Parking fine automatic by camera

[wood1e2]

At the local trading estate there is (unknown to me) a limit on number of hours allowed for parking.

Earlier this year they added a Costa Coffee and Subway, as I work remotely and not always from home i thought this ideal as it is only just down the road and gets me out in the real world

Anyway got a parking fine today, for over staying my welcome.

I can appeal...but is it worth? What grounds, obviously ignorance is not acceptable.

But I was genuinely working in Costa Coffee, not just using it as cheap parking, the train station is close by!

Can rant at Jones Lang LaSalle who own/manage the trading estate? Costa Coffee for offering free wifi to coffee club members and implying they are open to people working there...but obviously not for more than 4 hours?

Already ranted at EuroSexToys, sorry I mean Euro Car Parks, didn't do a lot of good, but made me feel better

Anyway, just wondering if there is a standard appeal line, maybe some how proving I was using the parking legitimately?

I feel I will have to abandon Costa Coffee is this cannot be resolved! Which is a shame they are a nice bunch there.

Any advice would be most appreciated.

 

[ethical PR]

I don't understand. Is the car park for customers of Costa Coffee? If not just park somewhere else near by if you want to stay there for more than four hours. Or just used it for four hours. Surely there is only so much coffee, sandwiches and cake you can eat.

 

[fisicx]

Anyway got a parking fine today, for over staying my welcome.

You didn't get a fine. You got a parking charge. They are not the same thing.

Parking fines are issued by the council (traffic wardens). The notice you got is something else.

If you choose not to pay they cannot enforce payment, all they can do is take you to court. Do not respond to their letters in any way at all. Don't even ring them up. They will give up eventually or take you to court at which point you can tell them that you didn't see the notices stating the parking limitation.

 

[STDFR33]

My understanding is that:

When you enter the car park you agree to the owners terms. Those terms have been breached and they have sent you an invoice.

The invoices always look like fines to scare people.

The data they use to send out the invoices is from the DVLA and may or may not be up to date - and the parking firms know this.

They therefore work on a numbers basis. Legal action against what might be the wrong person is costly so they will send several reminders before giving up.

Legally, if they took you to court, they would win. But they never take anyone to court. It's easier and cheaper for them to just grab the low hanging fruit.

Simply do not respond and do not appeal it. By acknowledging their invoice, they know they have the correct person to pursue.

I'm an accountant though, and my legal knowledge is not to be relied upon!

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

Be careful on this!

Personally, I would either ignore the letter or, in some circumstances, send them £1or 2 to cover any 'loss' or 'cost'. but, there was a landmark court case 2 years ago where someone was taken all the way to appeals and lost, as the judges deemed the charges to be reasonable/not excessive - see here.

 

[wood1e2]

Interesting i have already phoned them up, so not quiet ignoring them!!

Work from Costa Coffee often, so it is not just about cakes etc. Not that i eat their cakes, but yes i do drink their coffee. Nice air con as well.

Its car park for various retail outlets.

Not sure I really want to chance my arm on leaving it.

What I find interesting is that I have been going there on and off since May this year and in all that time I have only once stayed longer than 4 hours. I find that hard to believe. But not inconceivable.

 

[STDFR33]

Interesting i have already phoned them up, so not quiet ignoring them!!

Work from Costa Coffee often, so it is not just about cakes etc. Not that i eat their cakes, but yes i do drink their coffee. Nice air con as well.

Its car park for various retail outlets.

Not sure I really want to chance my arm on leaving it.

What I find interesting is that I have been going there on and off since May this year and in all that time I have only once stayed longer than 4 hours. I find that hard to believe. But not inconceivable.

Phone Costa and explain the situation.

They might call the parking company to get the charges waived.

 

[Toby Willows]

Phone Costa and explain the situation.

They might call the parking company to get the charges waived.

Doubt it, they'll probably be grateful to get rid of a customer taking up a table for over four hours at a time, probably using their WiFi and electricity as well (there's a chap in our local Costa who's forever sat there with his laptop plugged into their electricity).

