A parking firm has been accused of running an ‘entrapment scheme’ after drivers were forced to pay fines for using a car park they didn’t realise was privately owned.
Drivers claim the tiny private car park is easily confused for a council one as the sign for it is hidden behind a tree – and it is located between two Milton Keynes City Council parking zones.
The car park, which is operated on behalf of the Tenpin bowling alley in the city centre, does not have any road markings or barriers at either entrance to separate it from the adjacent council parking.
Instead there are just two small, unlit entrance signs at one end – both of which can be easily missed – which say the parking spaces are for ‘patrons only’. There are also council parking machines at either end, further adding to the confusion.
John Baker, a senior councillor for neighbouring Central Bedfordshire Council, has now accused firm Parkingeye of running ‘a racket’ and ‘misusing the County Court system to demand payment for an illegal scheme’.
Have YOU been ‘entrapped’ by a parking firm? oliver.price@mailonline.co.uk
Parkingeye has been accused of running an ‘entrapment scheme’ after pressuring motorists into paying fines for parking in a car park that could be easily confused for a council one – as a sign was ‘hidden’ behind a blossoming tree (John Baker pictured with the sign)
Parkingeye runs a tiny private car park which is on a through road connecting two parking areas run by Milton Keynes City Council – and motorists are being sent £100 charges after not realising who owned the spaces
James Ward was slapped with a £100 charge notice after dropping off his son Alex, 12, at the Tenpin bowling alley in Milton Keynes and parking his car there for eight minutes
He told MailOnline: ‘In my view, Parking Eye has stooped to a new low with this racket.
‘By illegally placing a “private parking” entrance sign adjacent to an MK Council parking ticket machine, the company actively entrapped motorists before issuing a £100 charge for parking, sometimes for just a few minutes.’
Initially, Parkingeye erected an unlit entrance sign on a council lamppost directly beside a council parking meter.
Before Christmas, Parkingeye and Tenpin were ordered by Milton Keynes Council to remove the sign as it was illegally affixed to the lamppost. They eventually did so in February after some delay.
Parkingeye then moved the offending entrance sign ‘and hid it behind a tree’, Cllr Baker said.
MailOnline has spoken to several people who feel they were pressured into paying Parkingeye.
Mother-of-one Blanca MacLennan, 49, was charged £100 for parking in the area for around 20 minutes for a dentist visit, after paying at a council parking meter as she mistook the area for public parking.
Mrs MacLennan, from Milton Keynes, parked in the bay on February 29. She received the parking charge notice from Parkingeye on March 3.
She reached out to Tenpin, who told her she would have to appeal to Parkingeye, who then rejected it but offered her a a discount to £20 as a ‘gesture of good will’.
‘If I don’t want to spend a lot of time fighting in court or with letters then it was best to pay,’ she said.
Mr War was handed a £100 parking charge despite parking for his son to use Tenpin and only being parked there for eight minutes
‘They know that you don’t want a headache pursuing this. It could be in favour or against you.
‘If they rule in your favour you recover the £20 but if not you can lose the £20, the original penalty of £100 and then pay for the court expenses. That could be £300, I don’t want to risk that.’
Mrs MacLennan added: ‘Had the rules been clearer I wouldn’t have parked there. I didn’t see any sign telling me it was Tenpin parking.
‘What you see is the machine opposite sign to pay for the Milton Keynes parking.
‘It’s a way for Tenpin to make money off people who don’t go to Tenpin.’
Father-of-two James Ward, 45, also from Milton Keynes, was also pressured into paying a £20 charge reduced from £100 as a ‘gesture of goodwill’ after he parked in car park for just eight minutes, while dropping his son off at the bowling alley on December 19.
Mr Ward’s 12-year-old son Alex was bowling with his Scout troop for their Christmas party and as he was early, he waited a few minutes until a leader arrived.
‘I got a letter through the post a couple of weeks later,’ Mr Ward said. ‘It said I had to pay £100 or, if paid within 28 days, it’s £60.
‘I immediately thought, I’ve taken my son to the bowling alley, the parking spots are for the bowling alley. I came in and they want to charge me £60 for the privilege.’
