British motorists hit with parking fines every two seconds
Motorists are being hit with parking fines every two seconds, research reveals.
Private parking firms issued 7.8 million fines between April and June last year – the highest on record, and equivalent to 43,000 a day, according to Churchill.
The car insurer analysed requests sent to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) by 193 firms over the three-month period. Private parking companies must obtain vehicle keeper records from the DVLA in order to issue a penalty.
Councils, as well as private companies, are profiting from mass fines. Motorists paid out a record amount of £620m in parking fines to councils during the 2023-2024 financial year, as town halls hit drivers with 1,000 tickets every hour.
The AA this week warned that punitively high charges for parking, designed to reduce the number of cars on the road, are 'speeding up the death of the high street'.
The motoring body warned that rates above £5 an hour are putting people off visiting high street shops entirely.
In a rare victory, motorists will have more time to pay for parking after the Government last month approved legislation to scrap the five-minute rule which saw drivers fined if they did not pay for using a private car park within five or 10 minutes.
The decision was triggered by motorist, Rosey Hudson, who was taken to court last November by the operator of a car park in Derby for not paying her tickets within five minutes of arrival.
Excel Parking demanded Ms Hudson pay £1,905.76 to clear nine outstanding penalty charge notices, which included a £70 'debt recovery' charge for each one, 8pc annual interest and £195 in court costs.
Edmund King, president of the AA, said drivers were 'being taken for a ride' by parking firms.
He said: 'These numbers are astonishing and excessive. The problem is many of the drivers who receive these tickets are worried about the hassle of appealing and debt collectors – even if they think they might be in the right and the parking companies are in the wrong.
'So they just pay up, because they don't want their credit record to be affected. Millions of drivers are being taken for a ride.'
Mr King added: 'Another problem is that we still haven't got a fair appeals system. These figures suggest that many parking companies are just getting away with it as a recipe to print money.'
Under current rules, appeals have to go through the parking companies first which critics have argued can be biased. Once an outcome has been made, the motorist can escalate it to an independent appeals body.
Lisa Webb, legal expert at consumer website Which?, said: 'A parking charge notice or other privately issued ticket isn't a fine and can't be imposed on you – but a private company can pursue you through the courts for payment.
'So if you think the charge isn't correct or there are mitigating circumstances, such as ill health or vehicle breakdown, you may want to contest it.
'First, appeal to the car park operator and follow the operator's internal appeals process. If the company rejects your appeal, then you can appeal to an independent appeals system.'
'If the independent adjudicator agrees with you, the private parking charge will be cancelled. But if your appeal is refused, the company can carry on seeking payment and ultimately has the option of taking you to court.'
The DVLA was approached for comment.
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
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
AA Assist let me down after a collision – and wanted nearly £1,000 to give my car back
When my rear bumper was torn off after a collision with a post, the AA directed me to its Accident Assist service. I was told my vehicle would be recovered immediately and assessed for repairs on the next working day, and that the service would liaise with my insurer. I was also promised a courtesy car. My car was taken into storage over the weekend. Four days later, it had still not arrived at the nominated garage. It eventually arrived on day five, and I was informed it would take up to four days to assess. The courtesy car never happened, and I found my insurer had not been contacted. I lost faith in the service and asked to take my car back and I was told it would cost £991.71 in cancellation fees, including £254.50 for storage over the weekend. I arranged a repair myself which came to £1,200, only marginally more than Accident Assist's bill for messing me around. RB, York The Accident Assist leaflet is unambiguous. It promises a speedy repair, a courtesy car and hassle- and cost-free handling of insurance claims. You received none of these. The storage charges you have been billed for are astronomical and inflated by the delay in removing your car to the garage on the Monday. An online search suggests average storage costs for a car are between £20 and £45 a week. When I queried them, the AA decided it had made a mistake. The £254.50 storage fee, it now claims, is the cost of transferring your car to the garage, and that the cost of its weekend sojourn, also billed as storage, was only £76. It has agreed to refund you the larger sum and a £150 admin fee. As for the delays, AA's argument is 'these things can happen'. The courtesy car, it says, is granted only when the insurer agrees to pay, and the insurer is contacted only when the car has arrived at the repair garage (four days later in your case). Neither of these caveats are mentioned in the terms and conditions. The AA insists it does not take fees from repairers or storage providers, and that it is funded by 'combining a number of services together [for] our insurance customers and breakdown members'. AA Accident Assist says: 'When the customer chose to withdraw from making a claim, we instigated the cancellation process, which the customer was advised of on the initial call. 'We acknowledge that the incorrectly itemised invoice caused confusion and, upon review, we have agreed to reimburse the customer for this error.' You are now appealing to the Financial Ombudsman Service as you feel you are still out of pocket. We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at or write to Consumer Champions, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number. Submission and publication of all letters is subject to our terms and conditions. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
