Latest news with #PCN
Daily Mail
6 days ago
- 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.
Scottish Sun
20-05-2025
- Business
- Scottish Sun
Couple ordered to tear down dream £500k home after ‘flagrant breach' of rules
Greater Cambridgeshire Council has ruled the property must be demolished by May 6, 2026 HOUSE ABOUT THAT Couple ordered to tear down dream £500k home after 'flagrant breach' of rules Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A COUPLE have been ordered to demolish their dream home worth more than £500,000 after they were found to have made a 'flagrant breach' of the rules. Planning permission was originally granted to build a stallion semen laboratory but a house was built instead. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 7 The property has been valued at more than £500,000 but now has to be demolished Credit: Bav Media 7 The plans originally submitted, which got approval, were to construct a stallion semen laboratory Credit: Bav Media 7 A planning inspector has ruled that an unauthorised house was actually built Credit: Bav Media A planning inspector has ruled that the unauthorised house at Valentine Stables in Great Abington, Cambridgeshire, must be knocked down. Planning permission was granted in 2014 by Greater Cambridge Shared Planning to build a replacement stable block and a specialist 'stallion semen' horse laboratory, with a small upstairs flat linked to the lab use. The plans were approved on the basis that it would be for a countryside business use, with the residential flat only to be used in connection with the laboratory use. The two-storey building was set to have a reception, office, kitchenette, 'analysis and lecture' lab, processing laboratory and staff changing room on the ground floor. Whilst the first floor would be a staff living space with two bedrooms, each with an ensuite bathroom, and a combined living/kitchen space. But, even though the outside of the building looked like the approved plans, the inside was very different. A later investigation showed that the inside of the building looked nothing like the approved plans for the lab and business. Instead, the planning inspector said it was built and used solely as a residential house from the start, with no evidence that the laboratory use was ever implemented. The Council issued an enforcement notice in July 2023 requiring demolition of the property and the owner appealed against the notice. But the Planning Inspector has now agreed with the Council that the building was constructed as a house from the start. We're building our house out of polystyrene - we can slot it together like Lego & it'll cut our heating bill down by 70% He said there was no lab or business running at the site, nor any evidence to show there ever was and that he house was a full home, not just a place for a worker to stay. He also pointed out that the owner had sold their original house on the site and moved into this new home. Inspector Chris Preston wrote: 'Photographs provided by the appellant in February 2022 in response to the Council's Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) show a complete absence of any laboratory space or research facility and that remained the case at the time of my accompanied site visit. 'The ground floor has a decidedly residential appearance, with a domestic kitchen, equipped with kitchen units, cooker, island breakfast bar, with domestic furnishings and appliances. 'A dining area is present next to the kitchen in the space which was shown to house a kitchenette/container storage and distribution on the approved plans. 'Next to that, where the plans depicted an office, is a domestic living room. 'What appears to be an office is present to the front in what was shown on the plans as a reception area. 'Throughout, the ground floor is decorated and equipped in a manner that belies a residential use. 'There is no obvious reception area that would indicate use by customers of a business. 'No laboratory has been installed, no research or stored equipment associated with the business is apparent, either on the photographs from 2022 or at the time of my visit. 7 An inspection discovered that no laboratory had actually been built Credit: Bav Media 7 The inside of the building looked nothing like the approved plans for the lab and business Credit: Bav Media 'Upstairs, where the staff accommodation was intended to be, there are two bedrooms, in the locations shown on the approved plans and a living area/ lounge, equipped with a sofa and television. 'However, no kitchen appears to have been constructed on the upper floor. In other words, the living space is clearly spread over the two floors, as would be the case in a typical house.' He said the council had been told the flat would be used by an additional worker, but in fact the appellant and his wife had since sold their existing house and moved into the new property. He added: 'The over-riding impression is that what has been constructed is a dwellinghouse, occupied by the appellant and his wife, as opposed to a stallion semen collection centre/laboratory on the ground floor with residential accommodation above which is what the approved plans depicted.' He said there was also very little evidence that the stallion semen and collection business had 'ever got off the ground to any notable degree.' He added: 'The lack of any clear record of the semen collection and analysis business, when added to the evidence that the laboratory and associated storage and analysis areas were never constructed raises serious doubts as to whether the 2014 permission was implemented. 'If the pandemic did cause issues with the business, the logical thing to do, if implementing the approved planning permission, would have been to construct the building as permitted, with accommodation at first floor level and space for the laboratories etc at ground floor level, even if that led to a delay in installation of those facilities. 'What actually appears to have happened is that the appellant constructed a dwelling from the off. 'The Inspector agreed that knocking the house down was a proportionate and necessary measure as the local planning policies had been clearly broken, and keeping the building but just stopping people from living there alone would not be enough. Cllr Dr. Tumi Hawkins, Lead Cabinet Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire District Council, said: "We welcome the Inspector's clear decision, which supports our commitment to upholding planning policies in our Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan designed to protect our countryside. 'This case shows the importance of adhering to the specific uses and conditions that justify development in rural areas. 'Planning rules are there for a reason – including protecting our countryside, and this decision demonstrates that we will act when those rules are broken." The house must be knocked down and all waste material removed by May 6, 2026. 7 A Planning Inspector has agreed with the Council that the building was constructed as a house from the start Credit: Bav Media
