£80 nightmare for tired driver

Chris Wilson

September 17, 2008

| Submit Comments | Comments (38) | Previous | Next

Emma Faulkner

TIRED driver Emma Faulkner pulled into a service station for a nap - and was slapped with an £80 fine.

The 24-year-old motorist was heading home from London to Preston and stopped for a break just before 1am at the near-empty car park of Lymm Services on the M6 in Cheshire.

She left, refreshed, at 4.40am and drove the remaining 35 miles to her house.

But then a letter from car park operators Parking Eye arrived demanding £80 because she had overstayed the service station's two-hour car parking limit.

She had been caught out after being snapped by an advanced number plate recognition system.

Emma, from Barton, near Preston, who is a waitress on the Queen Mary 2 cruise ship, said: "I had no idea any of this was going on.

"I stopped because I was tired and I was thinking I really don't want to fall asleep.

Horrified

"I didn't see any sign saying only two hours. I'm genuinely horrified. They are always on about safe driving."

She is refusing to pay the fine, although the service station says its number plate system alerts them to non-payers - so they can clamp their cars if they visit again.

Motorists who wish to stay longer than the free period have to pay a flat rate of £15 for 24 hours.

But Emma didn't know there was any limit and so made no payment.

Emma has been warned that if she continues to delay paying, the total bill could be as high as £110.

Her mother Audrey, 57, was outraged when a fine letter from Parking Eye dropped through the door after Emma had left for the cruise.

She said: "She can sleep for England. I was shocked to get this because I didn't realise you had to pay on the services.

"When I rang the police, they said they didn't think you had to pay either."

A Parking Eye spokesman said: "The signage within the motorway service station is very clear, stating that if a motorist wishes to park for longer than two hours, there is a fee.

"That said, we are happy to review any case if a motorist feels there are extenuating circumstances."

Sheila Ranger, from the RAC, said: "The services brought the charges in as people were using their car parks as a park and ride. It comes down to common sense and on this occasion, we would hope the ticket will be overturned."

| Submit Comments | Comments (38) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

Peter M, Mcr (17/09/2008 at 08:41)

It is not a fine. Only a court can impose a fine. Please try to get it right.

Polky (17/09/2008 at 08:41)

The answer is simple.

Don;t pay it because it's not enforcable as it's a bill and NOT a police fine.

NEVER go back to Lymm services because it's just another overprices moorway serice station and should you feel the need to nap, pick any of the others.

ANPR camera's in car parks should be outlawed.

Jo14 (17/09/2008 at 08:44)

I rarely stop at service stations - but have noticed the 2hr warning - it is quite clearly signed IMO.

Man made Climate Change is NONSENSE, Cheadle Hulme (17/09/2008 at 08:48)

She should have stayed on the motorway and caused a crash..being sensible was the wrong option especially as those motorway car parks are chocca at 4am...

umpire 2, Salford M7 4HT (17/09/2008 at 09:19)

ANPR cameras being used for this matter should be banned.
ANPR cameras being used looking for stolen cars, Illegal cars, drivers who are banned and driving without insurance should be encouraged.
Service stations charging you on top of their high priced drinks and refreshments should be banned also.

sallyg, Lancs (17/09/2008 at 09:32)

MEN, get it right. You have been told often enough.

It is NOT a fine. It is an entirely unenforceable invoice.

Why not do your readers a favour, and carry out some research about this scam, and present an article giving them the truth?

Anyone who needs further info would be well advised to look at the forums on www.pepipoo.com.

Ted Striker, Banned from being Cunning for no apparent reason it would seem... (17/09/2008 at 09:46)

I don't see the problem here. She stayed longer than two hours and didn't pay for it and now she's getting a fine/bill/invoice etc. Them's the rules...

Chris Green, Chorlton-cum-Hardy (17/09/2008 at 09:51)

This story highlights the easy way in which the surveillance society is becoming a pernicious force. Presumably, Parking Eye is using the DVLA database to enable it to track people down but why should everyone’s private information be made available to private business? It is similar to councils selling off the electoral register.

