Parking Charge

[Malc1]

3 hours ago, GMB said:

I think one of the parasitic directors is based in Australia.

let's have his details then and he might wish he could stay where the sun don't shine ............... baseball bats they too have in Aussieland 

Malc

[Malc1]

In fact let's have all the details of this miscreant business Directors and senior Officers and we can create some sort of an Official Blacklist and take it from there

Aussieland baseball bats are also available in the UK 

I'd be very surprised if these nauseating vindictive individuals couldn't be tracked down and publicly asked for their comments and we could offer commiserations as a few tens of thousands of aggrieved public decide to take some remedy forward ...........  I'll be buying shares in the baseball bat manufacturing business tho'

Malc

[wharfhouse]

1 hour ago, Boomer54 said:

In truth I draw the line at arguing against judicial precedent. I might like a good 'fight' on occasion as i find it stimulating, but I also see little point when you already know you are likely to lose. I would though try a low ball without prejudice in F & F settlement.

Yes - I looked into a lot of this when I was going to take a stand against my charge - I'd paid £10 for parking on returning to my car thinking it was all good to be told on the parking charge I'd done something wrong at the machine and should have paid £15 as I was 15 minutes longer than the £10 covered (this was in London). It was camera controlled parking and I put the number plate in the machine before leaving but the interface was so unintuitive I really don't know what I did wrong and would have paid £15 if that is what it would have told me to pay (which it must have known as it had my entry time and the time I was paying...) - like you were saying my point was I would be happy to pay something but the charge was excessive for a simple mistake - but when I looked into it all they have so much case law on their side due to judges giving in to their demands the chances of reducing the amount through the small claims court was negligible and so in the end after a few months of arguing I paid the reduced offer of £60. Maybe they would have taken less but I'd other things to deal with at the time. 

IMO the government needs to regulate this all properly as it's just licences to fleece motorists at the moment with no attempt at reasonable behaviour and the parking companies just out to maximise profits regardless of reasons or problems they are causing for what are often genuine mistakes. But we know that's not happening after the government's last climb down... 

 

[wharfhouse]

37 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

In fact let's have all the details of this miscreant business Directors and senior Officers and we can create some sort of an Official Blacklist and take it from there

Aussieland baseball bats are also available in the UK 

I'd be very surprised if these nauseating vindictive individuals couldn't be tracked down and publicly asked for their comments and we could offer commiserations as a few tens of thousands of aggrieved public decide to take some remedy forward ...........  I'll be buying shares in the baseball bat manufacturing business tho'

Malc

I've been through Companies House to try and identify some of them - they run everything through multiple holding companies and so takes some tracing - probably don't pay any UK tax on their ill gotten gains... Although you can get to a name there are of course no personal addresses in the Companies House records - just their admin addresses which are next to useless as you know any contact through there will be just be filed in the bin... 

[Malc1]

4 minutes ago, wharfhouse said:

I've been through Companies House to try and identify some of them - they run everything through multiple holding companies and so takes some tracing - probably don't pay any UK tax on their ill gotten gains... Although you can get to a name there are of course no personal addresses in the Companies House records - just their admin addresses which are next to useless as you know any contact through there will be just be filed in the bin... 

not always quite so clear cut ……. where those individuals might have been common directors whatever to other businesses their prior addresses might be on public view …….. 

 

might be worth a punt that direction up the swanny 🤔 ….. murky waters often run deep 

Malc 

[Boomer54]

19 minutes ago, wharfhouse said:

Yes - I looked into a lot of this when I was going to take a stand against my charge - I'd paid £10 for parking on returning to my car thinking it was all good to be told on the parking charge I'd done something wrong at the machine and should have paid £15 as I was 15 minutes longer than the £10 covered (this was in London). It was camera controlled parking and I put the number plate in the machine before leaving but the interface was so unintuitive I really don't know what I did wrong and would have paid £15 if that is what it would have told me to pay (which it must have known as it had my entry time and the time I was paying...) - like you were saying my point was I would be happy to pay something but the charge was excessive for a simple mistake - but when I looked into it all they have so much case law on their side due to judges giving in to their demands the chances of reducing the amount through the small claims court was negligible and so in the end after a few months of arguing I paid the reduced offer of £60. Maybe they would have taken less but I'd other things to deal with at the time. 

