheel outside the space and got a fine. It wasn't me who parked it

If I'm not sure I ask (in person or by phone) or find somewhere else to park. If there isn't anywhere else (Ripon, behind Sainsbury is difficult for example) I drive on, sometimes to another town and when I get chance I write to the chamber of commerce in the place I couldn't park, tell them what happened and send them a copy of the receipts for the trade their members lost out on

have parked loots of times in Ripon behind Sainsbury's in bottom and top car park with 7.5m van no problems.
any time we have stayed there.
bill

 

[2bob]

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/resources/images/4455340.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=mc3

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/14...t_at__unfair____100_parking_fine/?ref=mr&lp=5

 

[Deleted member 29692]

As Nick said it is the stupid, the simple, those that don't like to cause a fuss and the inadequate that pay.

Sorry, where did I say that?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GWG]

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/14...t_at__unfair____100_parking_fine/?ref=mr&lp=5

The link would seem to indicate that the Company had acted fairly, and cancelled the Charge. The original fault was an incorrect number entered by the Driver. So they (the company) were within their terms of contract to apply a fine.
The Driver disputes entering a wrong number, but if that was the case, why was the picture, only showing them holding a vague ticket.
A picture of the ticket would have proved their case, so I would be suspicious of their excuse.
If people enter a contract, they abide by the terms, if they break the terms, they get fined.
Same with speed cameras etc. Do something wrong, man up and pay the penalty.

 

[Glandwr]

Sorry, where did I say that?

Many apologies Nick it wasn't you it was Graham in post number 142. I must be getting senile

Dick

 

[GJH]

Many apologies Nick it wasn't you it was Graham in post number 142. I must be getting senile

Dick

Must be because I didn't say it either.

As Nick said it is the stupid, the simple, those that don't like to cause a fuss and the inadequate that pay.

Sorry, where did I say that?

Ignore it Nick. It's the usual refuge of the loser of an argument who won't admit it - twist and misrepresent what was actually said.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Steve]

I got clocked by the parking eye people at Stratford service stn. Over stayed my welcome by 45mins. My fault for not taking the warning signs seriously. 2am in an empty car park. Paid the reduced fine. But now make a point of never stopping there again.

Steve

 

[Glandwr]

I'm sure we could all find an example of bad behaviour in any field. That does not mean that the whole industry is bad any more than an example of excellence means that a whole industry is flawless.
Always remember (as has been pointed out in a number of threads), if people park within the rules the management companies make no money. It is only because so many volunteer (willingly or stupidly) that they make anything.

The companies make money from the contracts they sign with their client businesses. They are well paid to manage their car parks.

When PE first came over here from the States in 2004 their clients were the cowboy clampers (now illegal) PE would alert them for an annual sum so that they could pounce in minutes.

Then came contracts with supermarkets etc. Again contracts were to manage carparks that is what they were paid for. Essentially to frighten people off that took advantage.

But by 2010/11 it was apparent that even though those on genuine business with the Cark park owner were providing a substantial income stream in fines that were maximised by what a judge called "the tort of deceit".

In 2011/12 so unhappy were one of its clients (Somerfield) that they tried to terminate the contract. PE successfully sued them.

Other clients have subsequently sought different ways to mitigate damage to their reputation and cost to their customers. Aldi set up a Facebook page with named individuals who will guide agrieved customers to cancellation of their "fines", Morrisons have a dedicated part of their online customer services dept doing the same.

VERY few customers of the client businesses if on genuine business will have to pay the fines unless they blatantly abuse the system, PROVIDED they make representations.

As I said the bulk of the now huge revenue from fines are from the people who just pay because they are intimidated, or are not au fait.

Far from not making money unless people STUPIDLY volunteer, PE are having their cake and eating it. One small victory has been one though, since last month they can no longer issue fines for up to overstays measured in seconds.

Of course as you say Graham is is perfectively legal, the motorist has entered into a contract with them. I don't think anyone disagrees with you. David Taylor who owned PE before Capita and his big mate (and investor?) 2 jags (prezzer) Prescot certainly wouldn't.

Doesn't stop me thinking that they are a bunch of shits though, who get paid by the landowners to manager their car park then double their money by deceiving the vulnerable.

Dick

 

[Deleted member 29692]

The companies make money from the contracts they sign with their client businesses. They are well paid to manage their car parks.