Regarding the fine, our local Tesco uses camera's, but its also a public car park. If you use it more than once a day they use the first entry time and last exit time and issue tickets. Anyhow, I simply wrote to them, explained the situation and also said I, and all vehicles registered at our address, were unable to accept their T&C's but would still be using what is public car park. Seems to have done the trick.

 

[MikeJ]

When you enter the car park you agree to the owners terms. Those terms have been breached and they have sent you an invoice.

That's key though. The terms must be clear to you, and you claim you weren't aware of them. What were the signs like? Do the journey again, and could you reasonably not have seen them by driving to Costa and walking in?

 

[NRLtd]

Hi

Have a look at http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

The advice to ignore seems to be outdated, since the law (a property or trespassing type act I believe) apparently changed a few years ago in such a way that the parking companies can now persue the vehicles registered keeper, whereas before it had to be the driver.

Whether or not they will persue an ignored charge or a lost appealed charge also depends on the firm in question - read through the threads and you'll see some parking firms keep up the chase to court, others don't.

 

[The Byre]

We have had a few of these - and we ALWAYS ignore them completely. They send a few letters, increasing the 'fine' every time and then it stops.

NEVER contact them in any way for any reason whatsoever!

In the extremely unlikely event of them actually entering into litigation, the defendant merely has to say that he/she lent the car to somebody else and the case is dismissed and they have all costs and have to start all over again - for that very reason, they never bother!

 

[Ian J]

Doubt it, they'll probably be grateful to get rid of a customer taking up a table for over four hours at a time, probably using their WiFi and electricity as well (there's a chap in our local Costa who's forever sat there with his laptop plugged into their electricity)..

I used to have a coffee / sandwich bar many years ago and customers who think that they can rent a table for the day by buying a coffee or two are a real pain

 

[NRLtd]

...the defendant merely has to say that he/she lent the car to somebody else and the case is dismissed and they have all costs and have to start all over again - for that very reason, they never bother!

As a result of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ,the firms can persue the registered keeper in the first instance,unless a different driver is identified. If you have a look at the Money Saving Expert link above or http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/ you can see that some firms are more litigious than others. The smaller ones may go away, but the larger ones (such as Parking Eye) seem to make it part of their operation to persue charges.

 

[Lisa Thomas]

I don't mean to sound rude but you 'overstayed your welcome' at a car park and are now complaining that you got caught and received a fine - pay up!

 

[obscure]

A million years ago when I was at college I worked evenings at McDonalds. We were on the high street (double yellow line out front) right next to the local police station. People (or as we would refer to them, "idiots") would park on the yellow line out front and "just pop in for a second". Many of them got tickets and some of those would come back in to complain to the minimum wage staff because we obviously made them break the law. Our response was always along the lines of "You chose to break the law. We didn't encourage or advise you to do so. Have a nice day".

So yea go complain to the poor minimum wage grunts in Costa rather than accepting responsibility for your own actions. Add being a jerk to your list of sins.

 

[wood1e2]

I used to have a coffee / sandwich bar many years ago and customers who think that they can rent a table for the day by buying a coffee or two are a real pain

The simple solution is not to offer Wifi and electricity.

 

[wood1e2]

I don't mean to sound rude but you 'overstayed your welcome' at a car park and are now complaining that you got caught and received a fine - pay up!

I don't wish to be rude..then why be rude

I need to double check but I don't recall seeing any signs about 'out staying my welcome' and being that I have been going there for about 4 months, I can't believe it is the only time I have 'over stayed my welcome' !

 

[wood1e2]

A million years ago when I was at college I worked evenings at McDonalds. We were on the high street (double yellow line out front) right next to the local police station. People (or as we would refer to them, "idiots") would park on the yellow line out front and "just pop in for a second". Many of them got tickets and some of those would come back in to complain to the minimum wage staff because we obviously made them break the law. Our response was always along the lines of "You chose to break the law. We didn't encourage or advise you to do so. Have a nice day".