IMO the government needs to regulate this all properly as it's just licences to fleece motorists at the moment with no attempt at reasonable behaviour and the parking companies just out to maximise profits regardless of reasons or problems they are causing for what are often genuine mistakes. But we know that's not happening after the government's last climb down... 

 

FYI many of these car parks are supposed to give you 10mins at each end so perhaps up to 20mins to account for being able to access and find a space and then subsequently to leave. That may be different to if you exceeded your paid for time allotted of course.

[wharfhouse]

5 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

FYI many of these car parks are supposed to give you 10mins at each end so perhaps up to 20mins to account for being able to access and find a space and then subsequently to leave. That may be different to if you exceeded your paid for time allotted of course.

Yes I'd thought of that one too but i was 15 minutes over the paid for time apparently otherwise I'd have argued the 10 minutes with POPLA as that's part of their "code of practice" for what it's worth. Basically unless you can prove they have done something wrong with the signage or you can prove you should have exemption in their "code of practice" they have plugged all the holes that people used to use in the past with case law (kept beating up the judiciary on a case by case basis until they got the case law that they now rely on in small claims court for all subsequent claims) and so the only way they can really be now challenged to show reasonable behaviour is by the government changing how they must operate. But we know that's not going to happen any time soon! 

[Malc1]

19 minutes ago, wharfhouse said:

Yes I'd thought of that one too but i was 15 minutes over the paid for time apparently otherwise I'd have argued the 10 minutes with POPLA as that's part of their "code of practice" for what it's worth. Basically unless you can prove they have done something wrong with the signage or you can prove you should have exemption in their "code of practice" they have plugged all the holes that people used to use in the past with case law (kept beating up the judiciary on a case by case basis until they got the case law that they now rely on in small claims court for all subsequent claims) and so the only way they can really be now challenged to show reasonable behaviour is by the government changing how they must operate. But we know that's not going to happen any time soon! 

Create the BLACKLIST of the individuals involved and Partyiy it away to a likely MP present or likely to be ……. and suggest they bring pressure to bear on whomsoever

BLACKLISTS often concentrate the mind

Malc  

[wharfhouse]

1 minute ago, Malc1 said:

Create the BLACKLIST of the individuals involved and Partyiy it away to a likely MP present or likely to be ……. and suggest they bring pressure to bear on whomsoever

BLACKLISTS often concentrate the mind

Malc  

I've had a conversation with my local MP too (conservative party) - she says all the right words and I believe that she actually supports change being brought in - but when it comes to central government (of any colour) actually acting I don't hold out much hope...!

[dutchie01]

1 hour ago, wharfhouse said:

I've been through Companies House to try and identify some of them - they run everything through multiple holding companies and so takes some tracing - probably don't pay any UK tax on their ill gotten gains... Although you can get to a name there are of course no personal addresses in the Companies House records - just their admin addresses which are next to useless as you know any contact through there will be just be filed in the bin... 

May i suggest using Linkedin. I typed Parkingeye in the search engine and presto a whole list of employees, names, titles, email etc

[Malc1]

2 hours ago, dutchie01 said:

May i suggest using Linkedin. I typed Parkingeye in the search engine and presto a whole list of employees, names, titles, email etc

Methinks the Chairman of the Board and the Board members

Chief operating Officer and Chief Finance person or similar 

AND the SHAREHOLDERS 

Name and Shame …. a BLACKLIST   from which decisions can be made to inflict similar pain and grief whatever upon those miscreants 

Malc 

[wharfhouse]

5 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

Methinks the Chairman of the Board and the Board members

Chief operating Officer and Chief Finance person or similar 

AND the SHAREHOLDERS 

Name and Shame …. a BLACKLIST   from which decisions can be made to inflict similar pain and grief whatever upon those miscreants 

Malc 

Do you think they care though...? They are raking it in and don't give a s**to about the pain they cause anyone else. In a few years they will be off with their money and disappear from view before the government finally get around to maybe making a change! 