Which? accuses Sports Direct of misleading pricing tactics
UK retailer Sports Direct is facing scrutiny over its pricing tactics following an investigation by not-for-profit UK consumer group Which? The group has raised concerns about the use of reference prices on the company's website, suggesting that the savings advertised may not be genuine. The findings have led to a call for the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to investigate the matter. Which? said that its researchers analysed the prices of 160 products on the Sports Direct website and identified instances where the higher reference prices used to indicate savings did not seem authentic. The investigation specifically targeted the use of recommended retail prices (RRPs) and related terms such as manufacturer suggested retail prices (MSRPs) and suggested retail prices (SRPs) on the retailer's site. Sports Direct is known to employ RRPs to showcase potential savings to customers. However, Which? readers have frequently reported suspicions about these RRPs, with Sports Direct a recurrent subject of concern. According to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), consumers are likely to interpret RRPs as the standard market price, which may lead them to perceive Sports Direct's pricing as a significant bargain. But Which? says that its investigation revealed that other online retailers were not selling products at the RRP or MSRP levels quoted by Sports Direct. In many cases, competitors' prices were found to be equal to or lower than those offered by Sports Direct, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the reference prices used. The Sports Direct brand is owned by British sportswear and fashion retailer Frasers Group. In April 2025, Frasers entered a multi-year retail partnership with Accent Group to introduce and manage its Sports Direct brand in Australia and New Zealand. "Which? accuses Sports Direct of misleading pricing tactics" was originally created and published by Retail Insight Network, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Almost quarter of drivers have not had eye test in past two years
Nearly one in four drivers (24%) have not had an eye test in the past two years, a new survey suggests. The poll, commissioned by insurer Churchill, comes amid growing concern over the lack of checks on drivers once they pass their test. Drivers in the UK must read a number plate 20 metres away as part of their driving test, but that is the only time they are required to prove their sight is good enough to drive. The NHS recommends people have their eyes tested every two years. Motorists are required to self-declare if they have a medical condition that could affect their ability to drive. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander received a prevention of future deaths report from HM Senior Coroner for Lancashire Dr James Adeley in April, which related to the deaths of four people killed by drivers with failing eyesight. The motorists had ignored the advice of opticians that their sight had deteriorated to a level where they should no longer drive. The Churchill survey suggested that 83% of UK adults would support compulsory eye tests for drivers every decade. The figure rises to 88% for those who would be in favour of sight exams every three years once drivers reach 70 years old. Some 12% of drivers surveyed admitted they either thought their sight was not road legal, or were not sure it was. Department of Transport (DfT) figures show 240 people were injured and seven were killed in crashes on Britain's roads in 2023 in which defective eyesight was a factor. That was the most casualties since 2017, when the total was 262. Nicholas Mantel, head of motor insurance at Churchill, said: 'It seems surprising that UK drivers never need to prove that their eyesight is safe enough for driving once they have passed their driving test. 'What is even more remarkable is that some people continue to drive despite suspecting that their eyesight isn't good enough – or are doing so without wearing their prescription lenses or glasses. 'Our research suggests that there's overwhelming public support to make our roads safer by introducing compulsory eyesight tests for drivers.' Ms Alexander recently told the Commons Transport Select Committee she is 'open to considering' requiring older motorists to pass eye tests to keep their driving licence. This could be part of the Government's upcoming road safety strategy. A DfT spokesman said: 'Every death on our roads is a tragedy, and our thoughts remain with the families of everyone who has lost a loved one in this way. 'The NHS recommends adults should have their eyes tested every two years and drivers are legally required to inform the DVLA if they have a condition which affects their eyesight. 'We are committed to improving road safety and continue to explore ways to achieve this.' – The survey was conducted by research company Opinium between May 20-23 among 2,000 UK adults, of whom 1,312 were drivers.
