Parking Eye (1 Viewer)

[maison]

@GJH
thanks for the response.

With a 25% increase in the sale of new Motorhomes this year we should be approaching the stage when we become a "significant" minority. Acting as a pressure group we may get somewhere.

 

[PeteH]

The whole Issue as being debated here, reinforces my personal justification for having "toad" car? (Yes and on an "A" frame!!) leave the M-H on site and use car and or Public Transport (not always available nor convenient).

Pete

 

[GJH]

@GJH
thanks for the response.

My pleasure

With a 25% increase in the sale of new Motorhomes this year we should be approaching the stage when we become a "significant" minority. Acting as a pressure group we may get somewhere.

Still far too few of us to be all that significant I'm afraid (less than 200,000 MHs in a population of 4 Million). Even less likely is that motorhome owners would act as a pressure group, the vats majority don't want to know when it comes to actually doing anything positive (= takes some constructive effort) to achieve change.

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

 

[9526]

@GJH
thanks for the response.

With a 25% increase in the sale of new Motorhomes this year we should be approaching the stage when we become a "significant" minority. Acting as a pressure group we may get somewhere.

Good luck with that, but it will never happen.

Companies like Parking Eye only make money by levying "fines" (invoices) they are not interested in you, me, our type of vehicle etc etc etc

They want you to breach the "contract" so they can levy a charge against you. They want you to cross the line, be five minutes late, display your ticket incorrectly, because if you didn't they would be out of business.

There are a cpl of posters attempting to justify these companies as "guardians of fair play" but in effect they are nothing more than legalised thugs out to make a profit not just from serial abusers, but from average Joe Bloggs who happens to make a genuine error.

We have allowed this to happen, because we love rules, we love being told what to do and now we are reaping the benefit.

Yes I keep going on about the continent, but have any of the "parking eye supporters" out there EVER paid to park at a retail park in France?

Genuine question

 

[Jim]

Not sure what this case changes. The guy didn't break the law, the ruling was a civil one. People have long ignored these charges misrepresented as pseudo fines on the gamble that it is not cost effective for Parking Eye to bring a civil action for payment of an unpaid invoice. In fact they didn't in this case the guy did.

What has changed?

Dick

The danger will come for individuals who have 10 or more tickets invoices outstanding, it will certainly be worth their while pursuing those guys.

 

[GJH]

Good luck with that, but it will never happen.

Companies like Parking Eye only make money by levying "fines" (invoices) they are not interested in you, me, our type of vehicle etc etc etc

They want you to breach the "contract" so they can levy a charge against you. They want you to cross the line, be five minutes late, display your ticket incorrectly, because if you didn't they would be out of business.

There are a cpl of posters attempting to justify these companies as "guardians of fair play" but in effect they are nothing more than legalised thugs out to make a profit not just from serial abusers, but from average Joe Bloggs who happens to make a genuine error.

We have allowed this to happen, because we love rules, we love being told what to do and now we are reaping the benefit.

Yes I keep going on about the continent, but have any of the "parking eye supporters" out there EVER paid to park at a retail park in France?

Genuine question

So what if they do want people to breach the contract? They aren't actually forcing people to do so are they? All they are doing is relying on the fact that there are enough people who are careless enough, daft enough or simply big headed enough to think they are a special case.

As for the idea of letting people off for a "genuine error", would you let people off something like their insurance liabilities because they caused an accident as a result of "genuine error"?

Who cares about paying to park at a retail park in France? All that means is that the companies concerned recoup the costs of parking provision in other ways (e.g. higher prices). There are plenty of retail parks in this country that have free parking. The ones that charge are those (as posted yesterday) that would be over-run with people other than customers otherwise.