[J Henderson]

Thanks for the responses people.

I was granted another 7 days to settle at the reduced £60, and I've paid it.

My heart was telling me I should fight them and pay nothing, but I'd rather just take my lumps and get it over with since the reason why I parked in that ****hole in the first place, was not exactly a happy one (a funeral).

For reference, should any of you find yourself in Falkirk...avoid the Callendar Square car park at all costs. 🤬

 

 

[wharfhouse]

34 minutes ago, J Henderson said:

Thanks for the responses people.

I was granted another 7 days to settle at the reduced £60, and I've paid it.

My heart was telling me I should fight them and pay nothing, but I'd rather just take my lumps and get it over with since the reason why I parked in that ****hole in the first place, was not exactly a happy one (a funeral).

For reference, should any of you find yourself in Falkirk...avoid the Callendar Square car park at all costs. 🤬

 

 

Sorry to hear about the funeral - it's often at times of great stress that we get ripped off like this - I've been there myself - hope you can move on from this now it's paid and you at least had the reduced rate which at a minimum was small positive in the outcome. 

[scudney]

John at least it's now over and done with now and a compromise reached and sorted, in my younger days I  was always willing and ready to fight the system as best as I could, in my old age I take a more pragmatic approach to life and things in general lol 😆 

[Malc1]

On 12/30/2023 at 9:39 PM, wharfhouse said:

Do you think they care though...? They are raking it in and don't give a s**to about the pain they cause anyone else. In a few years they will be off with their money and disappear from view before the government finally get around to maybe making a change! 

I know that I for one would be very wary of being on a bad business blacklist 

My business happens to be unfortunately with a set of “ unfortunates “ that have had huge IT problems of their own making by not trialling the new system first ……. several of my similar position members of their effective Govt Franchise down to us 450 or so, are I’m feeling bankrolled by mischievous unscrupulous individuals who are totally ****** off with a £million or two cashflow hiccups ….. those rich financing individuals will be totally unforgiving and probably overseas based and “ untouchable “ tbh 

I’d be amazed if they haven’t created their own blacklists of the errant individuals and a lack of open addresses at Companies House will unlikely serve as a safety net 

Parking is a different league I'm sure BUT that BLACKLIST will enable one to be wary of those named miscreants for the future …… and other businesses aware maybe of the ire they’ve caused ….. should they think to employ them in any capacity 

Just a thought !

Malc 

[Boomer54]

On 12/30/2023 at 10:33 AM, Boomer54 said:

This is a topical issue.

My daughter holds a parking permit issued by her employer for a car park managed by UK**S. They issued a parking notice as they took pics of her car not showing the permit. Probability is with the wind recently the permit probably got blown off the dash when she exited her car. I helped her appeal enclosing a copy of the permit. I was surprised when they refused on the technicality that the permit is not shown displayed in the pics. I was surprised ,because they did that on the basis of breach of contract, but as a rule you cannot claim compensation if you cannot prove loss. In this case regardless of not displaying the permit she is clearly entitled to park therefore there is no loss. Hence, I have helped her to appeal to I*S who are the arbitration body to which UK**S belong. I have also helped her ask the company to supply a copy of their contract with the landowner so that we may see under exactly what criteria the company may issue parking notices. If there is anything that denies them doing so to permit holders they are stuffed. Besides which they must now decide if they wish to have that contract out in the public domain with everything included being seen.

We may ,or may not succeed with this appeal and it may go to small claims, but that depends upon how the information unfolds as we go. Let you know how we go on.

In the past we have had a couple of parking charges dismissed when I was able to prove full payment had been made even if for whatever reason it had not been displayed. I would imagine when we have been driving this long we have all seen what happens when you leave a car and the draft sweeps your dashboard clear. Problem is these f...wts think they can use any technicality to make a sordid money grab instead of giving consideration to the simple contract of, offer and consideration, you let us park and we pay in full. End of and goodnight.

