I was fined £250 after hospital parking machine said I didn't need to pay
A motorist faces a £252 parking bill from a hospital visit three years ago – despite being told he did not have to pay.
Gordon Clark, 71, and his wife Jennifer visited the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Gateshead on August 12, 2022 to see a friend and stayed for an hour and 13 minutes.
They arrived at 6.09pm and left at 7.22pm, but when they entered the registration details of the Renault Captur in the machine Mr Clark said the message displayed on the parking machine read: 'No payment required'.
He said he was shocked weeks later to receive a fixed penalty notice charge for £40 from ParkingEye, the company that manages the hospital's car parks using number plate recognition technology.
He said: 'I checked the registration with my wife and I inputted the number again and received the same message.
'We left the car park and returned home only to receive a parking charge notice through the post two weeks later.
'I have disputed this with ParkingEye. However, their blind faith in the infallibility of their equipment has kept them pursuing me since, questioning my honesty and integrity.
'My wife and I are both retired and have always paid our dues.'
Mr Clark, who worked as a construction consultant, lives in Medburn near Ponteland.
He said: 'I have asked ParkingEye to request an explanation from their equipment supplier as to how this has happened and also how many other motorists have experienced the same issue.
'I have never received a response but have instead received many letters stating they maintain their position followed by threatening letters from a third-party debt collection agency and a court letter for over £250 for a less than £3 parking fee.
'As far as we were concerned there was no charge. As a matter of principle, I do not want to pay it. I am absolutely incensed.'
Mr Clark said he intends to fight the matter in court if necessary.
He said: 'The debt collection agency's language is getting more and more threatening. We don't believe we are alone, there will be other people like us out there.
'I think most people have caved in because they can't be bothered with the hassle. This has caused me a lot of aggro. I am having chemotherapy at the minute and my wife is recovering from major surgery. It is something we don't flaming need. It is so frustrating. I just wish I had taken a picture of the damn thing.'
Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust, which runs the hospital, said ParkingEye was an independent contractor responsible for managing the parking arrangements on the site.
A spokesperson for the trust said: 'While we do not have the full details of Mr Clark's case and so cannot comment on his situation, we are sorry for any distress caused by this issue. ParkingEye is an independent contractor which manages the car parking payment and penalty notice system on our behalf.
'If patients or visitors speak to us about parking issues, we will always try to assist, particularly where people have had problems with the payment system or exemptions.
'Although Gateshead Health is not involved in the operational management or the enforcement of ParkingEye's policies, nor in the issuance of fines, we will offer advice and assistance where possible.'
ParkingEye has been contacted for comment but not responded.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Motor 1
05-05-2025
- Motor 1
Lotus Emira With Yellow Exhaust Tips Pays Tribute to an F1 GOAT
In his day, Jim Clark was regarded as Formula 1's greatest driver. Seemingly everyone who raced with him said the Scotsman was the best, and had he lived beyond the age of 32, he'd certainly have added to his two F1 titles and Indy 500 win. Clark only drove for Team Lotus, and now, Lotus Cars is paying tribute with the Emira Clark Edition. It has yellow exhaust tips. Specifically, this is commemorating Clark's 1965 season, where he dominated both Formula 1 and Formula 2 championships, the Tasman Series, and the Indy 500, becoming the first Scot to do so, and the first in a rear-engine car. He also won two British Saloon Car Championship races that year in a Ford-Lotus Cortina. It's one of the greatest racing years by any driver ever, so 60 years later, Lotus rightly saw fit to honor Clark's remarkable achievements. Photo by: Lotus The Clark Racing Green and yellow livery references the traditional Team Lotus colors up until 1968, and more specifically, the Lotus 38 with which Clark won the Indy 500. There's yellow exhaust tips, a hand-painted stripe down the side of the car, chrome mirrors, a silver and blue fuel cap that references the 38, and a Clark Edition badge at the leading edge of the doors. Inside, half the interior is trimmed in red, which was used for the cockpits of Team Lotus cars back in the 1960s. There's also a wood gearknob, just like the Lotus race cars of the era, a Clark signature on the dash, and a badge on the driver's seat listing Clark's 1965 titles. There's also a Clark Edition badge inside, and a carbon-fiber doorsill that marks out the fact that the car is 1 of 60. Photo by: Lotus Lotus uses the Emira V-6 as a base for the Clark Edition, which means a Toyota-sourced, supercharged V-6 making 400 horsepower and a six-speed manual transmission. The automaker has done Jim Clark tributes before, with the Esprit in 1992 and the Elise in 2009, both with similar green-and-yellow paint schemes. You could argue that Lotus is out of ideas, but as both a massive Clark and Lotus fan, I won't hear any of it. Unfortunately, Lotus has paused U.S. imports indefinitely because of Trump's tariffs, but a spokesperson for the company tells us we will get some of the 60 here eventually. In the UK, it costs £115,000, which is over $150,000 at today's exchange rates. So this one's for the true believers. Gallery: Lotus Emira Clark Edition 20 Source: Lotus Share this Story Facebook X LinkedIn Flipboard Reddit WhatsApp E-Mail Got a tip for us? Email: tips@ Join the conversation ( )
