Advanced search

To not pay my parking fine of £100 for overstaying at a services for 10 minutes?

(76 Posts)
NomadsLand Thu 24-Jan-13 20:30:32

Met a friend at a Services station for coffee and overstayed by 10 minutes over the apparent 2 hour limit. It is posted on a couple of signs but I must have missed them.
Received a parking ticket with time-stamped photos of me driving in and out (it is my car).
So annoyed! No ticket on my car - just these bloody photos and a £100 fine.
Seems unreasonable to me.
Anybody else dodged this bullet?

lemonandlimes Sat 26-Jan-13 14:19:40

hmm, "a bit hardh"
I can't type today,
"A bit harsh"

lemonandlimes Sat 26-Jan-13 14:18:15

A bit hardh.
I didn't miss it, but I admit I was thinking of the example here when I wrote it.
There was no requirement to leave the service station after two hours, but there was a requirement to pay up front for longer, so "pay where you need to"
I certainly agree if it's two hours, no returm etc, set the timer and get back and move in time.
But the excessive penalty is that, - excessive.

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 26-Jan-13 10:32:44


Park properly, pay where you need to, ignore the unfair charges, ignore the idiots who seem to need to decry everyone else, and you can't go far wrong.

You missed
leave when you are supposed to. But then that doesn't seem to apply to you.

lemonandlimes Fri 25-Jan-13 19:49:57

Both the parking companies and the loonies who seem to need to prove a point are both sides of the same coin.
Both spout the same nonsense, both lost any moral high ground years ago, both seem to think they can merely state the nonsense with no proof, and expect the normal, reasonable, driver is the middle to swallow it whole.
Park properly, pay where you need to, ignore the unfair charges, ignore the idiots who seem to need to decry everyone else, and you can't go far wrong.

BoneyBackJefferson Fri 25-Jan-13 19:07:38

"And the rest of us that stay for a couple of minutes too long caught between them used as fodder."

"I agree, lemonandlimes."

Ahh, the hypocrisy, its good to laugh.

ComposHat Fri 25-Jan-13 16:42:04

I didn't want to stay. We'd pulled into the services at 2am just before Christmas in the arsehole of nowhere.

We'd bought a cup of coffee, had a wander, maybe 20 minutes in all. Went back to the car and it resolutely refused to start. Told the staff what had happened, called the AA. We'll get to you as soon as we can but it will be a while.

Three hours later the AA man arrived. Got back on our way grumpy but none the worse for wear.

Until their shitey letter dropped through the box.

They can whistle for it, if this is how they treat their customers.

AnnaRack Fri 25-Jan-13 16:33:21

I can see both sides. Most motorway services have a 2 hr limit beats me why anyone would want to stay more than 2 hrsthere but never mind you shouldnt just "ignore" the signs. Otoh £100 is an excessive charge for 10 mins and the service station would find it difficult yo prove financial loss. My advice would be to ignore. Good luck

lemonandlimes Fri 25-Jan-13 14:28:45

It's usually clearly signed.
If you think the motorway service station is safer than a layby, you must agree they're providing you with a service not just parking.
But if you want to stay more than the given free time, if you do indeed pull in intending to stay long enough to have a sleep, it's simple, you pay up front as stated on the sign, rather than take the piss.
It's even easier to pay if you're having a coffee, you can buy the ticket there.
Won't be subject to any more charges then.
The problem this type of abuse causes is exactly why the op was ticketed for a genuine oversight.

ComposHat Fri 25-Jan-13 13:13:00

lemon a charge to use the carpark i have no problem with.

A sum of such eye watering proportions completely out of proportion to the cost of providing the service: no. Especially as the terms and conditions are often poorly sited. Deliberately so I guess.

Motorway services are heavily regulated due to the important safety role they have. I would suggest that this is an area that regulation could be usefully extended to. If someone needs 2 hours and 15 minutes to have a nap, drink a cup of coffee, eat or wander around then I think that shouldn't be subject to punitive fines.

Sleeping in layby is neither safe or in some cases legal and as you have to park with lights on, will flatten the car battery.

lemonandlimes Fri 25-Jan-13 07:33:31

I can't really see any difference. If they want to charge you, it's their car park, you don't have to use it and take the piss.
If you want free, get off at the next junction, and park up with the trucks in the layby who don't want to pay either.

Sparklingbrook Fri 25-Jan-13 07:22:08

That makes sense for London BadLad. If you are pulling off the motorway for a kip and lunch it doesn't give you much time though. sad

lemonandlimes Fri 25-Jan-13 07:10:26

Seems fair enough to pay for the use of the carpark then.
It costs money to maintain them, keep them surfaced, pick up all the McDonalds wrappers etc.
I remember doing exactly that years ago, parking at services to meet people, then taking one car on to clients, and leaving mine there all day, even several days, so maybe the parking charges are in response to business users treating them as free park and rides over the years.

BadLad Fri 25-Jan-13 02:43:03

I think our nearest service station has this 2 hour rule. Do you think it's to stop people parking all day? But then why would anyone want to park there all day?

It saves on parking on congestion charges, for example. Four people want to drive from quite a way away into London. They meet up at the nearest service station, then they all pile into one car, leaving the other three there. Three congestion charges and parking fees saved.