So yea go complain to the poor minimum wage grunts in Costa rather than accepting responsibility for your own actions. Add being a jerk to your list of sins.

I can see why you are obscure!!

1) I have never complain to the 'minimum wage grunts' as you call them!! I find them very helpful and friendly.

2) I wasn't parking on 'double yellow lines' anyone that does deserves a parking ticket. And it should be enforced more regularly

3) I accept my responsibility when I am aware of what I might have done wrong, as I said in my post I was unaware of any time limit. Ignorance is obviously not a defence, but when the offence is a 'breach of contract' I have a right to 'have knowingly entered into one'

So that I have to check.

Thanks for the insult, makes me feel loved...

 

[wood1e2]

Long and short of it, I need to check the 'signage' and I have complained to Property Managers and Costa.

I doubt anything will change. Unless there is no signage

Many thanks for the sensible replies, will keep my eyes open in future.

 

[roydmoorian]

If you were working as a sub-contractor to Costa Coffe then the manager would be able to confirm that to the parking enforcement Co.- They would then rescind the charge in most circumstances. If you were simply working on your own behalf using the Costa Coffe WiFi then hard luck and be more careful next time...

How about dividing the charge by the total number of hours you have spent parking on that private land and see that as a small charge per hour ....

 

[Newchodge]

Doubt it, they'll probably be grateful to get rid of a customer taking up a table for over four hours at a time, probably using their WiFi and electricity as well (there's a chap in our local Costa who's forever sat there with his laptop plugged into their electricity).

Regarding the fine, our local Tesco uses camera's, but its also a public car park. If you use it more than once a day they use the first entry time and last exit time and issue tickets. Anyhow, I simply wrote to them, explained the situation and also said I, and all vehicles registered at our address, were unable to accept their T&C's but would still be using what is public car park. Seems to have done the trick.

If there are signs up regulating how long you can park, it is not a pubic car park. Simple.

OP talk to Costa and other retailers and ask if they have a system that you can register your car registration as a regular user so this won't happen again. They will usually have a system to register their staff cars.

 

[Ian J]

OP talk to Costa and other retailers and ask if they have a system that you can register your car registration as a regular user so this won't happen again. They will usually have a system to register their staff cars.

Why would they want to though as they won't want customers hanging about for hours taking up their valuable selling space and using their coffee shop as an office.

Surely four hours is enough for anyone who wants to use Costa rather than abuse it

 

[STDFR33]

At around £3-4 per cup, and having one cup per hour, as well as a sandwich for lunch at £4-5, I'm sure the idea behind the free WIFI is to encourage customers to stay.

 

[Ian J]

At around £3-4 per cup, and having one cup per hour, as well as a sandwich for lunch at £4-5, I'm sure the idea behind the free WIFI is to encourage customers to stay.

I'm afraid that I disagree with you as I think that the idea of the wifi is so that business people can check their emails and do other bits and pieces not to take over the place as an office.

A large cappuccino is £2.75 so assuming that there are a dozen tables all taken up by one man conducting his business and drinking one coffee an hour for four hours that equates to £33 per hour income or £132 for the whole morning which is clearly nowhere near enough for the coffee shop to be viable

 

[STDFR33]

I'm afraid that I disagree with you as I think that the idea of the wifi is so that business people can check their emails and do other bits and pieces not to take over the place as an office.

A large cappuccino is £2.75 so assuming that there are a dozen tables all taken up by one man conducting his business and drinking one coffee an hour for four hours that equates to £33 per hour income or £132 for the whole morning which is clearly nowhere near enough for the coffee shop to be viable

Before lunch I read an article in the independent.

A marketing manager from Costa and the Vice president of starbucks both said they encourage business users to stay for long periods.

I'll link the article when I'm back in the office.

 

[Faevilangel]

as fisicx said, it's an invoice and not a fine, i have successfully ignored a couple, unless they can prove it was you and you were aware you were overstaying then they won't chase you, will get fake lawyer lettings threatening a ccj or court action but they rarely ever take anyone to court and rarely win as they can only invoice for their losses which would be tiny compared to the 35/70 "fine" they normally give.

