Search

Motorists slam parking appeals as foodbank driver among latest caught

PUBLISHED: 12:15 16 July 2020 | UPDATED: 08:43 17 July 2020

Steve Pyne is disputing a parking ticket issued to him during lockdown. He pulled over to check on a friend who had been self-isolating while making deliveries for Norwich Foodbank. Photo: Sonya Duncan
/Archant

Steve Pyne is disputing a parking ticket issued to him during lockdown. He pulled over to check on a friend who had been self-isolating while making deliveries for Norwich Foodbank. Photo: Sonya Duncan /Archant

Archant 2020

Motorists have hit out at the parking charge appeals system after a foodbank driver was among the latest to have his appeal rejected.

The private car park at Earlham House on Earlham Road in Norwich which is the cause of controversy over parking charges. Picture: Neil DidsburyThe private car park at Earlham House on Earlham Road in Norwich which is the cause of controversy over parking charges. Picture: Neil Didsbury

Hundreds of motorists have been caught out at Earlham House and dozens are being taken to court by Norwich parking company NPE for not paying charges of up to £100.

A Facebook group for those going through court for parking at Earlham House has 120 members.

At a hearing at Norwich County Court in February, Judge Nicholas Reeves said he was dealing with a spate of cases. It comes ahead of a law change which will bring in stricter regulation of parking companies.

At the moment, the industry self regulates and has two different appeals systems.

Parking charges at Earlham House, Norwich, have generated controversy for years. Picture: Neil DidsburyParking charges at Earlham House, Norwich, have generated controversy for years. Picture: Neil Didsbury

But the appeals services used by NPE, called the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), is owned by the same company that represents parking companies, leading to accusations that it is not truly independent.

William Hurley is the owner and director of both the trade body for the industry, called the International Parking Community (IPC), and the appeals body, the IAS.

Retired Norwich police inspector Adam Hayes, who overturned his parking ticket against NPE in court in February, said this meant there was a conflict of interest.

He said: “The IAS is nothing but a kangaroo court in my personal experience and a waste of time submitting an appeal.

Former police inspector Adam Hayes overturned his parking charge from NPE at Earlham House and attacked the appeals process for not being independent. Picture: ArchantFormer police inspector Adam Hayes overturned his parking charge from NPE at Earlham House and attacked the appeals process for not being independent. Picture: Archant

“They use anonymous adjudicators and there is no right of reply. They are simply not independent.”

Figures from the IAS show 5pc of cases heard by the appeals panel rule in favour of the motorist.

But Mr Hurley defended the set-up, saying a retired High Court judge oversaw the IAS and the appeals panel was staffed by independent solicitors.

He said so few rulings were in favour of the motorist because around one-fifth of cases were settled for drivers before going to the panel.

Steve Pyne is disputing a parking ticket issued to him during lockdown. Photo: Sonya Duncan/ArchantSteve Pyne is disputing a parking ticket issued to him during lockdown. Photo: Sonya Duncan/Archant

More than 70pc of cases are settled for the parking company.

Mr Hurley said: “We can keep costs down by administering the process through the IPC, but the decision making gets outsourced.

“We are trying to create a cost effective process that works and there is an ultimate safeguard of the county court.

“It is an unpopular thing that we do. I think the IAS is working well.”

Steve Pyne is disputing a parking ticket issued to him during lockdown. Photo: Sonya Duncan/ArchantSteve Pyne is disputing a parking ticket issued to him during lockdown. Photo: Sonya Duncan/Archant

Another motorist to lose his appeal to the IAS is Steve Pyne.

He was given a ticket on May 1 for pulling over at Earlham House, when he saw a friend who had been self-isolating.

Mr Pyne was delivering parcels for Norwich Foodbank and had two key worker stickers on his car’s dashboard.

You may also want to watch:

The 54-year-old, who lives on Earlham Road, said: “My friend had been alone for some weeks and I wanted to say hi and check she was OK. We chatted for six minutes.

“My explanation letter to NPE was dismissed and they are demanding £100 from me for ‘not parking in a marked bay’.”

NPE said Mr Pyne’s car had blocked the entrance to the car park for six minutes.

But the father-of-five said: “I wasn’t blocking anything at all. You could have got a bus past me. They seem to be able to make up any rules they like.”

Fran Dockerty from Fleggburgh had her appeal for pulling over at Earlham House rejected by the IAS in June. Photo: Fran DockertyFran Dockerty from Fleggburgh had her appeal for pulling over at Earlham House rejected by the IAS in June. Photo: Fran Dockerty

He described the appeals process as “ridiculous”.

He said: “They claim to be completely independent, but how can they be when they are owned by the same people as the IPC?”

He also pointed out motorists are penalised for appealing as the fine is increased if they do not pay straight away.

Fran Dockerty, from Fleggburgh, also had her appeal rejected by the IAS during lockdown.

She pulled over at Earlham House for two minutes to drop off a friend and help her with a pram on January 30.

But NPE said she had parked in an area marked for deliveries only.

The 34-year old described the £100 charge as “excessive and unreasonable”.

She refused to pay and appealed to the IAS in March, but then did not hear anything back for three months.

But in June the IAS ruled against her stating they were “satisfied” the signage was clear. The mother-of-two said the appeals process was confusing.

NPE, meanwhile, defended the system. “They (the IAS) assess each appeal on the evidence that is provided to them from both the appellant and the operators,” a spokesman said.

•Reform is coming

The government pledged to reform the private parking industry more than two years ago when it supported a bill called the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill.

It is meant to bring in stricter regulation of parking companies, a single code of conduct and reform the appeals process.

The government said at the time: “A single code is intended to set a higher standard for practices across the sector, especially in the area of appeals against parking tickets.”

However, this has not yet gone out for public consultation or been presented to Parliament to pass in to law.

It is being supported by the RAC and Steve Gooding from the association said earlier this month that there should be a single appeals body and “independent scrutiny” of the private parking industry.

Figures from the RAC show a surge in the number of tickets issued by private parking firms to 8.4 million in 2019/20 - one every four seconds.


If you value what this story gives you, please consider supporting the Eastern Daily Press. Click the link in the orange box above for details.

Become a supporter

This newspaper has been a central part of community life for many years. Our industry faces testing times, which is why we're asking for your support. Every contribution will help us continue to produce local journalism that makes a measurable difference to our community.

Comments have been disabled on this article.

Latest from the Eastern Daily Press