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

 

[Langtoftlad]

No Graham I had to deal with P/Eye i couldn't do that until my CC bill came then it was stopped. Pete

My frustration is not with the parking fines [although I do consider them excessive] nor the rules, regulations & time limits [as long as they are clearly & obviously signed] but with negligent & erroneous charging of those penalties.
In Peter's case, he correctly followed procedure & was within time constraints but somehow was sent a penalty notice.
He has had to waste his time and go to efforts to 'prove' his innocence.
In these cases - surely it's only right that Parking Eye compensate him (and others) for their mistake... costs plus penalties [to encourage them to be more careful and accurate].
Sauce for goose & all that.

 

[GJH]

My frustration is not with the parking fines [although I do consider them excessive] nor the rules, regulations & time limits [as long as they are clearly & obviously signed] but with negligent & erroneous charging of those penalties.
In Peter's case, he correctly followed procedure & was within time constraints but somehow was sent a penalty notice.
He has had to waste his time and go to efforts to 'prove' his innocence.
In these cases - surely it's only right that Parking Eye compensate him (and others) for their mistake... costs plus penalties [to encourage them to be more careful and accurate].
Sauce for goose & all that.

It works with other companies so why not?

Capita Group

Broken Link Removed​

Mr Andy Parker Chief Executive

Email andy.parker@capita.co.uk
Telephone 020 7799 1525

 

[9526]

So what if they do want people to breach the contract? They aren't actually forcing people to do so are they? All they are doing is relying on the fact that there are enough people who are careless enough, daft enough or simply big headed enough to think they are a special case.

As for the idea of letting people off for a "genuine error", would you let people off something like their insurance liabilities because they caused an accident as a result of "genuine error"?

Who cares about paying to park at a retail park in France? All that means is that the companies concerned recoup the costs of parking provision in other ways (e.g. higher prices). There are plenty of retail parks in this country that have free parking. The ones that charge are those (as posted yesterday) that would be over-run with people other than customers otherwise.

Even during your little rant supporting these companies that prey on "careless" (your words) people, you quoted my post but didn't answer the question raised in it.

I think an accident causing damage is different to someone 5 mins late in Tesco and am surprised you used that as an example.

As for higher prices, any examples of this?

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

 

[GJH]

Even during your little rant supporting these companies that prey on "careless" (your words) people, you quoted my post but didn't answer the question raised in it.

I think an accident causing damage is different to someone 5 mins late in Tesco and am surprised you used that as an example.

As for higher prices, any examples of this?

OK then, I haven't "EVER paid to park at a retail park in France" but, as I said, who cares?

Why be surprised at the example? Both are "genuine errors". The scale of the consequences might be different but that is the only difference. Where did the 5 minutes come from? As was pointed out yesterday (post #6), Beavis parked for a 2 hour period and overstayed by 52 minutes.

As regards higher prices, provision of parking is a business expense. All companies cover such expenses in their prices, ergo higher expenses means higher prices. Simple.

 

[9526]

OK then, I haven't "EVER paid to park at a retail park in France" but, as I said, who cares?

Why be surprised at the example? Both are "genuine errors". The scale of the consequences might be different but that is the only difference. Where did the 5 minutes come from? As was pointed out yesterday (post #6), Beavis parked for a 2 hour period and overstayed by 52 minutes.

As regards higher prices, provision of parking is a business expense. All companies cover such expenses in their prices, ergo higher expenses means higher prices. Simple.

The people who are being ripped off here care

You will still get a ticket from parking eye for 5 mins and your 2 examples are chalk and cheese, parking eye don't suffer any "Consequences" if your late by a few mins, It's not their car park.

As for your last point, well I'm struggling to see how parking eye making money from people keeps prices in PC World in check.

We're not going to agree, so I'll leave you to it, I'm off to the continent soon where my van's welcome and there's no Parking Eye.

Oh, if anyone is a bit late a bit of paper over the No plate as you pass the camera will save you £60 (take it off before you get on the road though)

 

[Badknee]

I'm happy to park on car parks controlled by PE in my car but I wouldn't risk it in my MoHo. We try to park with our arse end over grass or so far away from the shops that 99.9% of the lazy buggers won't park but cram their cars in as tight as possible to them.