Car and Driver
05-05-2025
- Car and Driver
2026 Lotus Emira Clark Edition Honors One of History's Greatest Drivers
Lotus is celebrating its Formula 1 heritage with the Emira Clark Edition, which the brand revealed this past weekend at the Formula 1 Miami Grand Prix. The special edition honors the legacy of Jim Clark with a green and yellow livery inspired by Clark's legendary 1965 Lotus Type 38. It's based on the 3.5-liter V-6 version of the Emira, with production limited to just 60 units worldwide. There's all sorts of hubbub in today's racing climate about which professional racing drivers have the best all-around talent. As the active driver currently closest to achieving the Triple Crown of motorsports, Fernando Alonso puts himself in the conversation. Then there's Scott McLaughlin, the three-time Supercars champion and seven-time IndyCar race winner. NASCAR's Kyle Larson went as far as saying he "knows" that he is a better all-around driver than the then-three-time F1 World Champion Max Verstappen. Historically, though, there's really only one answer, and that's Jim Clark. Lotus Lotus Lotus certainly agrees, and the automaker is honoring six decades since the late driver won his second Formula 1 championship by producing a limited-edition version of its Emira sports car. In that 1965 season, Clark dominated the Formula 1 field, racking up six wins out of nine starts. What happened to the 10th start? Clark was busy winning the Indianapolis 500 in a Lotus Type 38. In the same season, Clark secured the championship in Formula 2 and the Tasman Series that takes place in Australia and New Zealand, plus he spent his off weekends winning touring-car races in a Lotus Cortina. From the C/D Archive Tested (1992): Lotus Esprit Jim Clark Edition Honors a Hero Back to that special edition: it's called the Clark Edition, and it's limited to just 60 units worldwide. Just like the Type 38 Clark that piloted to win the 1965 Indy 500, the Clark Edition sports green paint accented with a yellow racing stripe. The exhaust pipes around the back of the car are also finished in yellow, and the fuel cap is finished in anodized blue to match the original race car. A hand-painted yellow pinstripe finishes the exterior's special touches. Lotus Lotus Inside, the Emira sports an asymmetrical look with a driver's seat in red leather and Alcantara to match the race car, and a passenger seat finished in black leather and Alcantara. The gear knob is made out of wood as another nod to the Type 38, with numbered doorsills adding to the air of exclusivity. The brand hasn't disclosed U.S. pricing for the limited edition, though the U.K. versions will cost the equivalent of $152,651 at current exchange rates. That doesn't take into account the current 25 percent tariff on imported cars, which has led to Lotus's decision to pause imports of the model to the U.S. indefinitely. Jack Fitzgerald Associate News Editor Jack Fitzgerald's love for cars stems from his as yet unshakable addiction to Formula 1. After a brief stint as a detailer for a local dealership group in college, he knew he needed a more permanent way to drive all the new cars he couldn't afford and decided to pursue a career in auto writing. By hounding his college professors at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, he was able to travel Wisconsin seeking out stories in the auto world before landing his dream job at Car and Driver. His new goal is to delay the inevitable demise of his 2010 Volkswagen Golf. Read full bio
Yahoo
03-05-2025
- Yahoo
‘They set the motorist up to fail': How car parks became a cash cow
It was a simpler time. You'd drive to your local shops, find that elusive parking space and take time to sort your bags out, get your children out and put everyone's coats on. A gentle stroll across the car park later, armed with 20 pence pieces, you'd drop the right amount into the meter for the time you wanted and collect your ticket to display. Sometimes, and it's incredible to think of this in 2025 – you might even pay an actual, real-life parking warden. Or, of course, your local supermarket, shopping centre or hospital might not even charge you at all. Certainly there weren't automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras giving you five minutes to gather your stuff and pay. There were no apps requiring correct parking codes, sign ups, credit card numbers and – crucially – mobile signal. No complicated machines requiring your exact number plate, or multiple buttons that never seem to work. No hidden signs saying how much you'll be charged if you overstay your free welcome. Yes, there were abuses of any system and yes, people still got fines, but the numbers are now staggering. As widely reported last week, we're on course to receive 14.5 million private parking charge notices this year. 'It's inconceivable that in recent years tens of millions of drivers have set out purposefully to flout the rules and run the risk of getting a ticket for £100,' says Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation, a transport policy and research organisation. 'It's about four times the number doled out a decade ago, which can't be explained by increases in car parking spaces, traffic volume, population or number of cars; the numbers still look implausibly high. 