Couple fined 100 Pounds for overstaying at car park because they got stuck in a queue trying to leave

[BurfordTJustice]

WTF????

Couple fined ?100 for overstaying at car park because they got stuck in a queue trying to leave

A couple was fined for overstaying at a car park because the queue was so long they could not leave. Donna and Darren Jacques were back at their car in the Stockton car park with time to spare, but they could not leave for another half an hour due to grid-locked traffic.

They appealed against the ?100 fine but it was upheld by the independent ombudsman POPLA, which said the couple was still using the car park despite them trying to leave.

It said they should have bought a new ticket to cover the time they spent queuing. Car park operator ParkingEye had fined the couple, producing CCTV photos of them leaving the car park late.

The couple, from Billingham, had taken their two children to a firework display on Bonfire Night last year.

Mrs Jacques said: "We have never disputed we were half an hour late, but you don't pay to sit in a car park. "We couldn't physically leave.

"There's CCTV on the entrance, which is the same as the exit. I don't know if they've seen us coming back to the car.

"It feels like they're pushing you as far as they can so you will just give up and pay."

POPLA said the couple were still using the car park's facilities "regardless of whether they considered themselves to be parked".

Acknowledging the couple had paid for two hours parking, it added "this does not detract from the fact that they were 34 minutes over the time paid for."

"The parking operator, as stated on the signage, allows motorists to pay for additional time if required before leaving.

"It is reasonable to believe the appellant was aware they would not leave the car park within the timeframe they paid for and therefore was able to purchase more time but failed to do so."

Stockton North MP Alex Cunningham has called for action on parking companies after receiving complaints from constituents. ParkingEye has since cancelled the Jacques' fine as a "goodwill gesture".

A ParkingEye spokeswoman said the company followed the British Parking Association's "strict" code of practice and welcomed any legislation that aims to "drive consistency and improve processes".

"ParkingEye operates an audited appeals process and encourages people to appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances.

"If a motorist disagrees with our decision they have the option to appeal to the independent appeals service (POPLA).

"In this case the parking charge has been cancelled as a gesture of goodwill."

[Brian Reay]

While the case looks silly, they made a sensible case and got a refund.

Of course you can use a company to assist.

Do check them out first:

or:

(The one at the bottom is interesting.)

You can also check on the Money Saving Expert Forum for comments about companies.

There is also:

They not only provide help to motorists but act as a 'trade group' I believe for those offering such services. If you use a company check with the BMPA they are ok/members. The BMPA people seem a good bunch.

[tim...]

only because they eventually complained to the papers

the correct "process" DENIED them their refund

tim

[Ophelia]

only because they eventually complained to the papers

the correct "process" DENIED them their refund

tim

==

It also say their MP got involved after complaints from constituents.

[Brian Reay]

That rather suggests there were more cases- people stuck in the same traffic- and the company realised the reason was real.

People do try it on to escape parking tickets: First image:

No one likes getting a parking ticket. Then, no one likes not being able to park- even if they have to pay. Those who abuse the system harm us all.

If there is a parking charge, pay it, or go elsewhere. If there is a ticket fairly issued- I've had one- pay it. If you think it is an error/unfair etc apply- calmly. You can use a reputable company to help:

Of course, as the BBC say, others are available:

Look at both and decide.

[tim...]

The appeal wasn't rejected on the ground of "insufficient evidence"

It was rejected the grounds that they were still considered to be "parking" whilst waiting in the queue to leave.

tim

[Brian Reay]

Oh dear.

There were in a queue for about 60 mins it seems.

On first look, that hardly sounds like it could be true but it seems, as Ophelia pointed out, others got involved and the situation became clear.

Even 30+ mins to exit would normally be excessive and hard to believe.

Of course, it does happen but it is rare. This was one of those cases and the company did the right thing.

Perhaps you think this one should have been let off:

6/12/13:

[Ophelia]

Oh dear.

There were in a queue for about 60 mins it seems.

On first look, that hardly sounds like it could be true but it seems, as Ophelia pointed out, others got involved and the situation became clear.

Even 30+ mins to exit would normally be excessive and hard to believe.

Of course, it does happen but it is rare. This was one of those cases and the company did the right thing.

Perhaps you think this one should have been let off:

6/12/13:

===

I assumed it exited on to a very busy main road.

[Brian Reay]

I suspect that was part of it. There'd been some event I believe, lots of people trying to leave, it all makes sense.

I've been stuck like that before but not somewhere you had to pay.

[Ophelia]

I suspect that was part of it. There'd been some event I believe, lots of people trying to leave, it all makes sense.

I've been stuck like that before but not somewhere you had to pay.

==

If there had been an event, then it would point to heavy traffic and the difficulty of leaving the car park.

[johnny-knowall]

On 18 Feb 2018, Ophelia wrote (in article ):

In which case, the canny driver would buy a ticket for 90 minutes longer than the event.

[Brian Reay]

There was an event- in the report I saw fireworks.

Given others in this thread have said that even 30mins wasn't plausible (note, as I knew of the event, so wasn't one of them), you now say 90 mins to get out.

[Ian Jackson]

In message , johnny-knowall writes

Why? You're paying to PARK, not to sit in a queue.

[johnny-knowall]

On 18 Feb 2018, Brian Reay wrote (in article ):

And your point is?

[Ian Jackson]

In message , Ian Jackson writes

And just another thought...... In a pay and display carpark, where there is somebody wandering around looking for displayed tickets that have expired, if there was a queue to leave, would he walk along the queue noting all the cars with an expired ticket - or not displaying any ticket, because the driver had removed it?

[Ophelia]

On 18 Feb 2018, Ophelia wrote (in article ):

In which case, the canny driver would buy a ticket for 90 minutes longer than the event.

=

I reckon a really canny driver would leave just before the even was due to finish:)

[Meanie]

Why should they, or anyone, have to? If the event partakes in an area where egresses and/or entrances are problematic, the people attending shouldn't have to suffer for the bad layout. It's bad enough for a long wait to get the hell out of dodge when an event is over, but to have to pay because they lack sufficient exits is completely asinine.

[Meanie]

They shouldn't have to. People pay for an event, they should have the right to enjoy the entire event.

[Ophelia]

They shouldn't have to. People pay for an event, they should have the right to enjoy the entire event. ===

Of course they shouldn't have to, but if it was a choice between having to wait for 30+ minutes ...

[johnny-knowall]

On 18 Feb 2018, Ophelia wrote (in article ):

Which is another reason for adding 60 mins on to the expected time, as I do.

And seems to be pooh-poohed by the know-it-alls here.