Leader Live
10-05-2025
- Automotive
- Leader Live
Hundreds of parking fines outstanding, say Wrexham Council
Last month, the Leader submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request to the council. In that, we asked; "What is the total amount of unpaid parking fines owed to Wrexham Council, and how many individuals currently have outstanding parking fines?" Wrexham Council responded by revealing that a total of 888 unpaid parking fines are still outstanding. They added that figure amounts to a total worth of £84,294.55. MORE NEWS The response from Wrexham Council added: "Due to how the system works - we are not able to answer the second part re. individuals as the report does not give names. "And, if going on VRM (Vehicle Registration Mark) that would not be accurate as the same person may not have had the same VRM over 2 PCN's (Penalty Charge Notice). "Also, if the vehicle details have not been updated with the DVLA then we would have incorrect individual details." If you park in the wrong place or don't pay for the correct amount of time, you're liable to receive a parking fine. You are not allowed to park: Wrexham Council's website adds: "Our enforcement officers patrol streets within the county borough and council-owned city centre car parks. "Enforcement officers will issue a PCN if you break any parking regulations in force at the time (for both on and off street contraventions). "If you receive a PCN you have a month to pay the charge stated on the PCN (or to make an informal challenge instead). "If you pay within 14 days the charge will be reduced by 50%."
The Independent
06-05-2025
- Automotive
- The Independent
Drivers urged to ‘beat the system' after record number of parking tickets issued
Despite issuing approximately 41,000 tickets daily in Britain, private parking companies 'don't want to issue parking charges', according to an industry leader. Will Hurley, chief executive of the International Parking Community (IPC), said that operators want drivers to park legally and conveniently. He said: "Any business is there to make money. But the reality is, the vast majority of money that comes in in the parking industry comes from people paying for parking." This comes amid accusations against private parking firms of employing misleading signage, aggressive debt collection tactics, and excessive fees. These companies pursue vehicle owners for alleged violations in private car parks, such as those at shopping centres, leisure facilities, and motorway service areas. They issue parking charge notices (PCNs) – which are invoices or demands for money – when they claim someone has breached the land owner's rules, for example not entering their registration correctly into a machine, overstaying or not parking within a bay. Each ticket can be up to £100, with a minimum discount of 40 per cent if paid within 14 days. The latest published accounts for ParkingEye, the UK's biggest private parking company, show it made a pre-tax profit of £16.1 million in 2023, up from £10.9 million a year earlier. It is 'easy to beat the system' for anyone who believes parking operators may attempt to profit by sending them a PCN, Mr Hurley said. He went on: 'If you're thinking about it, just don't park in a way that gets a parking charge. 'If you're really that upset by it, just follow the signs. If the signs are unclear, go and park somewhere else.' He added: 'Parking operators don't want to issue charges. They want people to park where they need to, when they need to.' In the six months to the end of September 2024, car park management companies made 7.2 million requests to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) for vehicle keeper records, which they use to send PCNs. That is up 12 per cent from the same period a year earlier and represents an average of 41,000 requests per day. In the six months to the end of September 2019, the average daily rate was 24,000. The figures are indicative of the number of PCNs being issued by private companies. The IPC insists the jump in tickets is 'directly linked' to the number of UK locations being managed by parking companies being more than five times higher than in 2012, and a 21 per cent increase in the number of registered vehicles over the same period. It emerged last month that many drivers are being sent tickets they claim are unfair because of how some payment machines operate, with one campaigner claiming the devices are 'set up to trap people'. Some machines which require users to input their vehicle registration accept payment after only one letter being entered. This has led to multiple cases of drivers paying the required parking fee but still being sent a PCN when their vehicle was detected by automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. Mr Hurley said 'I don't think that's helpful' and revealed he wants to see the issue eradicated as part of payment machine 'minimum standards' being developed by the IPC. He continued: 'I believe that the minimum thing that should happen if you're required to put a registration number in, is you should be required to confirm your registration number before you go on to the payment bit. 'How quickly can that be implicated across 50,000 locations in the country? 'Not overnight, but we've got to take steps in that direction.' 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. The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government has said it will set out further details on re-introducing the code 'as soon as possible'. Mr Hurley insisted 'there's nobody that's supported the Government more than us in terms of introducing a single code of practice'. RAC head of policy Simon Williams said: 'If private companies really don't want to issue tickets, they should make their signs clearer and easier to understand. 'Avoiding a charge is the opposite of easy in some locations. 'We've heard stories of machines that aren't working, as well as ones that skip ahead to payment after entering one or two numbers or letters, or ones that record different letters to those keyed in. 'The fact remains the Government's code of practice needs to be brought in as soon as possible.' Mr Williams also called for the parking industry to be 'transparent about the number of complaints it receives from drivers who believe they've been treated unfairly'.