Ignore them, don't respond to them and continue doing what you are doing, unless they refuse you permission to use the car park, they can't do anything unless they want to sue you.

 

[Gecko001]

I can appeal...but is it worth? What grounds, obviously ignorance is not acceptable.

.

Not necessarily true as ignorance of the Law only applies to the criminal Law and not civil law. Although this car park is a public place, it is unlikely to have been publically owned and is thus privately owned. Parking on a yellow line on publicly owned street such as a High Street or speeding on the Motorway comes under criminal law. Parking in this car park, which is a private car park, will be a civil matter where you entered into a contract with the owner of the car park and they are now claiming liquidated damages (through an agent) for breach of that contract. As others have said it is not a "fine".

The terms and conditions should have been displayed for you to read somewhere in the car park. If they were not displayed you could have a case for not paying the damages as you were not informed of the terms and conditions of the contract you were entering into.

 

[STDFR33]

[Quoted removed post]

Many workers that traditionally work from home go to a coffee shop for several hours at a time.
It's a way for them to get out of the house, whilst being productive.

I am really failing to see why the OP is being subjected to such comments.

If the OP had gone into the coffee shop to read a book, would they have been subjected to the same comments, I wonder?

 

[MikeJ]

Parking in this car park, which is a private car park, will be a civil matter where you entered into a contract with the owner of the car park and they are now claiming liquidated damages (through an agent) for breach of that contract

How can it be a contract? There's no consideration. If they'd charged you to park, and you overstayed your time, then that's different. But there's no consideration in a free car park.

 

[Newchodge]

The provision of a parking place is the consideration

 

[MikeJ]

And what do they get in return, which is the fundamental requirement of a contract?

 

[The Byre]

And what do they get in return, which is the fundamental requirement of a contract?

1. Your custom.

2. A contract does not necessarily have to follow the German principle of "leistung und gegenleistung" (performance and counter-performance).

 

[Faevilangel]

You are entering private property (the car park) so as long as there are signs warning when you enter the car park, you inadvertedly enter a contract with them to use the car park to their terms, fortunately they have no way to make you pay when they invoice you for breach of contract as it's a civil matter (like me taking you to court because you sold me a dodgy product).

An example of how bad the systems are, we have an aldi store, a friend of my dads nipped in before work at 9am and got some stuff for lunch, at 5pm after work went back in and got something for his supper. 2 weeks later got an "invoice" for staying in the car park all day (they allow of max of 1.5 hours). Their system doesn't always register as you leaving the car park so he got the "invoice" even though he had been in the store for less than 20 minutes.

These companies prey on people not understanding what the companies are, my parents paid one of the companies as they thought it was a fine.

 

[Gecko001]

How can it be a contract? There's no consideration. If they'd charged you to park, and you overstayed your time, then that's different. But there's no consideration in a free car park.

Actually you have a point. The car parking companies do quote "liquidated damages" which is well known in contract law and thus I have always assumed that it comes under contract law.

It might actually come under the more general law of Tort where there is a "wrong" that has been done without a contract. The wrong here is that the Op has overstayed his time and since the provision of car parking space is expensive, the cost of that can be calculated and thus damages might validly be claimed.

In any case, it still comes under civil law, so if the terms and conditions were not displayed properly the fact that he/she did not know them could be a defence.

 

[MikeJ]

1. Your custom.

Nope. There's nothing to say you have to enter the shops or buy something. The sign may say it's for customer use only I guess? Does that have economic value, if you don't actually buy something?

2. A contract does not necessarily have to follow the German principle of "leistung und gegenleistung" (performance and counter-performance).

Can't think of any contracts where that's not the case. They'd struggle to argue there's a contract in place.

 

[Gecko001]

This case interests me as you can see. I have done a little research and it would appear that it does come under contract law after all as per the following judgement which involves a case almost identical to the OP's case.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/parkingeye-v-beavis-judgment.pdf

 

[The Byre]

Nope. There's nothing to say you have to enter the shops or buy something. The sign may say it's for customer use only I guess? Does that have economic value, if you don't actually buy something?