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

 

[TheTwoOfUs]

Error

 

[GJH]

The people who are being ripped off here care

They should stop volunteering then

 

[TheTwoOfUs]

Going off at a slight tangent but what is the situation if you drive into a car park, walk over to a sign/meter, read it and then realise that you can't comply with their rules so drive out. Will you be charged nothing, the minimum fee or a fine for not purchasing a ticket?
Also, is there any legal requirement for the car park operator to display a 'phone number where they can be contacted in the event of a query?

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

 

[Badknee]

Going off at a slight tangent but what is the situation if you drive into a car park, walk over to a sign/meter, read it and then realise that you can't comply with their rules so drive out. Will you be charged nothing, the minimum fee or a fine for not purchasing a ticket?
Also, is there any legal requirement for the car park operator to display a 'phone number where they can be contacted in the event of a query?

Not sure, but I have never been on a car park operated by PE that I have had to pay for. The ones I have frequented are based on a time in/ time out only. Wherever I have paid by ticket to park on they have had that very quaint old fashioned human enforcer.

 

[GJH]

Going off at a slight tangent but what is the situation if you drive into a car park, walk over to a sign/meter, read it and then realise that you can't comply with their rules so drive out. Will you be charged nothing, the minimum fee or a fine for not purchasing a ticket?

Not sure, but I have never been on a car park operated by PE that I have had to pay for. The ones I have frequented are based on a time in/ time out only. Wherever I have paid by ticket to park on they have had that very quaint old fashioned human enforcer.

The only PE car park I can think of which we use and has a charge is at North Tees Hospital. The first 20 minutes is free, ample time to get in and out if one is unable to comply.

Also, is there any legal requirement for the car park operator to display a 'phone number where they can be contacted in the event of a query?

I don't know of any legal requirement.

 

[GeebeeJaybee]

The people who are being ripped off here care

Fair enough if you haven't overstayed or parked incorrectly - there should be recourse to correct the error. It shouldn't be the hardest thing in the world and could be easier.

However, being charged for overstaying is not being ripped off. The charges are clearly stated so enforcing them is not a rip off - it is action and consequence. The legitimacy of your use of that car park has expired. If somewhere offers 2 hours free and I don't think it will be enough I park elsewhere and pay. I see the high charge as a deterrent rather than a rip off.

I have a 10 year passport - it runs out next February, I wonder if I can still expect it to be valid in March? I think I will have to pay for another - what a rip off!

I rent out our villa in Florida - we have a set time for check out of guests (for various reasons) if they don't vacate on time or make prior arrangements they are charged a fee. It is in our terms and conditions and they agree to this on booking. I don't consider this a rip off - their checking out late has consequences for the next guests.
This is exactly the same principle for these car parks - to free up space for genuine short term users.

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

 

[Langtoftlad]

I have a 10 year passport - it runs out next February, I wonder if I can still expect it to be valid in March? I think I will have to pay for another - what a rip off!

Not a great example
"The cost of £72.50 represents an increase of 80% in just four years".
So yes, I would say the Passport Fee is a ripoff

 

[GeebeeJaybee]

Not a great example
"The cost of £72.50 represents an increase of 80% in just four years".
So yes, I would say the Passport Fee is a ripoff

My point was that I can't expect to continue using it after it has expired - the cost is somewhat irrelevent.

 

[Langtoftlad]

I don't necessarily agree that cost is irrelevant...
If parking penalty charges were much more reasonable £5 - £20 then I doubt that the majority of people would be so outraged.

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

 

[GeebeeJaybee]

I don't necessarily agree that cost is irrelevant...
If parking penalty charges were much more reasonable £5 - £20 then I doubt that the majority of people would be so outraged.

But then they would hardly be a penalty at all! The point is to make them high enough to discourage people flouting the time limits.

 

[critch]

Beware the car park at Lakeside in Ambleside we were done there two years ago for ten minutes over, it happened because we were caught in a deluge and had to shelter. They would not budge, rang the Lake District National Park explained that since my cancer I can't run, the guy virtually told me to get stuffed, contacted Tim Farron Liberal leader he knew about the problem but could not help.

