There''s a parking fine in store
Sunday Times
By Emma Smith
Supermarkets are charging drivers up to £150 by using the DVLA database
Supermarkets including Sainsbury, Waitrose, Tesco, Asda and Lidl are using private vehicle information to charge motorists up to £150 for staying too long in car parks. The retail giants are employing security companies to photograph motorists’ numberplates and send bills to their homes. Threats of legal proceedings follow if they don’t pay.
Many motorists believe data such as their home address is confidentially held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), but in fact it is being sold to security companies for £2.50 per address. Bills are sent to motorists who exceed car park time limits of typically one or two hours. The charges can be two or three times higher than fines handed out by local authority traffic wardens.
The practice has become widespread because supermarkets perceive clamping as “customer unfriendly”. Critics say the move breaches privacy codes. It is increasing in spite of a government review of the DVLA’s practice of selling motorists’ records to commercial organisations. The review was provoked by a Sunday Times exposé last August of the sale of data.
In the year to April 2006 the DVLA granted 1.1m requests for drivers’ details from private companies, charging what it describes as a £2.50 “administration fee” per inquiry.
Supermarkets claim they need access to the records so they can prevent unscrupulous drivers abusing free parking or disabled bays, especially in stores close to rail stations, leisure centres or city centres.
But motoring organisations warn of a growing number of largely unregulated private parking enforcement companies winning lucrative contracts to levy “unreasonable” charges on behalf of supermarkets, shopping centres and other private landowners. The charges (private landowners cannot legally impose fines) range from £25 at some Waitrose car parks to £40 at about a third of Asda stores to £70 at many Tesco stores. The highest supermarket charges uncovered were £150 at some branches of Lidl.
Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, has criticised the DVLA and condemned firms such as Creative Car Park Management (CCPM) of Mill Hill, northwest London, which sends out £170 charges to motorists who exceed time limits at the Polegate shopping centre in East Sussex, as well as lower charges to overstayers at some branches of Aldi and Co-op supermarkets. “People willing to give information to the government (the DVLA works on behalf of the Department for Transport) expect it to be used for a very narrow purpose, not sold to other companies for them to make money,” says Baker, who claims he has received a string of complaints about CCPM’s “preposterous” charges.
“The problem is that there is no regulation governing parking on private land,” says Paul Watters of the AA Motoring Trust. “This is a massive growth industry and the DVLA has been guilty of aiding and abetting some fairly spurious practices.”
Motorists can easily miss warning signs in sprawling supermarkets and believe there is unlimited free parking. Several supermarket chains — including Tesco — use surveillance cameras to record numberplates. The first drivers know of their error is when the bill comes through the letter box, several days or weeks later.
“There is a big problem with the supermarkets because often their car parks are so big the signs are not always very noticeable,” says Watters. “You could enforce time limits with tickets and parking booths but some of the supermarkets appear to prefer to punish drivers.”
John Tyler, 43, an auditor from Kent, received two demands for £150 each for staying too long in the Lidl car park in Ashford which it shares with his Fitness First gym. Gym members are allowed to park for three hours and shoppers for one hour. He spent two hours at the gym on consecutive days, not realising that because he had not registered his licence number with the gym he had been marked down as an overstayer.
Several days later a charge notice arrived from City Enforcement Parking (CEP) of Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, working on behalf of Lidl. Three weeks later a second bill followed. “I am livid,” says Tyler. “This was an honest mistake. There was no ticket on my car when I came out of the gym so the first I knew about it was about a week later, by which time I’d already clocked up another fine. There wasn’t even a contact number for the company on the ticket so I could speak to someone and argue my case, just an automated payment line.”
Fitness First agreed to confirm Tyler had been in the gym during the given period. Tyler wrote to CEP outlining his case but the company refused to withdraw the bills. “The fines are £150 each or £75 if you pay within two weeks, so I don’t feel as if I have any choice but to pay up now.”