You're wrong on that point. In the majority of cases the parking companies are not paid at all by the client business. Their sole source of revenue is from penalty charges.

As I said the bulk of the now huge revenue from fines are from the people who just pay because they are intimidated, or are not au fait.

Oh so it's your quote now is it? Ran out of people to wrongly attribute it to?

In 2011/12 so unhappy were one of its clients (Somerfield) that they tried to terminate the contract. PE successfully sued them.

Revisiting this in the same thread is a bit pointless. We've already established that Somerfield were fully aware of everything PE were doing and never queried any of it until they were scratching around for an excuse to terminate early. If, and that's a big if, there were questionable practices going on Somerfield were a very long way from blameless hence they lost the case.

who get paid by the landowners to manager their car park

They might in a few cases. Most of the time they don't.

Your arguments would stand up a lot better if you could refrain from making things up when the facts don't support what you're trying to say. I thought you were more intelligent than that.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Glandwr]

Fair enough 1st and 4th point Nick. I was wrong, miss understood the term "employ".

As to who pays the fines? Would you without question if it involved a matter of minutes and you were there on legitimate business with the car park owner?

Dick

 

[Deleted member 29692]

As to who pays the fines? Would you without question if it involved a matter of minutes and you were there on legitimate business with the car park owner?

Dick

If I thought I had a legitimate reason for being late I would take it up with the company concerned, not make a public fuss.

If I knew I was taking the piss, as a lot of the cases mentioned obviously were, I would pay up and shut up although I would make a point of not putting myself in this situation in the first place.

 

[Glandwr]

If I thought I had a legitimate reason for being late I would take it up with the company concerned, not make a public fuss.

If I knew I was taking the piss, as a lot of the cases mentioned obviously were, I would pay up and shut up although I would make a point of not putting myself in this situation in the first place.

......... and you would have every chance of having it waived. Do you think that most would do as you do?

Dick

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Deleted member 29692]

......... and you would have every chance of having it waived. Do you think that most would do as you do?

Dick

I have no idea.

I notice that a lot of people seem to think bleating about the unfairness of it all on social media is the appropriate first step.

 

[GJH]

As to who pays the fines? Would you without question if it involved a matter of minutes and you were there on legitimate business with the car park owner?

Dick

Some time ago a member of this forum received a charge at a hospital after his young son's appointment had overrun through no fault of his but because of the clinic running late (he had paid for what would normally be plenty of time). I advised him to contact the PALS office and explain the circumstances. He did so and the charge was dropped without question.
Two other cases I can think of off the top of my head:

"I was having lunch at Pico Lounge and was only a few minutes over. It's not fair because 2 hours isn't enough time for lunch".
"Why didn't you park across the road then? You could ave parked there for up to 4 hours for £2".
"Why should I pay when parking is free in the mill yard?".

"I was fined (sic) at Crown Point in Denton. It isn't fair because 4 hours isn't enough time to shop there".
"Why didn't you put your registration number into the machine for the extra 2 hours?"
"I didn't know you could do that".
"It's on all the signs round the car park".
"Oh, well, I never read signs".

Both on the "legitimate business of the car park owner" but charges resulted because of the stupid/willing actions of the people concerned, not because they are vulnerable, intimidated, or are not au fait.

 

[gus-lopez]

You're wrong on that point. In the majority of cases the parking companies are not paid at all by the client business. Their sole source of revenue is from penalty charges.


.

Which means that they have a vested interest in ensuring that as many
" customers" as possible are fined. By virtue of how it is done any company operating like this will eventually ,if not from the outset, sail very close to the wind if not worse.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Which means that they have a vested interest in ensuring that as many
" customers" as possible are fined. By virtue of how it is done any company operating like this will eventually ,if not from the outset, sail very close to the wind if not worse.

It's the same on both sides then Motorists who do not sail close to the wind in terms of the time they park will not have to pay the extra charge

 

[ludo]

So What is the Morality, of the case of the guy who genuinely stopped to ask for directions and received a "Charge". for "parking/Stopping in a prohibited area. No other traffic at the time so no "obstruction". £100-00 for asking the way. That`s Moral Is it? It is apparently LEGAL.?? Which I personally would question!.

Robin Hood Airport, Recently as seen an "Look North" Or "look Linc`s" as we know it North of the river!.

IMHO Morals and Business are divorced bedfellows.

