Times look like they're changing regarding parking charge notices!

Currently reading:
Times look like they're changing regarding parking charge notices!

Tough one. Can't argue with supreme court ruling though.

In a way, its not entirely bad, because it's nice, as the article says, to have some clarity on what's allowed. Equally though, there's not a cut off, so I'd imagine it could lead to all sorts of problems as they could push a price up.

It was a pretty risky judgement either way it swung. Surprised it got that far, really. :rolleyes:

Curious to see how the precedent is followed from here. That'll probably be the best indicator.
 
I'm not sure what the problem is though - if it says 2 hours free and you stay longer than 2 hours, why do you think you don't deserve a fine?

The issue isn't with deserving a fine as far as i know, it's with the amount of the fine.

If I pay £2 for 4 hours, and stay an additional half hour, it seems excessive I get fined £100.
Personally I agree. As far as I was aware, they shouldn't be fining you excessive amounts. I'd appeal any ticket I got, regardless.
 
I'm not sure what the problem is though - if it says 2 hours free and you stay longer than 2 hours, why do you think you don't deserve a fine?

The problem is they issue it for 1 minute more than allowed. This can happen from time drift on their equipment if it's not all sync'd. Furthermore they can and have been known to get it wrong.

And on top of that charge £85. Most of the councils don't charge that and they're actually enforceable!
 
Mmm, well this is something that will affect everybody differently. There are basically two schools of thought.

1) I pay for my parking and don't over stay.

2) It's only staying a bit too long in a b****y parking space. Not exactly crime of the century is it?

It also depends why the restriction is in place and why you're there. A two hour free parking space will be to allow enough time for people to park, do whatever they came to do, and then go again. A lot of people who work in an area often take up the free bays, which means the people who go to an area for business can't park so they just go somewhere else. Which is a bit self-defeating for the businesses.

Some restrictions are there solely to assist the observation of people emerging from a junction, yet drivers often park on the DYLs at the end of our street. Some of the cars parked on those lines are visiting the Chemists about 50 yards away. They can't actually park in the free bays because around 6 of them are occupied by those who work in the Chemist. Plus there are vans that deliver and almost all have to park very close to the junction making visibility a nightmare. If the local council make the free bays limited to two hours then the staff will just park in our street which means it will be more dangerous to get a car off the drive or, make it impossible to get off the drive because you're blocked in.

Having said that, nobody is forced at gunpoint to park where they shouldn't; their children aren't being held to ransom. People park where they do of their own free will. The gentleman in the BBC article left his vehicle there for three hours when he should have stayed for only two. You could argue that he was being selfish and arrogant and couldn't give a toss for anybody else. As a driver you know what the regulations are and you make a conscious decision to leave it there.

How much should you have to pay though? Well, everybody derided Traffic Wardens when they used to enforce parking and they were done away with. They were replaced by what is now generally referred to as Civil Enforcement Officers, and they are often employed by a private company. The function of a company is to make profit. Still, they enforce the parking regulations set by the local council.

Most of these companies operate on the basis that if you pay the charge promptly it is halved, so it's probably fairly safe to say that if he'd paid it straight away then it would probably have cost him around £40. He also didn't appear to challenge the issue of the ticket, merely the cost which probably made things a lot worse for him.

It's also worth making the distinction between a ticket issued on a car park and one on the road. A ticket given on a car park should only really allow for the errant driver to compensate the car park owners for the loss of revenue, but the company administering the car park will slap a hefty administration charge. It would be interesting to compare Parking Eye's charges on a car park as opposed to a road. Also on roads there is a Road Traffic Regulation Order which states exactly where you can park and how long for. There also needs to be lines marked in a particular way that must be clearly visible and to a certain specification. There must also, with some restrictions, be plates mounted on a vertical surface nearby.

However, returning to the Traffic Warden vs. Civil Enforcement Officer situation, I can't speak for other areas, but in Manchester the full cost of a PCN is £70. GMP only charge £30. The reason is that the Police can't make a profit out of fines, private companies and councils can. Having said that, the only place GMP enforce parking regs. is at Manchester Airport, and that's from a security point of view.

There is a cynical viewpoint of the ability to discount a PCN, and that is that, especially for a ticket issued on a Friday or at the weekend, a driver has less time to research a challenge to it, so they are more likely to pay it.

How much is a reasonable penalty? On the road, that's probably along the lines of how: long is a piece of string? On a car park though is a different matter, which could be think of a number and then double it.
 
The problem is they issue it for 1 minute more than allowed. This can happen from time drift on their equipment if it's not all sync'd. Furthermore they can and have been known to get it wrong.

