Ilkley councillors voice concern over car park cameras proposal

Fines plan for car park close to Ilkley station is opposed

Fines plan for car park close to Ilkley station is opposed

First published in News by

A plan to impose automatic £60 fines on drivers who flout the rules in a private car park at Ilkley Station has run into opposition from councillors.

Ilkley parish councillors are calling on Bradford Council to reject plans by parking management company Parking Eye for automatic number plate recognition cameras at the Station Plaza car park, Railway Road.

One parish councillor accused the management company of treating Ilkley as a ‘cash cow’ for generating money from parking fines.

They fear unsuspecting motorists who use the car park – owned by Retail Plus General Partners Ltd, of Birmingham – to drop off commuters heading for trains, could be hit by fines.

But a surveyor commissioned by Parking Eye over the planning application says there is clear evidence of abuse by visitors to the privately-owned customer-only car park, adjoining the Station Plaza retail units.

Ilkley Parish Council’s plans committee has debated the plan and has recommended the local authority should refuse planning permission.

Parish Councillor, Paul Kitching, said: “On contacting Parking Eye, the councillors were told that the proposed cameras would automatically record car number plates entering and leaving the car park and that the maximum parking time limit would be two hours – and that the fine imposed for exceeding this period would be £60.

“But it also appears that if a vehicle enters the car park, say for a ‘drop-off’ or ‘pick-up’ at the rail station – and no retail purchase is made – the Parking Eye cameras and system will be aware of this fact and promptly generate a whopping £60 parking fine too.”

Parking Eye was not able to respond to requests for comments about the issue.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:58am Fri 3 Jan 14

avagander says...

Parking Eye and similar operations are a cancer on society. In almost 100 cases since the start of last year it has been shown their £60 charge, it is NOT a fine, is unenforceable. They are like used car salesmen and promise the earth to car park owners with a cut of each ticket paid, but when the car park owner becomes aware of the problems these operators bring (bad publicity, court papers to them as landowners from disgruntled motorists etc etc ) getting rid of them is like selling a timeshare, as a large supermarket chain found out it costs more than you will earn to get rid of them.

Their ANPR system isn't fit for purpose either. Drop someone off at 8am, leave and pick them up at 5 pm and ANPR will see this as being parked for the whole day, cue a £60 invoice through the post.

My advice to the landowner is to look into the background of PE carefully and fully understand what you are getting into bed with.
Parking Eye and similar operations are a cancer on society. In almost 100 cases since the start of last year it has been shown their £60 charge, it is NOT a fine, is unenforceable. They are like used car salesmen and promise the earth to car park owners with a cut of each ticket paid, but when the car park owner becomes aware of the problems these operators bring (bad publicity, court papers to them as landowners from disgruntled motorists etc etc ) getting rid of them is like selling a timeshare, as a large supermarket chain found out it costs more than you will earn to get rid of them. Their ANPR system isn't fit for purpose either. Drop someone off at 8am, leave and pick them up at 5 pm and ANPR will see this as being parked for the whole day, cue a £60 invoice through the post. My advice to the landowner is to look into the background of PE carefully and fully understand what you are getting into bed with. avagander
  • Score: 4

9:01am Fri 3 Jan 14

avagander says...

My advice to Councillors is to do some bedtime reading into the difference between a Council penalty charge and a private parking charge and see what these private companies are getting up to to avoid their legal obligations. Parkingprankster is a good place to start.
My advice to Councillors is to do some bedtime reading into the difference between a Council penalty charge and a private parking charge and see what these private companies are getting up to to avoid their legal obligations. Parkingprankster is a good place to start. avagander
  • Score: 3

9:07am Fri 3 Jan 14

linebacker2 says...

Like every other media outlet, the T&A gets this "fines" business wrong. Even the council can't issue fines for car parking violations, they issue penalties - these are legally different to fines.

As for private companies, they can only issue unsolicted invoices - but they're often made to look official and often have the letters "PCN" on which is legally meaningless but tries to give impression it's official.
Like every other media outlet, the T&A gets this "fines" business wrong. Even the council can't issue fines for car parking violations, they issue penalties - these are legally different to fines. As for private companies, they can only issue unsolicted invoices - but they're often made to look official and often have the letters "PCN" on which is legally meaningless but tries to give impression it's official. linebacker2
  • Score: 0

9:21am Fri 3 Jan 14

yezboss says...