The latest on this is I appealed it to IAS and UKCRAP uploaded a defence. I now have a further chance to rebut their claim and evidence. Came across some nice case law Jopson V Home Guard Services 2016 that apears to be a fine fit for this specific case so I will use that. Unfortunately, I am told that IAS are something of a kangaroo court working for the car parking companies. If that really is the case then I will make it my mission to smoke 'em in small claims court. The money isn't the real issue here. I really just don't like sordid, opportunistic money grabbers like this. When one comes for someone in my family I have the primordial urge to 'seek and destroy' so I won't be rolling over easy for them.

Keep you updated.

[wharfhouse]

4 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

The latest on this is I appealed it to IAS and UKCRAP uploaded a defence. I now have a further chance to rebut their claim and evidence. Came across some nice case law Jopson V Home Guard Services 2016 that apears to be a fine fit for this specific case so I will use that. Unfortunately, I am told that IAS are something of a kangaroo court working for the car parking companies. If that really is the case then I will make it my mission to smoke 'em in small claims court. The money isn't the real issue here. I really just don't like sordid, opportunistic money grabbers like this. When one comes for someone in my family I have the primordial urge to 'seek and destroy' so I won't be rolling over easy for them.

Keep you updated.

Yes, IAS and POPLA are two bodies created by the parking companies to try and "show" they have an appeal process. I've dealt with POPLA and found that all they are interested in is did the parking company comply with the guidelines for signage and that's about it. Anything outside of that (such as mitigating circumstances or fair practice) they aren't remotely interested in. I doubt case law will sway them at this stage as the parking company will have uploaded an "evidence" pack they use for all challenges and IAS will simply tick the box that they have followed guidelines and reject the appeal. I hope you get a different result but it will probably mean seeing it though the process of potentially small claims court to properly argue your case. Do keep up all updated and good luck with it. I think most people in the country have had it to the back teeth with these money grabbing companies that show no interest in actual circumstances but make a living off the penalty charge notices (wouldn't surprise me if their business model runs at a big loss if they didn't issue any PCNs). 

[Bluemarlin]

4 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

The latest on this is I appealed it to IAS and UKCRAP uploaded a defence. I now have a further chance to rebut their claim and evidence. Came across some nice case law Jopson V Home Guard Services 2016 that apears to be a fine fit for this specific case so I will use that. Unfortunately, I am told that IAS are something of a kangaroo court working for the car parking companies. If that really is the case then I will make it my mission to smoke 'em in small claims court. The money isn't the real issue here. I really just don't like sordid, opportunistic money grabbers like this. When one comes for someone in my family I have the primordial urge to 'seek and destroy' so I won't be rolling over easy for them.

Keep you updated.

To give you an idea of how hard such appeals are, I'll give you an example of one I faced.

The situation was one with a car park that required permits to be visibly placed. I was a vistor, and received a ticket in the 5 minutes it took me to go inside and get a visitors permit. I was told that no grace period was refered to or allowed in the signage or t&cs.  I was told that I should have either parked outside the car park while getting the permit, or arranged to have had the permit given to me in advance.

I argued that on two points. The first being that all nearby street parking was either yellow lines or residents permits, so no legal street parking was available. The second being that it was impossible to get the permit in advance as their rules stated that visitors permits were not allowed to be taken offsite.

I therefore argued that the way things were structured, there would always be two brief periods where it was impossible to display a valid permit. Those periods being on arrival, when obtaining the permit, and on departure when returning it. I also argued that a grace period existed for such a circumstance in pay and display car parks.

Despite applying at the highest level available, my apeals were rejected. The appeals companies do seem to favour the parking operators, and will adhere to the strict letter of the law, without any consideration for reasonableness.

[Boomer54]

16 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

To give you an idea of how hard such appeals are, I'll give you an example of one I faced.

The situation was one with a car park that required permits to be visibly placed. I was a vistor, and received a ticket in the 5 minutes it took me to go inside and get a visitors permit. I was told that no grace period was refered to or allowed in the signage or t&cs.  I was told that I should have either parked outside the car park while getting the permit, or arranged to have had the permit given to me in advance.