Unlike local authority parking fines, which motorists can challenge through an independent appeals body — the National Parking Adjudication Service (or the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service in London) — motorists’ only redress against private parking contractors is through the courts or by complaining to the Office of Fair Trading. Most motorists pay up to avoid the escalating charges or the risk of bailiffs’ bills that can push up the final cost to more than £1,000.
The British Parking Association (BPA), which tries to uphold standards in the industry, said access to DVLA records should be limited to a list of “approved contractors”. “A mandatory code of practice with a full monitoring and auditing process would regulate the approved companies,” said Keith Banbury, chief executive.
There are 270 private parking companies on the BPA’s books although, as membership is voluntary, the total figure is probably significantly higher. The DVLA claims it regularly gives drivers’ details to 17 commercial parking companies. “This is a new subculture that is emerging,” says Mark Moran, editor of Parking Review, a monthly trade magazine. “Every year they (the parking companies) are increasing their income and extending the areas they work in.”
The DVLA said there was a commercial need for private companies to have access to its database. “Unauthorised parking is a widespread problem,” said a spokesman. “If these requests were refused, landlords would argue that the agency was denying them the ability to seek redress.”
Mark Hayden of CEP said the company acted on the instructions of its clients and looked at all appeals. “We want to be in this business in the long term, so it is not in our interests to upset our clients’ customers for the sake of short-term profits.”
Gary Wayne, chief executive of CCPM, which operates 150 car parks and is not a member of the BPA, defended the rights of “reputable” parking companies to pursue drivers. i“If the DVLA did not give this information we would have to go back to clamping and towing, which is much more aggressive. We display clear signs telling drivers about time restrictions and drivers are given time to call or write if they want to appeal. The vast majority of people pay within 14 days at the reduced rate of £85. If you compare this with clamping which costs £125 or towing which is £275, it is a much cheaper option.”
The transport department has expressed concern about the “number and breadth” of companies gaining access to DVLA data. Its inquiry report is expected before the end of the year.
By Emma Smith
Supermarkets are charging drivers up to £150 by using the DVLA database
Supermarkets including Sainsbury, Waitrose, Tesco, Asda and Lidl are using private vehicle information to charge motorists up to £150 for staying too long in car parks. The retail giants are employing security companies to photograph motorists’ numberplates and send bills to their homes. Threats of legal proceedings follow if they don’t pay.
Many motorists believe data such as their home address is confidentially held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), but in fact it is being sold to security companies for £2.50 per address. Bills are sent to motorists who exceed car park time limits of typically one or two hours. The charges can be two or three times higher than fines handed out by local authority traffic wardens.
The practice has become widespread because supermarkets perceive clamping as “customer unfriendly”. Critics say the move breaches privacy codes. It is increasing in spite of a government review of the DVLA’s practice of selling motorists’ records to commercial organisations. The review was provoked by a Sunday Times exposé last August of the sale of data.
In the year to April 2006 the DVLA granted 1.1m requests for drivers’ details from private companies, charging what it describes as a £2.50 “administration fee” per inquiry.
Supermarkets claim they need access to the records so they can prevent unscrupulous drivers abusing free parking or disabled bays, especially in stores close to rail stations, leisure centres or city centres.
But motoring organisations warn of a growing number of largely unregulated private parking enforcement companies winning lucrative contracts to levy “unreasonable” charges on behalf of supermarkets, shopping centres and other private landowners. The charges (private landowners cannot legally impose fines) range from £25 at some Waitrose car parks to £40 at about a third of Asda stores to £70 at many Tesco stores. The highest supermarket charges uncovered were £150 at some branches of Lidl.
Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, has criticised the DVLA and condemned firms such as Creative Car Park Management (CCPM) of Mill Hill, northwest London, which sends out £170 charges to motorists who exceed time limits at the Polegate shopping centre in East Sussex, as well as lower charges to overstayers at some branches of Aldi and Co-op supermarkets. “People willing to give information to the government (the DVLA works on behalf of the Department for Transport) expect it to be used for a very narrow purpose, not sold to other companies for them to make money,” says Baker, who claims he has received a string of complaints about CCPM’s “preposterous” charges.
“The problem is that there is no regulation governing parking on private land,” says Paul Watters of the AA Motoring Trust. “This is a massive growth industry and the DVLA has been guilty of aiding and abetting some fairly spurious practices.”
Motorists can easily miss warning signs in sprawling supermarkets and believe there is unlimited free parking. Several supermarket chains — including Tesco — use surveillance cameras to record numberplates. The first drivers know of their error is when the bill comes through the letter box, several days or weeks later.
“There is a big problem with the supermarkets because often their car parks are so big the signs are not always very noticeable,” says Watters. “You could enforce time limits with tickets and parking booths but some of the supermarkets appear to prefer to punish drivers.”
John Tyler, 43, an auditor from Kent, received two demands for £150 each for staying too long in the Lidl car park in Ashford which it shares with his Fitness First gym. Gym members are allowed to park for three hours and shoppers for one hour. He spent two hours at the gym on consecutive days, not realising that because he had not registered his licence number with the gym he had been marked down as an overstayer.
Several days later a charge notice arrived from City Enforcement Parking (CEP) of Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, working on behalf of Lidl. Three weeks later a second bill followed. “I am livid,” says Tyler. “This was an honest mistake. There was no ticket on my car when I came out of the gym so the first I knew about it was about a week later, by which time I’d already clocked up another fine. There wasn’t even a contact number for the company on the ticket so I could speak to someone and argue my case, just an automated payment line.”
Fitness First agreed to confirm Tyler had been in the gym during the given period. Tyler wrote to CEP outlining his case but the company refused to withdraw the bills. “The fines are £150 each or £75 if you pay within two weeks, so I don’t feel as if I have any choice but to pay up now.”
Unlike local authority parking fines, which motorists can challenge through an independent appeals body — the National Parking Adjudication Service (or the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service in London) — motorists’ only redress against private parking contractors is through the courts or by complaining to the Office of Fair Trading. Most motorists pay up to avoid the escalating charges or the risk of bailiffs’ bills that can push up the final cost to more than £1,000.
The British Parking Association (BPA), which tries to uphold standards in the industry, said access to DVLA records should be limited to a list of “approved contractors”. “A mandatory code of practice with a full monitoring and auditing process would regulate the approved companies,” said Keith Banbury, chief executive.
There are 270 private parking companies on the BPA’s books although, as membership is voluntary, the total figure is probably significantly higher. The DVLA claims it regularly gives drivers’ details to 17 commercial parking companies. “This is a new subculture that is emerging,” says Mark Moran, editor of Parking Review, a monthly trade magazine. “Every year they (the parking companies) are increasing their income and extending the areas they work in.”
The DVLA said there was a commercial need for private companies to have access to its database. “Unauthorised parking is a widespread problem,” said a spokesman. “If these requests were refused, landlords would argue that the agency was denying them the ability to seek redress.”
Mark Hayden of CEP said the company acted on the instructions of its clients and looked at all appeals. “We want to be in this business in the long term, so it is not in our interests to upset our clients’ customers for the sake of short-term profits.”
Gary Wayne, chief executive of CCPM, which operates 150 car parks and is not a member of the BPA, defended the rights of “reputable” parking companies to pursue drivers. i“If the DVLA did not give this information we would have to go back to clamping and towing, which is much more aggressive. We display clear signs telling drivers about time restrictions and drivers are given time to call or write if they want to appeal. The vast majority of people pay within 14 days at the reduced rate of £85. If you compare this with clamping which costs £125 or towing which is £275, it is a much cheaper option.”
The transport department has expressed concern about the “number and breadth” of companies gaining access to DVLA data. Its inquiry report is expected before the end of the year.
posted by Neil Herron at 1:29 PM
1 Comments:
To fine a longstanding customer for a minor infringement is crazy. In the store I was absolutely 'blanked' when I complained. After shopping at Waitrose for over a decade I will never go there again. Good for business? I don't think so.
Post a Comment
<< Home