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Parking boss blames drivers for record number tickets issued
MIDNIGHT EMBARGO - please schedule for 6.15am by Telegraph Reporters A parking boss appeared to blame drivers for record numbers of tickets, with some 41,000 handed out in Britain each day. Will Hurley, chief executive of trade body the International Parking Community (IPC), insisted that private parking companies 'don't want to issue parking charges'. Private parking businesses have been accused of using misleading and confusing signs, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees. They chase vehicle owners for alleged infringements in private car parks, such as at shopping centres, leisure facilities and motorway service areas. The firms issue parking charge notices (PCNs) - which are invoices or demands for money - when they claim someone has breached the land owner's rules, for example not entering their registration correctly into a machine, overstaying or not parking within a bay. Each ticket can be up to £100, with a minimum discount of 40 per cent if paid within 14 days. It is 'easy to beat the system' for anyone who believes parking operators may attempt to profit by sending them a PCN, Mr Hurley said. He went on: 'If you're thinking about it, just don't park in a way that gets a parking charge. 'If you're really that upset by it, just follow the signs. If the signs are unclear, go and park somewhere else.' He added: 'Parking operators don't want to issue charges. They want people to park where they need to, when they need to.' In the six months to the end of September 2024, car park management companies made 7.2 million requests to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) for vehicle keeper records, which they use to send PCNs. That is up 12 per cent from the same period a year earlier and represents an average of 41,000 requests per day. In the six months to the end of September 2019 the average daily rate was 24,000. The figures are indicative of the number of PCNs being issued by private companies. The IPC insists the jump in tickets is 'directly linked' to the number of UK locations being managed by parking companies being more than five times higher than in 2012, and a 21 per cent increase in the number of registered vehicles over the same period. It emerged last month that many drivers are being sent tickets they claim are unfair because of how some payment machines operate, with one campaigner claiming the devices are 'set up to trap people'. Some machines which require users to input their vehicle registration accept payment after only one letter being entered. This has led to multiple cases of drivers paying the required parking fee but still being sent a PCN when their vehicle was detected by automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. Mr Hurley said 'I don't think that's helpful' and revealed he wants to see the issue eradicated as part of payment machine 'minimum standards' being developed by the IPC. He continued: 'I believe that the minimum thing that should happen if you're required to put a registration number in, is you should be required to confirm your registration number before you go on to the payment bit. 'How quickly can that be implicated across 50,000 locations in the country? 'Not overnight, but we've got to take steps in that direction.' 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. The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government has said it will set out further details on re-introducing the code 'as soon as possible'. Mr Hurley insisted that 'there's nobody that's supported the Government more than us in terms of introducing a single code of practice'. Simon Williams, the RAC head of policy, said: 'If private companies really don't want to issue tickets, they should make their signs clearer and easier to understand. 'Avoiding a charge is the opposite of easy in some locations. 'We've heard stories of machines that aren't working, as well as ones that skip ahead to payment after entering one or two numbers or letters, or ones that record different letters to those keyed in. 'The fact remains the Government's code of practice needs to be brought in as soon as possible.' Mr Williams also called for the parking industry to be 'transparent about the number of complaints it receives from drivers who believe they've been treated unfairly'. Parliament will host a Westminster Hall debate on the sector on Tuesday. 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.