I argued that on two points. The first being that all nearby street parking was either yellow lines or residents permits, so no legal street parking was available. The second being that it was impossible to get the permit in advance as their rules stated that visitors permits were not allowed to be taken offsite.

I therefore argued that the way things were structured, there would always be two brief periods where it was impossible to display a valid permit. Those periods being on arrival, when obtaining the permit, and on departure when returning it. I also argued that a grace period existed for such a circumstance in pay and display car parks.

Despite applying at the highest level available, my apeals were rejected. The appeals companies do seem to favour the parking operators, and will adhere to the strict letter of the law, without any consideration for reasonableness.

Understand, and expect the appeal to fail, but here is the good news, I will take them to any court I need to to get real law. Deep pockets, they better have them because I certainly do.

[Malc1]

Create that BLACKLIST too someone  .......  let's pusue them for whatever odious actions can be generated against those individuals and their Shareholders ..  and if the shareholders are corporates then the individuals behind those too

Malc

[Boomer54]

19 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

Create that BLACKLIST too someone  .......  let's pusue them for whatever odious actions can be generated against those individuals and their Shareholders ..  and if the shareholders are corporates then the individuals behind those too

Malc

Indeed, so let me tell you what I found. That business Park is owned by the Derwen****er Group which is (irony coming) now run by Trustees as a charitable foundation ! Managed for them by a Group Workman LLP.

Very charitable that they want to do this to my daughter currently a recovering cancer patient who insists on going to work to help people with their mental health issues ! Jesus, talk about satire.

Well, they just poked the wrong bear.

[wharfhouse]

2 hours ago, Bluemarlin said:

To give you an idea of how hard such appeals are, I'll give you an example of one I faced.

The situation was one with a car park that required permits to be visibly placed. I was a vistor, and received a ticket in the 5 minutes it took me to go inside and get a visitors permit. I was told that no grace period was refered to or allowed in the signage or t&cs.  I was told that I should have either parked outside the car park while getting the permit, or arranged to have had the permit given to me in advance.

I argued that on two points. The first being that all nearby street parking was either yellow lines or residents permits, so no legal street parking was available. The second being that it was impossible to get the permit in advance as their rules stated that visitors permits were not allowed to be taken offsite.

I therefore argued that the way things were structured, there would always be two brief periods where it was impossible to display a valid permit. Those periods being on arrival, when obtaining the permit, and on departure when returning it. I also argued that a grace period existed for such a circumstance in pay and display car parks.

Despite applying at the highest level available, my apeals were rejected. The appeals companies do seem to favour the parking operators, and will adhere to the strict letter of the law, without any consideration for reasonableness.

Yes - exactly this - POPLA / IAS were created by the parking companies and simply look at the most basic of facts and go by the exact T&Cs of the "contract" with no thought given to the real life circumstances and they cannot adjudicate on a sensible outcome for both parties - it's black and white. The only recourse after the that is to allow it to go to the small claims court. However even that is hard to win (assuming the company follow though) as you are still fighting the terms as written in the "contract" and a lot of case law where judges have ruled in the parking companies favour already - it is all very one sided and in real world business the parties can usually find some sort of mutual ground for a settlement - but with the parking companies they simply abuse the system for their own ends with no concept of a settlement even when you offer what most businesses would consider reasonable. 

[Boomer54]

Surprising what you can learn just reading. If you get Parking Charge Notice from one of these cowboys it isn't the same as that issued by councils and they the companies don't have the same access to information. The likelihood is when you receive one of these it will be addressed to the keeper of the car. They will probably attached camera shots showing the car parked and no permit or parking ticket displayed. If there is no pictoral evidence of who was driving the car the best reply is just " I am the keeper of the car,but I am not the driver of the car, and the law does not require me to furnish you with said details, goodbye. Please address all future correspondence to A.N.Other, Address Unknown".

[Malc1]

That’s brilliant ……. please make that widely known on this Forum ……. 

maybe a Mod can suggest a sub heading whatever to amplify this for ALL TO SEE 

Malc