Parking Eye use ANPR. They do not have an on site parking attendant. When there is an alleged breach of the hours of stay a parking charge notice is issued to the registered keeper obtained from DVLA records they are allowed to access. They rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2013
However Shedule 4 of that legislation requires a notice to have been EITHER affixed to the vehicle OR a notice to have been given to the driver or perosn apparently in charge, BEFORE they can ask the driver for payment. So if there is no attendant to issue them they cannot enforce the payment demand under this legislation. That demand also has to be proportionate and reasonable. e.g If the parking is free or minimal then the charge fee which can be as much as £100 is neither of those. The driver may not have been the registered keeper. The registered keeper who the notice is sent to is not however obliged to tell them who the driver was. Therefore they cannot pursue this unless that information is forthcoming, they may try to get it from the registered keeper but if he was not the person entering into the contract ANY and ALL recovery action will fail. These companies should NEVER be allowed to operate. Anywhere. They are a piriah on society.
Parking Eye use ANPR. They do not have an on site parking attendant. When there is an alleged breach of the hours of stay a parking charge notice is issued to the registered keeper obtained from DVLA records they are allowed to access. They rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2013 However Shedule 4 of that legislation requires a notice to have been EITHER affixed to the vehicle OR a notice to have been given to the driver or perosn apparently in charge, BEFORE they can ask the driver for payment. So if there is no attendant to issue them they cannot enforce the payment demand under this legislation. That demand also has to be proportionate and reasonable. e.g If the parking is free or minimal then the charge fee which can be as much as £100 is neither of those. The driver may not have been the registered keeper. The registered keeper who the notice is sent to is not however obliged to tell them who the driver was. Therefore they cannot pursue this unless that information is forthcoming, they may try to get it from the registered keeper but if he was not the person entering into the contract ANY and ALL recovery action will fail. These companies should NEVER be allowed to operate. Anywhere. They are a piriah on society. yezboss
  • Score: 5

6:27pm Sat 4 Jan 14

alive and awake says...

avagander wrote:
Parking Eye and similar operations are a cancer on society. In almost 100 cases since the start of last year it has been shown their £60 charge, it is NOT a fine, is unenforceable. They are like used car salesmen and promise the earth to car park owners with a cut of each ticket paid, but when the car park owner becomes aware of the problems these operators bring (bad publicity, court papers to them as landowners from disgruntled motorists etc etc ) getting rid of them is like selling a timeshare, as a large supermarket chain found out it costs more than you will earn to get rid of them.

Their ANPR system isn't fit for purpose either. Drop someone off at 8am, leave and pick them up at 5 pm and ANPR will see this as being parked for the whole day, cue a £60 invoice through the post.

My advice to the landowner is to look into the background of PE carefully and fully understand what you are getting into bed with.
Why liken them to used car salesmen? I know plenty of very respectable used car operations, you could have offered Councillors, bent police, paedophile clergy, or soap stars, or pop stars et al much better comparison.
[quote][p][bold]avagander[/bold] wrote: Parking Eye and similar operations are a cancer on society. In almost 100 cases since the start of last year it has been shown their £60 charge, it is NOT a fine, is unenforceable. They are like used car salesmen and promise the earth to car park owners with a cut of each ticket paid, but when the car park owner becomes aware of the problems these operators bring (bad publicity, court papers to them as landowners from disgruntled motorists etc etc ) getting rid of them is like selling a timeshare, as a large supermarket chain found out it costs more than you will earn to get rid of them. Their ANPR system isn't fit for purpose either. Drop someone off at 8am, leave and pick them up at 5 pm and ANPR will see this as being parked for the whole day, cue a £60 invoice through the post. My advice to the landowner is to look into the background of PE carefully and fully understand what you are getting into bed with.[/p][/quote]Why liken them to used car salesmen? I know plenty of very respectable used car operations, you could have offered Councillors, bent police, paedophile clergy, or soap stars, or pop stars et al much better comparison. alive and awake
  • Score: 0

8:10pm Thu 9 Jan 14

BorderRiever says...

alive and awake wrote:
avagander wrote:
Parking Eye and similar operations are a cancer on society. In almost 100 cases since the start of last year it has been shown their £60 charge, it is NOT a fine, is unenforceable. They are like used car salesmen and promise the earth to car park owners with a cut of each ticket paid, but when the car park owner becomes aware of the problems these operators bring (bad publicity, court papers to them as landowners from disgruntled motorists etc etc ) getting rid of them is like selling a timeshare, as a large supermarket chain found out it costs more than you will earn to get rid of them.