And on top of that charge £85. Most of the councils don't charge that and they're actually enforceable!
It's not as simple as 1 minute more than allowed. It takes more than 1 minute for the machine to print the ticket, as the CEO has to input the details of the vehicle. It appears from the BBC article that the driver had parked on the street which means there will have been a TRO in place, so in this case it will be enforceable and the charges will have been agreed with the council.

It might also be worth remembering that these people are lied to on a regular basis. Many are unsympathetic as once they've given someone the benefit of the doubt and it's been shown that the driver was fibbing they're far less likely to care about what he or she says next time.
 
The issue isn't with deserving a fine as far as i know, it's with the amount of the fine.

If I pay £2 for 4 hours, and stay an additional half hour, it seems excessive I get fined £100.
Personally I agree. As far as I was aware, they shouldn't be fining you excessive amounts. I'd appeal any ticket I got, regardless.
The amount of the charge/fine is certainly debatable but it has to be high enough to deter drivers from doing it on a regular basis. Mario Balotelli used to have his car ticketed and towed away on a regular basis in Manchester City Centre at night, but at £100,000 a week (or more) he probably wasn't that bothered.

At Manchester Airport a few years ago a TPCSO came across a Bentley Brooklands unattended on one of the roads. The Brooklands is the big one with the old 6.7 litre twin turbo V8. He called airport security to have it swabbed and the Police Counter Terrorist Patrol to check the underneath. It came back clean, but after security had gone they tried the doors, only to find them open. On that particular road there is a 6'6" height restriction which would have made it very difficult for the recovery truck to take it away, but this problem was solved when it was discovered that the key was in the ignition and all it took to remove it was to push the red button.

When the driver came back, he'd been to Dubai Upper Business Class (or something) he apologised and paid the towing and storage charges and explained that he was late for his flight and that anyway, he knew it would be looked after better in a Police compound than a long stay car park.
 
It's not as simple as 1 minute more than allowed. It takes more than 1 minute for the machine to print the ticket, as the CEO has to input the details of the vehicle. It appears from the BBC article that the driver had parked on the street which means there will have been a TRO in place, so in this case it will be enforceable and the charges will have been agreed with the council.

It might also be worth remembering that these people are lied to on a regular basis. Many are unsympathetic as once they've given someone the benefit of the doubt and it's been shown that the driver was fibbing they're far less likely to care about what he or she says next time.

I was referring more to the automated car parks rather than CEO.

Even so I've literally witnessed one stood at my car entering the details (before the ticket was expired) ready to hit print and put it on the car. Luckily I saw him, snook to the ticket machine and bought another one before he issued it making it void :devil:
 
Last edited:
It might be worth remembering that a ticket issued by a CEO has to be affixed to the vehicle, or at the very least handed to the driver. If you manage to drive off before that happens then it hasn't been issued. Private companies can't Summons you for the offence, they can only pursue you for non-payment.

I can't speak for other areas of the country, but in our little corner of Mancland the CEOs affix the ticket then photograph the windscreen to show it, the lack of a Blue Badge and also the lines and/or signs to show to show it has been issued correctly.
 
Even so I've literally witnessed one stood at my car entering the details (before the ticket was expired) ready to hit print and put it on the car. Luckily I saw him, snook to the ticket machine and bought another one before he issued it making it void :devil:
That's ok as long as you haven't been on the parking bay, or road for the legal maximum time, otherwise they can have you for over staying.:devil::devil:
 
It might be worth remembering that a ticket issued by a CEO has to be affixed to the vehicle, or at the very least handed to the driver. If you manage to drive off before that happens then it hasn't been issued.

Actually the law changed regarding this a little while back, as so many people were just driving off in London etc.

If they've a pic and started to write it then its enough now (n)
 
That could actually be disputed depending on how the images were recorded. If they're on a cheap digital camera then the time could have been altered prior to the photograph being taken. That's why well into the digital era the Police used to use film cameras because of the way the, for want of a better phrase, chain of custody was conducted.

That's also why the body-cams that are being introduced don't have memory card, the images and sound are recorded direct into the device and can only be uploaded whole onto a computer.

That's also why the Cops, if they have to use their own camera or phone, will always upload the images to a Police computer rather than their own.
 
As a side note; I left work yesterday, and the car next to me was getting a ticket. So I put a panicked look on my face, sped across the carpark towards it, catching the wardens eye, holding my keys above my head, then calmly got into my car parked next to it, smiled and drove calmly away.

Parking warden seemed a bit surprised. :p
 
Back
Top