Off the top of my head - that's one reason.

Wallison Thu 24-Jan-13 23:59:06

Also, I would imagine that the so-called 'debt recovery agencies' are just people sitting on a different desk in the same office ie it doesn't cost the company anything to 'go to them'.

Wallison Thu 24-Jan-13 23:48:31

Being sceptical, going to small claims is peanuts for each case, but if they were to do it for every case it would cost a lot of money really if you're talking about thousands of cases a year. Sending a letter is cheaper.

Also, you can't just issue a claim - you have to send a letter (used to be called notice to commence proceedings, don't know what it is now) first, so even if they were litigation-happy then the letters would go first.

ComposHat Thu 24-Jan-13 23:41:50

As it goes I a bike is my main mode of transport for day to day transport. For what it is worth I don't agree which mch of what the motoring lobby say.

I honestly don't think the majority of cases are people saying I will park here and don't give a fuck, it is people who don't see the signs, are unavoidably delayed or overstay be a few minutes. The parking companies then use bully boy tactics to try and recover an outrageous sum of money they've plucked from the air.

I still maintain the best advice is to ignore anything that isn't from a court. Do not answer them, do not speak to them.

Of course we don't know which if any of those 800 odd cases were succesful. Some may have been because te defendent didn't turn up or paid up out of fear before the hearing.

However taking someone to a small claims court costs peanuts, if it was a viable tactic for them, why do they waste time and money sending letter after letter from bogus solicitors and debt recovery agencies. If they had a decent chance of winning in court, why not just pay the £35 it costs to lodge a claim in the small claims court straightaway without dicking around with debt recovery agencies etc.?

Wallison Thu 24-Jan-13 23:34:26

I agree, lemonandlimes. I used to work for a firm where there was no parking as such and we had to use a car park that had previously been council-owned but had been handed over to a business residents' group and the parking enforcement had been farmed out. Due to the nature of our work, we often had clients calling into the office at times of crisis and it could take quite a lot of time to resolve whatever situation they found themselves in. There was no way during this time that my colleagues could say "I'm sorry, but I just need to go and get another ticket for my car" (the longest ticket was for two hours), so unless there was another person in the office who wasn't similarly engaged and could run downstairs and get another ticket, they would get one of these 'fines'. It was fucking madness. And we were providing (in my view at least) an important service to the community and blah blah blah.

But then you do get these utter chancers who think that their human rights are infringed by not being able to park on a double yellow and what have you, which is also crackers.

BoffinMum Thu 24-Jan-13 23:31:13

I'm not a lawyer or nuffink, but they appear to have no evidence that you didn't make two separate trips. Can they prove definitively that you didn't go out and in again?
If not, then presumably this 'photographic evidence' is useless.

Wallison Thu 24-Jan-13 23:28:37

I would have thought so too, wannabedreams, but I don't know if that's what actually happens. Even the most spittle-flecked of the motorists' forums seem to talk about successful prosecutions, so some of the suits at least must be sticking (there is no way those swivel-eyed shut-ins would admit to it if that weren't the case).

lemonandlimes Thu 24-Jan-13 23:26:33

Both sides are as bad.
Parking companies that stick a ticket on for anything, and a screamimg mob that want to park anywhere with no responsibilty.
And the rest of us that stay for a couple of minutes too long caught between them used as fodder.
God knows what's right anymore.

wannabedreams Thu 24-Jan-13 23:25:44

and to be fair if they charged a reasonable amount for overstaying - £10ish - I would just pay it and they would make more money in the longrun as I wouldn't rush back to my car and exit before 2 hours.......

Wallison Thu 24-Jan-13 23:24:55

Oops, that should say "I don't know how many of the court cases are successful" - of course, a CCJ is always 'successful', in its own limited terms, anyway.

wannabedreams Thu 24-Jan-13 23:24:02

In order to enforce it they can be asked to prove their loss of income when you were parked there..

Wallison Thu 24-Jan-13 23:16:47

Meh. Can't say I'm that bothered about it myself, although yes it's shit if you've broken down and can't move of course. I'm a two-wheeled road user and get very fucked off by the entitled attitude that a lot of car drivers have and there really is something very "It's my car and I'll park where I want to" about all of these websites that have sprung up in the wake of private parking companies. Motorists' rights, ffs? Like it they are fighting slavery or some great evil or something? Give me a fucking break.

And I do agree with you btw that mostly you can ignore these demands, but on this thread and on the other one recently there have been plenty of people saying "It's an invoice" and "It's not enforceable" and other blah; I just get annoyed because it's not giving the OP good advice. And I fully accept that it sounded like I thought the parking company could issue a CCJ but of course I know that is not the case. BUT a CCJ can be the eventual result of getting one of these tickets, ignoring it, ignoring the summons and not paying the amount of the suit. It happens, and it's irresponsible to suggest that it doesn't.

I don't know how many of the CCJs are successful - I would suspect that the amount is reduced a lot of the time because of course someone occupying a space for say 10 mins more than the alloted time doesn't cost the owner £100. But I really don't know and nor, I suspect, do you.

sukysue Thu 24-Jan-13 23:11:15

there must be millions of these tickets issued every year yet they took 800 to court hmmm
do the maths speaks for itself.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now