More and more information about our lives is taken, stored in databases and then sold off to the highest bidder. Perhaps, when/if the NHS database is up and running, the government could sell our medical records to the drugs companies so they can pester us to buy their pills.

It wasn't me, Merseyside (17/09/2008 at 10:00)

for once I agree with not paying this parking excess. You did the right thing and stopped as the highway code tells us to when we are tired.

Ace for PM (A.K.A Ex BD 118 118), Manchester (17/09/2008 at 10:10)

She used common sense she pulled over and had a rest as it states, at that time of the morning i am assuming it was dark and she was too tired to see the signs

i can imagine the comments that would have been left had she carried on and caused a major incident

give her a break

service station overturn this penalty use as much common sense as she did

Steve (17/09/2008 at 10:30)

Surely the company Parking Eye haven’t a leg to stand on.
This is a civil matter, not criminal therefore it could be suggested Parking Eye and certain other agencies have acted illegally.
The only way Parking Eye could have found Emma’s details is by applying to the DVLA to search their computer database or by searching some other database held by another organisation. In either circumstance the data held within those databases is subject to the Data Protection Act. Therefore it could be suggested the DVLA acted illegally by supplying those details to Parking Eye.
Data must only be held for limited purposes, the support of a civil prosecution by Parking Eye I would suggest doesn’t fall within those limited purposes as defined by the Data Protection Act.
Data must also be processed in line with a persons rights, therefore by the DVLA passing on the details of Emma from the data they hold, it could also be argued that the DVLA have failed to process Emma’s details in accordance with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act in so much as they have infringed on her right to privacy. Even under the exemptions of Article 8(2), the suggested prosecution by Parking Eye doesn’t fulfil any of the requirements to pass on Emma’s details to Parking Eye.
Obviously this is causing distress to Emma therefore further communication from Parking Eye could be found to be illegal under the Malicious Communications Act 1988.
I have been on the receiving end of such bully boy tactics by companies such as Parking Eye and I have to say Emma is walking a fine line between £80 and £110. That said, I would suggest that Emma write to Parking Eye outlining the circumstances and clearly indicate that she feels threatened by their suggestion the fine could be increased if she doesn’t pay immediately.
Then if they don’t back off Emma should try and find a solicitor who still believes in protecting their clients and employ him/her to fight her corner.
I did and I won.

Mark,Radcliffe. (17/09/2008 at 10:43)

Why didnt the overhead matrices warn her that although tiredness can kill;taking a break for longer than 120 minutes at the Services may result in some jobsworth trying to enforce a fine of £80.

bemused (17/09/2008 at 11:19)

ParkingEye have no jurisdiction here. They have written to the registered owner of the vehicle, but have no proof whatsoever that the registered owner and the driver are one and the same. As a result, there is no legislation allowing them to invoice the registered owner (note invoice, not fine). Unfortunately for Emma, the decision to publicise this in the MEN probably has given them enough evidence to suggest who was driving.....

Polky (17/09/2008 at 11:31)

" In either circumstance the data held within those databases is subject to the Data Protection Act."

No it isn't. The DVLA database is open access to anyone with enough money and although it is covered by the data protection act, it also has specific exclusions from it to allow DVLA to make money out of these parking companies.

brummyview (17/09/2008 at 11:47)

Emma, thank you for exposing the black art of corruption that the`authorities`are using to intimidate ordinary citizens.Corruption rules, o.k!

Bean B4, manchester (17/09/2008 at 11:59)

They are a priving parking outfit. It's a charge not an invoice. Ignore them and they will go away. Same applies if the you get done at Asda.

ebble, manchester (17/09/2008 at 12:21)

This is not a fine, it's a parking charge. She should pay the charge the owner of the site wants for the service provided.

Frostee, Oldham (17/09/2008 at 12:38)

As previously stated by others this is not a fine and is unenforceable under criminal law. This is an invoice by a private company for breaking a contract with the landowner or their representatives. However, for the contract to be enforceable (under civil law) there needs to be many other considerations which the car parking company has to fulfil.