He said Tenpin ‘didn’t want anything to do with it’ and when he appealed to Parkingeye it was rejected, but they did reduce the charge to £20 ‘as a gesture of goodwill’.
The other entrance signs to the car park are on a pillar and can also be easily missed
Cllr Baker has now accused Parkingeye of ‘chasing residents for “parking charges” and of ignoring the councils orders.
‘After proactive efforts of MK Council Parking Officers, who ordered the company to move the entrance signs, Parking Eye has hidden one behind a blossoming tree and another on a building, neither of which are clearly visible to a motorist entering the private car park, which is also a through road,’ he said.
‘It is clear that Parking Eye is using an automated system to hound residents through the County Court, only giving up when a motorist requests a hearing with a judge to point out the failings in the scheme. This abuse of the County Court process is merely holding up other legitimate claims.’
Cllr Baker, cabinet member for finance at Central Bedfordshire Council, has called on the government to regulate parking companies which he says are taking advantage of motorists.
He told MailOnline: ‘It’s about time the government legislated to outlaw these rackets, forcing private parking companies to be licensed by local councils. Without a license, a parking company should have no access to DVLA records, and hence would be unable to do business.
‘Companies such as Parking Eye are running the modern day equivalent of clamping. With the correct controls in place, we can clamp down on poor behaviour, allowing private landowners to operate legitimate car parking schemes without motorists being forced to spend hours fighting unfair charges.’
The councillor accused Parkingeye of breaking the Code of Practice of The British Parking Association, which sets out guidance on how signs should be erected in a private car park to operate an ANPR-policed scheme.
Cllr Baker said: ‘The layout of the site and the land under highways control makes it difficult to erect entrance signs that clearly distinguish the entrance points given it is a through road.
The entrance signs boxed in red and where Cllr Baker says they should be in green
The sign is right next to a council parking meter, meaning the private parking can easily be mistaken for public
‘Rather than simply admitting that the scheme may not be viable, Parkingeye moved the unlit entrance sign to a location that is on the peripheral vision to a motorist entering the car park, obscured by a tree sitting on highways land. This innocent tree is now blossoming further obscuring the sign.
‘Laughably, Parkingeye has put a little arrow on the sign to help motorists figure out what is private parking, should they see the sign!’
After raising his concerns with the parking company, their legal team told him: ‘With regards to the positioning of the sign for motorists who proceed past the Travel Lodge, you will appreciate that any such motorist will be required to look right into the parking area in order to make the relevant turn.’
Parkingeye said its position that ‘the sign will be visible to any motorist performing that action and ‘there is sufficient signage throughout the parking area which advises motorists of the existence of the parking area, and the terms and conditions which apply’.
The firm added: ‘It is not accepted that the operation on this site is unlawful and the assertion that Parkingeye operates a campaign of intimidation and harassment, and/or abuses the court process is firmly rejected’
Parkingeye rejected Cllr Baker’s assertion that the signs were obscured, telling the councillor: ‘Parkingeye installed an entrance sign to the left of the entrance way mounted to a brick pillar of the building… it is not accepted that the sign to the right of the entrance is blocked by a tree.
‘Parkingeye’s position is that there is sufficient signage which advises motorists of the existence of the parking area, and the terms and conditions which apply.’
A spokesperson for Parkingeye told MailOnline: ‘An Automatic Number Plate Recognition car park management system works where a camera detects a vehicle registration entering and leaving a car park.
‘ANPR technology is designed to ensure that a PCN will only be issued when the rules of the car park have been broken, such as the correct tariff hasn’t been paid or they’ve overstayed.
‘The car park at Tenpin in Milton Keynes is private land and has clear, prominent and compliant signage at both entrances and throughout, advising that the car park is for customers only. The signage informs customers of Tenpin that they should enter their vehicle details in the terminal at reception to receive 12 hours free parking.
‘Parkingeye operates a BPA (British Parking Association) audited appeals process, which motorists can use to appeal their Parking Charge.
‘Our correspondence provides clear advice and guidance on how motorists can use our appeals process to highlight any mitigating circumstances for breaking the rules of the car park.’