Latest news with #EuroCarParks
Daily Mail
24-05-2025
- Automotive
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Pensioner furious after being slapped with 'ridiculous' £170 parking fine... but claims there is a big catch
A pensioner is furious after being hit with a 'ridiculous' £170 fine for overstaying in a car park - even though he wasn't parking. Garth Burden, 80, pulled into an Esso Garage in Rickmansworth to get his car washed and waited patiently in a queue. Little did he know that there was a 15-minute limit in place, enforced by Euro Car Parks, whether parked in a space, washing your car or changing your oil. Mr Burden told MailOnline: 'I was in a queue, and there was a car in front of me and eventually once they drove off, I was able to use the car wash. 'The actual car wash itself took about 10-15 minutes, and I just accepted that would be fine.' However, Mr Burden was later slapped with Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from Euro Car Parks on their doorstep to the tune of £170. He said: 'They said I had stayed for more than 15 minutes but I replied saying "That's ridiculous, I'm going to obviously fight this.' Having been hit with the fine in the run-up to Christmas, while staying with their son in between moving homes, his wife, who owned the car 'was really, really upset' about the fine. But when he asked about the appeal process, Euro Car Parks informed him he had missed the opportunity as he was late collecting the letter containing the PCN from his former home. 'It's so stupid to pay and get done for 15 minutes in a car wash. It's just common sense says you've got to have a bit more time than 15 minutes,' he added. Despite attempting to argue for an opportunity to appeal, Mr Burden was hit with another blow - a letter from Debt Recovery Plus on behalf of Euro Car Parks demanding the sum for the alleged contravention. 'I kept saying to everyone, "I wasn't parking my car in the garage. I was going through a car wash". 'I wrote to them and said, as far as I'm concerned I'm not guilty of an offence cause I wasn't parking my car. I was in a car wash. 'If you want to pursue this with the court, tell me where you're will seek legal action, and I will come along and defend myself. 'They claim I have broken a rule about car parking, so anyone that's spending more than 15 minutes in the queue behind me for the car wash no doubt got a ticket. 'So I just thought this is just crazy.' Over the last year-and-a-half, Mr Burden has received around 20 letters from various debt recovery companies about the issue, including Debt Recovery Plus, GCTT Enforcement Agents, QDR Solicitors, ZZPS and DCBL. 'It is an ordeal because of the time involved and whenever I tell anyone I've had another letter about my car wash debacle.' Referencing Euro Car Parks, he added: 'They are trying to screw as much money out of poor motorists as possible. 'It's absolutely ludicrous,' he said: 'And they come up with all sorts of amazing warnings. You have only got to read the reviews on the notices. 'But if you've got an old lady at home or somebody who doesn't know the process of courts, the threat of enforcement agents coming to your home without any sort of court action can be frightening. 'I find it absolutely galling. It's absolutely daft,' as he dubbed the service: 'The most expensive car wash in town.' Mr Burden also claimed there was no signage on the kiosk where he paid for the car wash to suggest there was a 15-minute limit to queue and was your car, adding the only notice about a limit was high-up on a sign that's 'hardly read[able]'. However the 80-year-old is ready and determined to see the situation all the way up to small claims court, adding: 'I would love them to do it. 'I can guarantee the day before or the couple of days before, they will say "We're not going do anything further" or they will say "this is your last chance" or something like that. 'Car parking is a very, very, lucrative business for some of these companies and they really are, you know, raking in the money.' And Mr Burden isn't the only person to fall victim at the garage forecourt with single mother, Natalie Carby, hit with a £100 fine just an hour after she picked up her new car up from the garage. The mother-of-two queued for around 25 minutes for her turn before she headed home on the 15 February, 2023. She didn't give much thought about the experience until a Euro Car Parks fine landed on her doormat 12 days later. Signs at the garage do indicate that the maximum stay for the car park is 15 minutes, but the 41-year-old believes this should not apply to the car wash. With the fine, the £9 wash could now set her back £100. Ms Carby said: 'I'm just absolutely appalled. 'I think it's absolutely outrageous that they can do this. Fair enough there may be signs around for a car park, but the car wash queue is not a car park.' Ms Carby had only bought her new car an hour before she went to get it washed at at the same Esso Garage in Rickmansworth. She had planned to go to the BP garage along the road but found it was closed, forcing herself and other drivers to go to Esso. She said: 'The only reason I went there was because the car wash at the BP garage down the road was closed, which is why there were so many cars queuing in the Esso car wash that day.' She added: 'It has taken a lot of time and effort and help from family members to get this car and then within an hour I'm whacked with a £100 fine. 'I had my previous car for over ten years and I never got a parking fine. An hour of this car and I'm getting a fine for having a car wash - I'm just appalled.' MailOnline has approached Euro Car Parks, DBCL, Debt Recovery Plus, GCTT Enforcement Agents, QDR Solicitors, and ZZPS for comment.