Emma should refuse to pay and fight this in a court if the company decides to take her on that route. If they threaten with bailiffs (before court action) or any other hard tactics they might be guilty of trying to obtain money with menaces. Do not be frightened by these people. £80 is an outrageous penalty and should be challenged.

Newspapers should stop referring to these things as 'fines'. They are not!

Technobabble, Manchester (17/09/2008 at 12:43)

I know Lymm services quite well from when i worked out of Warrington as a field engineer; often stopped off ther for supplies. It's primarily a truck stop (or at least purports to be such), and charging truck drivers £15 for stopping overnight is one thing, they can always claim it back. And while many motorway services do charge for more that 2 hours, they often have a sliding scale depending on how long you wish to stay.

As for the £80 charge (not a fine), they will have to try and get it back through the small claims or county courts, where a judge has the power to tell them to get stuffed if he feels so inclined. Personally i'd let them try, which brings me to my final niggle, the idea that they can automatically clamp any car that they claim has previously overstayed it welcome. Is this even legal?

The Rover (17/09/2008 at 12:48)

Mark of Radcliffe, as somebody who is involved in motorway communications design I wish to inform you that all messages shown on a matrix sign have to be approved by the Highways Agency and the Police if it is not a standard message. Even standard messages had to be approved in the past.

The point of all this article is that all of the MSA's show signs that say you are allowed to park for free for 2 hours. After this you have to pay. If every driver stayed over their allotted time then you people that comment on here stating the company has no right to do this will be the first to complain when they pull into a MSA and find nowhere to park. There has to be rules otherwise things don't work.

She should learn from this and pay up. She has broken the rule and she should have planned her journey properly before setting off.

Totty Lass (17/09/2008 at 13:30)

I would suggest that all motorway services be obliged to set aside an area where motorists can stop and rest/sleep. It is a disgrace that such a provision doesn't already exist.
On French motorways, there are very few "service stations" but frequent rest areas, with toilets and drinking water.
They don't seem to experience "park and ride" problems - perhaps someone should ask they why?

Mark,Radcliffe. (17/09/2008 at 13:56)

Dear Rover...As someone who has to read overhead matrices..messages like Fog Ahead,and theres no fog...Speed restrictions when there is no reason; then to tell me its 6 miles to Oldham in 6 minutes,especially if am travelling at 70mph...Not required...But to inform me of a potential rip off being actioned at the next Services is a providing a Public Service.Information the motorist needs.In fact get the messages sponsored by rival Services,thereby generating revenue,and a re-think by such Services and companies who generate these Parking "Invoices".On the other hand one could get 1000-2000 motorists to stage a simultaneous 2 hour rest at the Services in question,filling the Car-Park and dont bother buying anything...You can have rules,but there's more than one way to skin a cat.Like there is no obligation for her to pay up.In fact she might consider a counter action for stress.

Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (17/09/2008 at 14:19)

The two hour max stay is mainly to allow other road users the chance to park and rest whilst having lunch. At 4.30am who is she causing inconvenience to, however, if she'd carried on and caused an accident, 2 hours later every body in the area would have been inconvenienced by delays. She did the right thing and it's time the jobsworths were sacked for beings over zealous and bringing embarrassment to their employers

Damian O'Brien (17/09/2008 at 14:22)

Please please Emma do not pay this charge. This is not a fine. A fine can only be imposed by a court of law. This is an unenforcable invoice only. This will not go to court whatever they say. If it did go to court you would only be liable for the companies loss, which is £15.00. Stick to your guns.

lebist, Blackley (17/09/2008 at 16:29)

There seem to be too many ifs buts and maybes from the barrack room lawyers on here regarding this fine/invoice/charge etc.to put Emmas mind at ease.Put it down to experience,bite the bullet and pay up before it escalates then have a go at fighting the case.I did this a couple of years ago when I got ripped off for parking behind the DVLA at Old Trafford.It turned out I still had to pay the fine/charge/invoice but at least it didn't cost me more than the original £30 and I slept easy.

()

Report

News