 

[Deleted member 29692]

I don't necessarily agree that cost is irrelevant...
If parking penalty charges were much more reasonable £5 - £20 then I doubt that the majority of people would be so outraged.

Where's the deterrent there?

Plenty of people would happily dump their car somewhere for a days shopping or whatever if they knew it would only cost them 20 quid.

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

 

[Larby]

The ParkByPhone service, in this country anyway, runs alongside the traditional pay and display machines, it doesn't replace them. There's no reason to think this would be any different anywhere else.

I'm not sure which aire that is but the last time we were at Calais Port the money was collected. There was no machine or sign.

There are two addresses mentioned on the sign in your picture and neither of them are for the Port aire so I imagine the sign is for somewhere else.

The sign is at the Calais Aire, Gaston Berthe.
Nothing on the sign to advise of the consequences if you don't pay.

 

[Langtoftlad]

Where's the deterrent there?

Plenty of people would happily dump their car somewhere for a days shopping or whatever if they knew it would only cost them 20 quid.

Fair enough, though not round my way - even parking in the station is "only" £10 for the day.
Then how about a sliding scale?
£5 for 30mins over, £10 for an hour & further £10 for every hour thereafter or part of?
...and compensation automatically if (and when) they get it wrong ???
£75 is outrageous & unconscionable.
Appropriate penalty yes, deterrent yes but not rip off.

 

[Deleted member 29692]

£75 is outrageous & unconscionable.
Appropriate penalty yes, deterrent yes but not rip off.

£75 is normally the penalty if you get a ticket from a council traffic warden, or it is in these parts anyway, so by that logic the private parking companies are charging the "going rate."

The only difference is that the council usually offer a discount for quick payment.

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

 

[GWAYGWAY]

I seemed to have started something here.
On the way to Scotland we stopped at Lockerbie at the hotel on the sevices we passed a ANPR going in and reported to the Hotel reception where we identified our registration plate on the images given on screen, next day we paid and left a week later the DEMAND for payment arrived for £100. I told them no way get lost but it got quite heavy as it was Scottish Law applied. I insisted they look through the records, and in the end they agreed to waive the FINE this time??????????
As far as I am concerned a can of motorcycle chain lube with a long tube would be the ideal camera stopper as it is greasy . sticky and a hell of a job to get off. I suppose it is criminal damage?? " I was only lubricating the hinges, your Honour"

 

[Glandwr]

There is no doubt in my mind that those that pay these pseudo fines are the reticent, inadequate, shy and inarticulate. Anyone that is confident, au fait and articulate enough to protest or ignore them if they are penalised for slightly exceeding "the contract" gets away with it.

With this confirmation that Parking Eye can charge £80 for using a parking space for a few extra minutes that you could get all day for a fiver around the corner is taking advantage of the naive.

The ruling effectively makes it possible for the unscrupulous to exploit the same group in many different ways.

Run a hotel and "fine" a guest for being still there 5 minutes after check out an extra nights stay. Sell Internet by the hour "fine" if contracted time is exceeded etc. etc. All VERY easy if you already have CC details.

Obviously the "fines" would be waived after an articulate protest but still allow the unscrupulous shits to fleece the naive.

Dick

 

[Deleted member 29692]

With this confirmation that Parking Eye can charge £80 for using a parking space for a few extra minutes that you could get all day for a fiver around the corner is taking advantage of the naive.

Park in a council run car park, over stay for 5 minutes and get a ticket issued by a traffic warden or whatever you want to call them. Penalty will typically be £60 - £75 usually reduced if paid quickly.

Park in a privately run car park, over stay for 5 minutes and get a penalty through the post. Penalty will be around £75 - £80.

Can you explain the difference please because for the life of me I can't see it.

I never hear rants about tickets in council run car parks, people just pay them. If they aren't paid most councils have no hesitation in pursuing payment through the courts. Again I never hear rants when this happens.

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