'That means either the rules are not clear to motorists when they park, or the rules are being over enthusiastically enforced in the interest of making as much money as possible.' Yet it wasn't ever this way. Private car parking management companies – and their charging systems – only really took off in 2012 after the introduction of the Protection of Freedoms Act. Ironically, this was supposed to stamp out the widespread and unpopular process of clamping and vehicle removal that was rife on private land. But it was what came next in the Act – 'consequently many private landholders will rely primarily on 'ticketing' to enforce parking conditions on their land… by sending a ticket to the vehicle's registered keeper' – which actually made managing car parks for the likes of Parkingeye, Euro Car Parks, Horizon Parking, Smart Parking and APCOA Parking even more enticing. It allowed parking companies to go after the registered keeper of a vehicle, where in the past they needed to prove who the driver was. Combined with the introduction of remote camera enforcement via ANPR, a modest investment in technology could lead to quick and big returns. It's telling that most of these companies are backed by private equity – Parkingeye, the market leading private sector operator of ANPR car park management, might be based in Chorley, Lancashire but they're owned by Macquarie Capital (an Australian multinational investment banking and financial services group) and funds advised by international private equity firm MML Capital Partners. Ironically, given their name, it's only Euro Car Parks out of the top five companies who are a privately owned British company. In its last accounts, it posted a £22m profit and its website quite clearly states: 'Euro Car Parks is passionate about increasing revenue on your car parks'. Quite. 'Just how lucrative the sector has become is evidenced by the number of firms accessing vehicle keeper data from the DVLA,' says Gooding. 'Pre-pandemic it was 137, today it is 180.' No wonder so many consumer groups suspect parking management companies – who, let's not forget, don't actually own these car parks – are incentivised to increase the number of parking charge notices; in the famous Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis case which ended up in the Supreme Court in 2015, it was actually revealed that Parkingeye paid a fixed weekly amount to the landowners, and retained any charges it recovered. Though, the appeal from Billericay chip shop owner Barry Beavis over his £85 fine was eventually dismissed. Andy Taylor, from the 47,000-strong Facebook campaign group Private Parking Tickets Help and Advice has literally seen it all, from people fined for taking too long to pay, to misleading or simply faulty machines. A popular complaint concerns hidden or unclear signs saying free parking when the small print says it's only free for a set period (at which point a fine of up to £70 is automatically imposed). Then there are minor infractions which the cameras pick up, like briefly stopping in a designated area, or literally driving in and out of a full car park but still being captured. Or the 'double dip' as it's known in the trade, where people get charged for 36 hours in a car park when actually they'd visited twice for short periods of time, and the ANPR system hadn't spotted them leaving. And its the language used when you get the parking charge notice which can be just as intimidating, too. These are not parking fines, and they shouldn't be termed as that – or penalty charge notices. Technically only a council or other statutory authority can issue a fine – a private company can't. But they certainly sound like they are. Technically they are actually an invoice for a breach of contract you entered into when you drove into the car park. Which means you should never automatically pay the charge, but interrogate the invoice carefully to see whether you think it's correct, and dispute it if you deem it unfair. 'There are so many traps and wheezes,' says Taylor. 'They set the motorist up to fail, but they also set the vulnerable up to fail, and that's a real issue. Take any minor keying error that people make when they enter their registration plate.' Taylor is talking about cases like Donna Nash's, who was ordered to pay Excel Parking £282 earlier this year after losing a court case when she only entered the first two letters of her registration plate in a Worksop car park before paying. 'I just feel sick to be honest with you,' she said. 'It's taken a lot of our time. It's just been very stressful and hard.' Then there was Debbie Dinckal, who received a parking charge notice after the final three letters of her registration plate were missing, again despite having paid for her ticket. Euro Car Parks rejected her appeal, before being made an offer to settle for £20. When she declined that, a debt collection company demanded £170 from her. 'You feel bullied and frustrated,' she said. Euro Parks have also been criticised by Guy Falkenau, 80, after they sent him two penalty charges when he parked in the car park at the local theatre, The Glasshouse, in Newcastle upon Tyne. Even though he showed a blue badge on the car's dashboard, he was fined £200 because of a 'technical fault'. 'It's potentially discriminatory,' he said. Andy Taylor knows that '£20 to forget about it' trick better than most. Sometimes he will even recommend people pay it if they really can't be dealing with the stress a potential court case might entail. But for him, it's another element of what he sees as an exploitative practice. 