Their ANPR system isn't fit for purpose either. Drop someone off at 8am, leave and pick them up at 5 pm and ANPR will see this as being parked for the whole day, cue a £60 invoice through the post.

My advice to the landowner is to look into the background of PE carefully and fully understand what you are getting into bed with.
Why liken them to used car salesmen? I know plenty of very respectable used car operations, you could have offered Councillors, bent police, paedophile clergy, or soap stars, or pop stars et al much better comparison.
Your Councillors did well by you by refusing planning permission for the cameras. To see our experience in Whitby go to:-
www.facebook.com/Cel
AtCoOpCarParkWhitby, as a result of which we are now trying to have these companies regulated properly as opposed to the present "self-regulation" scheme.

We hope to Ban the Private Parking Fine Scam

Reform the legislation these firms abuse to regulate them properly!

There is a petition to reform Schedule 4 of Protection Of Freedoms Act, 2012.

Please view & sign it at:-

http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/petition
s/55493
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]avagander[/bold] wrote: Parking Eye and similar operations are a cancer on society. In almost 100 cases since the start of last year it has been shown their £60 charge, it is NOT a fine, is unenforceable. They are like used car salesmen and promise the earth to car park owners with a cut of each ticket paid, but when the car park owner becomes aware of the problems these operators bring (bad publicity, court papers to them as landowners from disgruntled motorists etc etc ) getting rid of them is like selling a timeshare, as a large supermarket chain found out it costs more than you will earn to get rid of them. Their ANPR system isn't fit for purpose either. Drop someone off at 8am, leave and pick them up at 5 pm and ANPR will see this as being parked for the whole day, cue a £60 invoice through the post. My advice to the landowner is to look into the background of PE carefully and fully understand what you are getting into bed with.[/p][/quote]Why liken them to used car salesmen? I know plenty of very respectable used car operations, you could have offered Councillors, bent police, paedophile clergy, or soap stars, or pop stars et al much better comparison.[/p][/quote]Your Councillors did well by you by refusing planning permission for the cameras. To see our experience in Whitby go to:- www.facebook.com/Cel AtCoOpCarParkWhitby, as a result of which we are now trying to have these companies regulated properly as opposed to the present "self-regulation" scheme. We hope to Ban the Private Parking Fine Scam Reform the legislation these firms abuse to regulate them properly! There is a petition to reform Schedule 4 of Protection Of Freedoms Act, 2012. Please view & sign it at:- http://epetitions.di rect.gov.uk/petition s/55493 BorderRiever
  • Score: 0

8:13pm Thu 9 Jan 14

BorderRiever says...

If you are a victim of one of these firms, here is sme advice:-

Golden Rules.
1. Do not ignore their demand, because in a year or two when the details are a bit faded you might not be able to put together a good enough defence if they take Court Action. It is, after all a claim for money. They are entitled to press for payment just as you are entitled to contest.
2. If you have not contravened any of their rules, tell them to go away By letter or email.
3. If you have contravened their rules, work out sensibly how much you think they have lost through your breach of what they call a contract, round it up by a few quid and offer it for acceptance within, say, 14 days.
4. Make careful note of how busy the car park was, how late you were, how long was the queue in-store and to pay for the car park ticket – in fact ANY mitigating circumstances and include the date & times, how much you spent in-store, did the store have what you wanted at the right price?
5. Head any letter/email you send "Without Prejudice". Check on tinternet for examples of Unfair Charges, check "Honest John" for other references and keep the results in case they harass you.
SIGN OUR PETITION AT: http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/petition
s/55493
If you are a victim of one of these firms, here is sme advice:- Golden Rules. 1. Do not ignore their demand, because in a year or two when the details are a bit faded you might not be able to put together a good enough defence if they take Court Action. It is, after all a claim for money. They are entitled to press for payment just as you are entitled to contest. 2. If you have not contravened any of their rules, tell them to go away By letter or email. 3. If you have contravened their rules, work out sensibly how much you think they have lost through your breach of what they call a contract, round it up by a few quid and offer it for acceptance within, say, 14 days. 4. Make careful note of how busy the car park was, how late you were, how long was the queue in-store and to pay for the car park ticket – in fact ANY mitigating circumstances and include the date & times, how much you spent in-store, did the store have what you wanted at the right price? 5. Head any letter/email you send "Without Prejudice". Check on tinternet for examples of Unfair Charges, check "Honest John" for other references and keep the results in case they harass you. SIGN OUR PETITION AT: http://epetitions.di rect.gov.uk/petition s/55493 BorderRiever
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree