Printfriendly

Sunday 8 November 2015

Lord Neuberger; All that he needed was a watch

In the ParkingEye v Beavis judgment, Lord Neuberger made the throwaway sarcastic remark that parking charges are easy to avoid:
The risk of having to pay it was wholly under the motorist’s own control. All that he needed was a watch.
This blog post examines some of the scams parking companies like ParkingEye use to try and part you from your money even when no contravention of the parking rules has occurred, or where the motorist is unexpectedly unable to leave the car park. It does seem as is if Lord Neuberger's advice is sadly misplaced. Here are some examples from The Prankster's recent casebook.

Alton Towers visit ruined by ParkingEye scam

A family visit to Alton Towers was ruined by a ParkingEye scam. On the way, the family called into Uttoxeter Services on the A50, about 15 minutes from Alton Towers. They arrived at around 11 am and left a few minutes later. They spent the day at Alton Towers and called into the services on the way home at around 7pm.

ParkingEye fraudulently sent the keeper a bill for £100 for staying all day, even though the motorist visited the service station twice. ParkingEye have sent out many such fraudulent bills in the past,
and apparently have a policy of refusing to cancel even though they know their system is not fit for purpose. This case was no different; the keeper appealed to ParkingEye and POPLA, both of which turned down her appeals. ParkingEye are now threatening court action, despite the manager of the service station and the manager of Starbucks asking them to cancel the charge. ParkingEye have offered to settle for £60, but the motorist will not be paying and prefers to have her day in court where she will rely on a number of witness statements and also large numbers of previous instances where ParkingEye 's systems have been found to be defective.

Lord Neuberger: All that (s)he needed was a watch

The Prankster consider's this poor advice from Lord Neuberger in this situation. The motorist obeyed all the rules yet still got issued with a parking charge.

Shopping bill goes sky high after ParkingEye scam.

A motorist arrived at a retail car park, read the signage, decided to accept the terms and conditions and purchased a ticket for two hours via their phone. 1 hour 58 minutes later they left the car park.

Despite not contravening the parking conditions, ParkingEye issued a parking charge stating the motorist had parked for 2 hours, 10 minutes.

The motorist took around 6 minutes from entering the car park to find a place to park, park, then read the signs explaining how to pay by phone. This seems a reasonable amount of time for this process. The motorist then took 4 minutes according to their phone records to actually make the payment. Again, this seems a reasonable time.

Here is Lord Neuberger's advice:

ParkingEye has an appeals procedure, and the BPA Code of Practice provides at paragraph 13.4 for a reasonable grace period after the expiry of the fixed parking period. The appeals procedure provides a degree of protection for any overstayer, who would be able to cite any special circumstances as a reason for avoiding the charge. And, while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA.

The latest version of the British Parking Association code of practice stipulates that there should be a grace period at the beginning to allow the motorist to decide whether or not to accept the terms of parking, and a 10 minute grace period at the end to allow the motorist to leave. The motorist appealed to ParkingEye, who rejected their appeal.

Lord Neuberger: All that he needed was a watch

The Prankster considers Lord Neubergers advice to be particularly poor and misguided. The motorist appealed to ParkingEye. Did 'Tte appeals procedure provide a degree of protection'. No - ParkingEye rejected the appeal. What about the Code of Practice? 'while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator'. It appears the code is not as binding as Lord Neuberger thought. To quote that other well-known pirate, Captain Barbarossa "The Code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules."

As to a watch, that would be no help at all. The motorist thought they left within the time allowed from the ticket they purchased. ParkingEye backdated that time by an arbitrary amount which a motorist would have no way of knowing. The location of ParkingEye's cameras is even kept a closely guarded secret in some car parks and not disclosed even in FoI requests. In any case, a motorist would not be expected to be searching the sky for cameras while entering a car park; this would be dangerous. Motorists therefore have no way of knowing what time they should actually leave the car park to avoid a charge.

As an aside, this is the classic way ParkingEye scam millions of pounds a year from hospital visitors. The Prankster considers it a disgrace that vulnerable members of society are treated this way as items for profit by ParkingEye.

Reputable parking companies use ANPR to tell the motorist how much to pay on exit. However, this almost entirely helps motorists avoid parking charges and so ParkingEye do not use this type of system because it would make them bankrupt. Their processes are designed to fail so motorists have to pay charges; motorists are allowed to enter invalid registration and to pay wrong amounts.

Car breaks down in retail park

A motorist broke down in a retail park controlled by ParkingEye. She called a mechanic to get her car started. ParkingEye refused to believe the car was broken down, despite a letter from the mechanic,

Here is Lord Neuberger's advice:
The appeals procedure provides a degree of protection for any overstayer, who would be able to cite any special circumstances as a reason for avoiding the charge. 
It would appear that once again Lord Neuberger's advice is totally useless. ParkingEye did not cancel the charge, despite the motorist breaking down, and despite the fact that a letter from the mechanic was produced as evidence.

Lord Neuberger: All that (s)he needed was a watch

The Prankster dos not know if the motorist owns a watch, but even if she did it would do no good. If a car won't start, it won't start.

It would appear that Lord Neuberger has given carte blanche for rogue parking companies like PakingEye and Vehicle Control Services to issue charges which have no validity whatsoever.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

21 comments:

  1. I also note that they state councils do not allow 2 hours free parking. One near where I live does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All the evidence was to the contrary, oh wait ......

      Delete
    2. Two council car parks near where I work offer 100% free car parks and another two near to where I live offer 23 hours free parking.

      Delete
    3. Same here where I live. Some council car-parks offer 2 hours free parking with the opportunity to pay for extra hours with a P&D machine.

      Delete
    4. Check out Thetford in Norfolk (one of my local towns) free parking every where apart from the railway station.

      Delete
    5. Thrapston, Northamptonshire has free parking on and off street, 100% free at all times. The same goes for Oundle, Northamptonshire too

      Delete
  2. Cover your number plate every time you are on private land. I think this had to be the approach when ANPR systems are clearly inaccurate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/22/part/III/crossheading/offences-relating-to-registration-marks

      Not seeing an exemption in there for private land, chap.

      Delete
    2. would they not have to prove it was your vehicle leaving?

      Delete
    3. would they not have to prove it was your vehicle leaving?

      Delete
    4. @Colin - you're right. But that would mean I can't even cover them up in my garage.

      Delete
    5. Given the perversity of the decision under discussion, why would that surprise you?

      Delete
  3. it has been stated many times that the law is an ass, if this is indeed true, Lord Neuberger is possibly declaring himself as at least one of it's cheeks by making comments that clearly demonstrate at best a complete lack of understanding of how corrupt some parking companies are, at worst just accepting their biased crap at face value and a true representation of the situation and without one second of thought on the matter, pretty poor showing all round from Lord Neuberger

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We're all doomed. Doomed, Capt Mainwaring

    ReplyDelete
  6. The inconvenient fact you completely ignore is that none of the above extreme scenarios apply to Barry Beavis.

    Who overstayed by nearly an hour.

    So tell me, what's his excuse? Are Parking Eye lying about how long he stayed? Did his car break down for that length of time?

    Or did he not have a watch?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The inconvenient fact you completely ignore is that all of the above apply to other motorists. ParkingEye take other motorists to court despite knowing that the above apply.

      Barry Beavis overstayed because he was getting some leaflets printed in Staples and their machine broke down. He was a genuine customer of the retail park at all times. Rather than artificially leave then return, he chose to wait in Staples while they fixed their machines. There was no congestion in the car park at any time during his stay.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. Wrong case chosen to go to the CoA and SC then, I think... but this is all academic now. What needs to happen next is people kicking up enough fuss about rogue parking companies so that we have some new legislation. We'll see...

      Delete
  7. Why when there is a multi-visit case, we don't question the calibration of the cameras and the possibility of erroneous data held on the bespoke developed systems???

    Has anyone really questioned by means of freedom of information act to request copies of the calibration certificate for the specific camera in question? I'm led to believe the systems are dependant on technological advances of the cameras, so if the cameras are poorly calibrated then the systems will ultimately inaccurate.

    With average speed camera checks and the police they follow NASP standards which require comprehensive calibration tests and certification to prove missed vehicles against the systems in place. If these don't meet a certain tolerance they aren't callibrated, thus not fit for purpose.

    Why not when contesting our next parking charge that we request for proof of calibration?

    #standing out against injustice, robbing the rich to give to the poor

    ReplyDelete
  8. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295206/cast0814.pdf

    ReplyDelete