Telegraph
03-05-2025
- Automotive
- Telegraph
‘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. 'The numbers still look implausibly high' '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). Faulty technology 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.' 'Unreasonable and outside of the norm' 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.' 'Motorists must be protected' 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.'
Yahoo
03-05-2025
- Automotive
- 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.
Western Telegraph
23-04-2025
- Automotive
- Western Telegraph
Brits told parking payment machines ‘set up to trap people'
PA news agency has spoken to motorists in several regions who received parking charge notices (PCNs) they claim were unfair. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander described the issue as 'a problem that needs to be tackled', while the RAC called for a Government-backed code of conduct to be reintroduced. Many car parks require users to input their vehicle registration when purchasing a ticket from a machine. This is supposed to prevent them from being sent a PCN when their vehicle is detected by automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. However, PA has uncovered numerous cases of drivers who insist they entered their registration correctly but still received a PCN. Each had initial appeals rejected, despite submitting a photograph of their ticket, which shows an incorrect registration was printed. Matt Chambers, a 35-year-old business owner, received a £100 PCN from Excel Parking after using a car park in Worksop, Nottinghamshire, in February. He said: 'They say I only registered the letter B for my number plate. The Government has commented on the issue. (Image: Getty Images) 'That's not right. I'm adamant I put the whole number plate in because I've used that car park several times before, and it's the exact same process every time. 'I know how to use the machine.' He said he is continuing to challenge the PCN but 'sometimes it feels easier to pay just to make them go away' even though 'I've done nothing wrong'. Retired chef Lee Rogers, 67, suffered a similar problem. He received a PCN from Euro Car Parks after using a car park in Rye, East Sussex, in August last year, and later realised the ticket he bought only had one digit of his registration printed on it. He said: 'I did not stand there and key in just the first digit. 'Hundreds of others have had the same problem.' He said he told Euro Car Parks he would 'very much like to go to court' over the issue as 'they know I've paid'. His partner is feeling 'trepidation that someone might come knocking at the door', he added. Campaigner Lynda Eagan has been researching the issue for around a decade after receiving a PCN she felt was 'undeserved'. She assists drivers who join a Facebook group named Private Parking Tickets – Help and Advice, which has 47,000 members. Asked how many people in the UK she believes have been sent tickets because of faulty machines, she replied: 'Literally thousands.' She said: 'We've got unfair PCNs issued to people simply because the machine didn't work properly. 'It's a totally filthy business. It's just wrong.' Ms Eagan said most machine faults involve 'sticky keys' – when the buttons pressed are not correctly recorded – or devices which 'encourage you to pay' before the full registration has been entered. The latter machines are 'set up to trap people', she claimed, as they accept payment even if only the first letter of a registration is entered. RAC head of policy Simon Williams said: 'Sadly, it's abundantly clear from the multitude of examples that some parking companies are wrongly demanding 'fines' from drivers who have legitimately paid to park. 'Whether it's a faulty payment machine that records the wrong vehicle registration or an innocent mistake keying in their number plate, these people shouldn't have to pay the £100 parking charge notices they are sent. 'Many cases seem completely unjustified and should be thrown out at appeal, but sadly they so often aren't. 'We desperately need the Government to introduce the Private Parking Code of Practice to bring much-needed scrutiny to the sector.' A Bill to enable the introduction of a Government-backed code for private parking companies received royal assent under the Conservative government in March 2019. The code was withdrawn in June 2022 after a legal challenge by parking companies. It included halving the cap on tickets for most parking offences to £50, creating a fairer appeals system and banning the use of aggressive language on PCNs. Ms Alexander called for private parking companies to make a 'dramatic improvement' in the way they deal with the public. She urged them to do 'simple things' such as having 'machines and equipment that work', and being contactable rather than providing 'addresses that no-one answers letters from'. Ms Alexander went on: 'Government is working on a code of practice because we recognise that we need to drive up standards in the private parking industry. 'People's experience is not good enough at the moment. 'I'm working with colleagues in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government on this, and I do accept that this is a problem that needs to be tackled.' Recommended Reading Analysis of Government data by PA and motoring research charity the RAC Foundation in November last year found an average of more than 41,000 PCNs were being sent to drivers in Britain by private companies every day. A spokesperson for trade body the British Parking Association declined to respond to the claims of faulty machines, but said someone who receives a parking charge they believe was issued in error should first contact the parking operator and provide 'all the information that would be relevant for an appeal'. Excel Parking did not provide a response, while Euro Car Parks did not respond to requests for a comment.