'The car parking companies might say that it will be cancelled if you appeal but they should never be issuing these kinds of charges in the first place,' he says. 'It's very much a case of 'issue first' and then do everything you can to avoid cancelling.' Late last year, for example, Rosey Hudson hit the headlines when she was taken to court for £1,906 by Excel Parking after she took longer than five minutes to pay for her parking in Derby on a series of occasions due to poor mobile reception – even though she did actually pay for the parking (and even paid the first parking charge notice – at which point Excel sent her nine more). 'This claim was absolutely ludicrous… it gives you a lot of stress. I'm very worried,' she said at the time, to which Excel somewhat coldly responded: 'it seems that Miss Hudson is the author of her own misfortune.' Yet one month later, after Derby MP Catherine Atkinson called it a 'five minute rip-off charge' in the House Of Commons, Excel quietly dropped the case. But in a very similar incident in Darlington, where Excel Parking demanded £11,390 in parking charges from Hannah Robinson (who had also paid each time) the judge dismissed the claim last month as 'unreasonable and out of the norm' and told the firm to pay £10,240.10 in costs to charity. Excel are appealing. 'I'd been begging to speak to them… I was asking for so much help to sort this out,' Robinson told the BBC. Taylor reckons his group have won 93 per cent of the appeals they've dealt with since 2019. He takes the process seriously, providing advice initially for appeals where there's been a clear error in charging, then helping to write defences, take witness statements and even attending court as a lay representative if necessary. And he does so completely voluntarily. Why?'Well, in this increasingly strange world in which we seem to be losing control of everything, this is the one thing I can do to help redress the balance,' he says. The frustration from Taylor and Gooding is that this balance should already have been redressed by government. In 2019, a Private Members Bill enabled the introduction of a Parking (Code of Practice) Act for private parking companies; it included halving the cap on tickets for most parking offences to £50, creating a fairer and independent appeals service, higher standards for signage and banning the use of aggressive language on tickets. It also contained some of the voluntary codes of conduct industry body the British Parking Association (BPA) had developed, and yet some of the BPA's members began a legal challenge, concerned that the price charge cap and the removal of the operator's ability to make additional charges for non payment could cause a reduction in revenue. The Code of Practice was withdrawn in June 2022. Still, Alison Tooze, the BPA's chief engagement and policy officer is – perhaps surprisingly – just as keen that the Government get a move on. 'Before 2012 and the Protection Of Freedoms Act it was effectively a Wild West of unregulated parking and clamping,' she says. 'It was bad, and we were talking to government back then about a code of practice, if only because you needed to have some oversight if the DVLA were going to hand over keeper details. 'But the government didn't want to regulate it themselves, which is why we began our approved operator scheme. That's the deal now; if you're a car parking operator and you want details from the DVLA you have to be in one of the two accredited trade associations – of which we are one.' The problem though, as Steve Gooding points out, is that 'self-regulation isn't going fill us with confidence that appeals will be considered even-handedly and sharp-practice stamped out.' 'I can see why it looks like we're marking our own homework,' admits Tooze, 'that we're just protecting our own members. It's not a comfortable place to be and we've always said that it would be better if there was some government oversight on this, a proper regulatory framework that doesn't involve us. 'The BPA itself has done nothing to block the Code of Practice Act; we're waiting for the government to go and do an impact assessment, lay down the code and get independent bodies overseeing it. That's where we're going and what we welcome – I just can't tell you the timescale.' So we asked a Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson what it might be. They can only say they're continuing to engage with consumer groups and trade associations to raise standards. 'Motorists must be protected when using private car parks, and we are determined to drive up standards in the industry,' says the spokesperson. 'We know how much of an issue this is for drivers, which is why we will set out further details on the private parking code of practice as soon as possible.' How many millions more parking charges will be issued before that time is a moot point. The figure bandied about is 41,000 a day. 'It sounds a lot, doesn't it?' admits Tooze. 'But like it or not, there's just a lot more places being monitored now,' she says. 'And that's because private landowners want more control of who is parking on their land. 99.7 per cent of cars parking every day do so with no issues at all.' All of which means Andy Taylor from Private Parking Tickets Help and Advice is likely to be busy for some time to come. 'That number sounds about right,' he says. 'And quite frankly, they're relying on you either paying the charge to make it go away, ignoring them, or challenging them to a negotiation. Whichever way, they end up getting paid. So, absolutely, we need legislation.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