Pete

And did he contact the airport to explain the situation and ask them to cancel the charge? Or did he think the better option was to immediately go complaining to the media?

According to their website the parking there is administered by the airport themselves, no outside company involved. As to legality, as long as it's signed properly then he accepted the contract by choosing to stop there so yes, it's perfectly legal.

I'm not familiar with this case but if he did contact them and they wouldn't cancel the charge I would like to hear their side of the story before jumping to conclusions. How long was he parked there? Where exactly was it? Could it have obstructed emergency vehicles? Was there an appropriate alternative place that he could have stopped in?

The gentleman was probably given the £100 parking charge by Vehicle Control Services Ltd, a subsidiary of Peel Group, one of the largest property investment companies in the UK.

Surprisingly, the approach road to the Robin Hood airport, a 0.6 mile, 4 lane, dual carriageway, with 3 roundabouts, is owned by Peel Investments and is managed by Vehicle Control Services Ltd. (VCS).

Neither the Airport nor the Local Authorities have any control over this approach road whatsoever. So contacting the Airport Authority, as suggested, is of no use at all. Contacting and trying to deal with VCS is also very difficult and time consuming.

There is no congestion on this piece of road but there is a “camera van”, patrolling/lurking on this stretch, just waiting to catch any motorist who, for whatever reason, might just stop for a second or so. There were small signs, here and there, warning motorists not to stop but one had to stop to be able to read them. Those signs have since been enlarged.

This road can be viewed on Google Earth, 53°28'58.92" N 1°01'19.16" W

I was caught by this camera van in January 2014, and received a £100 “parking charge”. I did, eventually, manage to get the charge cancelled, but with a great deal of difficulty.

Be warned! Do not stop on this approach road. If you do, you will most certainly receive a ticket through the post.


For anyone interested, this is a copy of my letter of appeal.


The Manager,

cpo@vehiclecontrol.co.uk


23 January 2013

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: PARKING CHARGE NOTICE Number XXXXXXXX

I acknowledge receipt of the PARKING CHARGE NOTICE Number VC0XXXX issued in respect of vehicle XXXXXX and relating to, “ allegedly breaching the terms and conditions of use of the Privately Operated Access Roads at Robin Hood Airport, Approach Roads”, on 18 January 2014.

I want to appeal this charge.

Background Information

We had been parked at the Robin Hood Airport car park from 7 January 2014 until 18 January 2014.

As we left the car park, on 18 January 2014, and entered the roundabout our Satellite Navigation instrument fell from its mounting and bounced into the back of the car through the gap between the front driver and passenger seats. The power cable was pulled around the gear lever and I had no alternative but to stop immediately.

We retrieved the device from the rear foot well and then continued our journey without delay. We were stationery for no longer than 2 minutes or so to deal with the problem. We caused no obstruction whatsoever. Presumably, your photographic evidence will confirm this to be the case. Indeed, we had only just left the car park, having travelled no more than 120 metres before having to stop. It is obvious that to stop for any reason, other than an emergency, would have been quite unnecessary, bearing in mind we could have dealt with any other issue whilst still in the car park.

Additional Considerations

When we booked and paid in advance for our airport car parking, we entered into a contract with the airport authority. We were not aware that the approach road was privately owned by Peel Investments and managed by its subsidiary company. We did not, therefore, knowingly enter into a contact with them.

Our action in stopping was due to an emergency and, as far as I am aware, did not result in any cost being incurred or damage being caused to the owners of the approach road. In the circumstances, I consider your parking charge notice to be unreasonable and unfair. I believe it to be disproportional, punitive and nothing more than a penalty for what was an essential and very short emergency stop.



Appeal

Please accept this letter as a formal written appeal in respect of the Parking Charge Notice. I trust that you will give fair consideration to it. I look forward to hearing from you at the earliest opportunity.

Should you elect to dismiss this appeal, I shall require, amongst other things, full details of the status of the parking charge, (i.e. is it an invoice, is it a penalty, etc.). I shall also require full details of your losses/damages.

I also reserve the right to add further points to my defence, should it be necessary.

IMPORTANT and additional information.

I have to advise you that I shall be overseas from 2 February – 27 February 2014, and will not be available to deal further with this matter during this period. I therefore ask you to deal with this matter with some degree of urgency.

Yours faithfully,






c.c. Caroline Flint M.P.