South Wales Guardian
23-04-2025
- Automotive
- South Wales Guardian
Brits told parking payment machines ‘set up to trap people'
PA news agency has spoken to motorists in several regions who received parking charge notices (PCNs) they claim were unfair. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander described the issue as 'a problem that needs to be tackled', while the RAC called for a Government-backed code of conduct to be reintroduced. Many car parks require users to input their vehicle registration when purchasing a ticket from a machine. This is supposed to prevent them from being sent a PCN when their vehicle is detected by automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. A post shared by The RAC (@therac_uk) However, PA has uncovered numerous cases of drivers who insist they entered their registration correctly but still received a PCN. Each had initial appeals rejected, despite submitting a photograph of their ticket, which shows an incorrect registration was printed. Matt Chambers, a 35-year-old business owner, received a £100 PCN from Excel Parking after using a car park in Worksop, Nottinghamshire, in February. He said: 'They say I only registered the letter B for my number plate. The Government has commented on the issue. (Image: Getty Images) 'That's not right. I'm adamant I put the whole number plate in because I've used that car park several times before, and it's the exact same process every time. 'I know how to use the machine.' He said he is continuing to challenge the PCN but 'sometimes it feels easier to pay just to make them go away' even though 'I've done nothing wrong'. Retired chef Lee Rogers, 67, suffered a similar problem. He received a PCN from Euro Car Parks after using a car park in Rye, East Sussex, in August last year, and later realised the ticket he bought only had one digit of his registration printed on it. He said: 'I did not stand there and key in just the first digit. 'Hundreds of others have had the same problem.' He said he told Euro Car Parks he would 'very much like to go to court' over the issue as 'they know I've paid'. His partner is feeling 'trepidation that someone might come knocking at the door', he added. Campaigner Lynda Eagan has been researching the issue for around a decade after receiving a PCN she felt was 'undeserved'. She assists drivers who join a Facebook group named Private Parking Tickets – Help and Advice, which has 47,000 members. Asked how many people in the UK she believes have been sent tickets because of faulty machines, she replied: 'Literally thousands.' She said: 'We've got unfair PCNs issued to people simply because the machine didn't work properly. 'It's a totally filthy business. It's just wrong.' Ms Eagan said most machine faults involve 'sticky keys' – when the buttons pressed are not correctly recorded – or devices which 'encourage you to pay' before the full registration has been entered. The latter machines are 'set up to trap people', she claimed, as they accept payment even if only the first letter of a registration is entered. RAC head of policy Simon Williams said: 'Sadly, it's abundantly clear from the multitude of examples that some parking companies are wrongly demanding 'fines' from drivers who have legitimately paid to park. A post shared by The RAC (@therac_uk) 'Whether it's a faulty payment machine that records the wrong vehicle registration or an innocent mistake keying in their number plate, these people shouldn't have to pay the £100 parking charge notices they are sent. 'Many cases seem completely unjustified and should be thrown out at appeal, but sadly they so often aren't. 'We desperately need the Government to introduce the Private Parking Code of Practice to bring much-needed scrutiny to the sector.' A Bill to enable the introduction of a Government-backed code for private parking companies received royal assent under the Conservative government in March 2019. The code was withdrawn in June 2022 after a legal challenge by parking companies. It included halving the cap on tickets for most parking offences to £50, creating a fairer appeals system and banning the use of aggressive language on PCNs. Ms Alexander called for private parking companies to make a 'dramatic improvement' in the way they deal with the public. She urged them to do 'simple things' such as having 'machines and equipment that work', and being contactable rather than providing 'addresses that no-one answers letters from'. Ms Alexander went on: 'Government is working on a code of practice because we recognise that we need to drive up standards in the private parking industry. 'People's experience is not good enough at the moment. 'I'm working with colleagues in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government on this, and I do accept that this is a problem that needs to be tackled.' Recommended Reading Analysis of Government data by PA and motoring research charity the RAC Foundation in November last year found an average of more than 41,000 PCNs were being sent to drivers in Britain by private companies every day. A spokesperson for trade body the British Parking Association declined to respond to the claims of faulty machines, but said someone who receives a parking charge they believe was issued in error should first contact the parking operator and provide 'all the information that would be relevant for an appeal'. Excel Parking did not provide a response, while Euro Car Parks did not respond to requests for a comment.