It is called 'reasonable expectation' of trade or custom.

Can't think of any contracts where that's not the case. They'd struggle to argue there's a contract in place.

I can think of dozens of examples where goods, services or monies are provided with no 'counter-performance' in exchange whatsoever. In economics, such arrangements are known as 'transfer incomes' or 'transfer revenues'.

Clue - PG Wodehouse is full of one type of transfer income. Indeed, the very first Bertie and Jeeves story mentions one in the first few pages.

I have done a little research and it would appear that it does come under contract law after all

Of course! What else could it be?

The operators have an interesting problem. If they ignore all of those people who over-stay the period, they run the risk of most or all letters demanding payment being ignored. If they rigorously prosecute each and every case with vigorous litigation, everybody becomes aware of the danger of being sued and nobody over-stays and they earn nothing - and of course, create ill-will with the patrons of those shops who use those parking spaces and thereby risk losing their contracts - or even worse, being sued by the shops for driving away custom through 'vexatious litigation'!

Running these schemes is labour intensive and so the very last thing they need is to have to indulge in litigating in complex cases - they want only the 'low-hanging-fruit', the easy cases where they know that the person registered was the person driving, that they live at the registered address and so on. And of these, they just need a few of them "pour encourager les autres!"

 

[Gecko001]

Maybe this is a quaint, old-fashioned notion, but if you park in a car park provided for customers/visitors of businesses you go to the businesses and then drive off straight after you have finished your business. Most of the people who get charges do not do that. They go to maybe one business and then leave their car there and then go and do their shopping elsewhere, or they just use the car park as a public free car park and do not go into any of the businesses. They should expect the people who own the car park to be annoyed and enforce their rules.

However this case is different as the OP was at one of the businesses for the entire time he/she was parked. The coffee shop should know that many of their customers will be using the car park. Maybe they should be warning customers who they allow to stay a long time in their shop of the car parking rules on long-stay. In law they probably have no obligation to do so, but as good PR to avoid a lot of very unhappy and bitter customers it makes sense that they do give some sort of warning.

 

[wood1e2]

If you were working as a sub-contractor to Costa Coffe then the manager would be able to confirm that to the parking enforcement Co.- They would then rescind the charge in most circumstances. If you were simply working on your own behalf using the Costa Coffe WiFi then hard luck and be more careful next time...

How about dividing the charge by the total number of hours you have spent parking on that private land and see that as a small charge per hour ....

That's a fair point I suppose, but then so it is annoying entering into a contract that I unknowingly entered into.

And that is what is at the nub of the matter, irrespective on whether I should be allowed to part there, or whether there should be a charged or whether I was working for myself in Costa or shopping for curtains in dunelm or eating a long lunch at Pizza Hut or discussing the pros and cons of a blow up tent at Mountain Warehouse...

 

[wood1e2]

Maybe this is a quaint, old-fashioned notion, but if you park in a car park provided for customers/visitors of businesses you go to the businesses and then drive off straight after you have finished your business. Most of the people who get charges do not do that. They go to maybe one business and then leave their car there and then go and do their shopping elsewhere, or they just use the car park as a public free car park and do not go into any of the businesses. They should expect the people who own the car park to be annoyed and enforce their rules.

However this case is different as the OP was at one of the businesses for the entire time he/she was parked. The coffee shop should know that many of their customers will be using the car park. Maybe they should be warning customers who they allow to stay a long time in their shop of the car parking rules on long-stay. In law they probably have no obligation to do so, but as good PR to avoid a lot of very unhappy and bitter customers it makes sense that they do give some sort of warning.

That's the problem, trading estates are well and good and you are right, drive in do what you want to do, then drive off...but now with Coffee shops/restaurants/sandwich bars...it is not inconceivable for anyone to stay longer or as long as 4 hours.

Anyway, I am going to check the signage today, see what i missed.