Yes - the stores and the site landlord, if different, must be aware by now what is going on and so are guilty by association of upsetting their customer base. As I have said before, buying on-line is so easy and convenient it seems daft to drive customers away from shopping in stores but this will be the ultimate result. Then the amount of rip-off charges will pale into insignificance as profits fall and, perhaps, stores go out of business (car parks too!)

Nice to hear of some success. But thousands must be paying up these huge sums and many others having unnecessary stress and worry (not seen as such by the car park operators - Quote from UKPC website: "Many forums/sites advise people to ignore tickets, some advise them to send standard letters to deny liability for the ticket and other outrageous defences to avoid paying a charge. A £60 parking charge is a VERY MINOR ISSUE (my emphasis!) ............" It is more like £150 with many companies but even £60 is hardly "very minor" to most people who would think carefully before spending this on even a durable item rather than a few minutes of parking. It MIGHT be minor to millionaire car park cowboys (I wanted a cowboy outfit when I was a boy but have outgrown them now!) Let's boycott (and let them know) all stores where these rip-off car parks exist (not just UKPC) and shop on-line until the site owners feel the effect and start to see sense when contracts are up for renewal.

Quote from UKPC website: "Many forums/sites advise people to ignore tickets, some advise them to send standard letters to deny liability for the ticket and other outrageous defences to avoid paying a charge. A £60 parking charge is a very minor issue (my emphasis!) ............" It is more like £150 with many companies but even £60 is hardly "very minor" to most people who would think carefully before spending this on even a durable item rather than a few minutes of parking. It MIGHT be minor to millionaire car park cowboys (I wanted a cowboy outfit when I was a boy but have outgrown them now!)

Boycotting the shops who rely on these car parks seems our main weapon. With so much scope to buy on-line, I doubt if it will cause many of us too much hardship. I have already implement buying office supplies on-line from Viking rather than from Staples whom I used to use (Civil Enforcement run car park), will watch DVD's rather than go to cinema (same problem), B & Q on-line rather than Homebase, and eBay and Amazon for almost everything. Why take the chance when that bargain for £20 off could cost you £150? I think these large retailers will due the day they got tied up with cowboy car park operators! I have already returned my Staples discount card. It is a bit more difficult with McDonalds - why should you have to rush your visit or find the meal costs more than that at a top restaurant? In the words of someone I can't recall. "They're 'aving a larff!"

11 mins. seems to be a standard overstay with these cowboys! My friend had the same.

Thanks, chaps; I wanted to know the case as the company omitted the name (strange!)

Anyone know what case this was, when, and if genuine? UK Parking Control - Court Case

They can't claim the "debt" without going to court and arguing for damages for their "loss" - loss of income, if any, from a car space for a few minutes. Read all the posts on this forum and also see Private Parking Tickets: Tickets are often invalid, don't pay....

Boycotting and more publicity seem to be the only way we can help prevent others getting conned; I expect the majority of people just pay up but we are talking (even at the reduced early payment rate) of half a pensioners weekly pension, which is appalling for an, often inadvertent, infringement of possibly only a few minutes!

The amount of attempted extortion is well out of hand. Should we all boycott all retailers where these cowboys operate the car parks and all spread the word to, say, 10 others? That would be a big loss of trade and might apply minds when renewal of contracts is considered.

Yes, the article refers to a JUDGE. I don't think it would go to magistrates unless it were a (fairly minor) criminal matter - eg. genuine local authority parking penalty. However, I think crem is right in that this court does not set precedents - it would have to have worked its way up to a higher court. Excel has threatened to appeal but as that was two years ago I assume nothing further has happened.

How does the court decision (see Judge quashes £300 parking fine...because it set out to ‘frighten and intimidate’ driver | Mail Online) fit into all this? I would have thought that would have been the end of all these £100 plus demands!

Yes I agree. It is misleading for the average victim though.

Thanks to all who replied to me. I noticed there was a debate in Parliament on the subject but don't know what useful outcome there was. I have asked our MP to keep the problem in mind whenever appropriate. On a more worrying note, the following appeared in our local paper. I assume the Trading Standards chap meant the operation was lawful, rather than the levying of "fines" but it will worry a lot of people and no doubt force tham to pay up. NB. I have removed references to location for obvious reasons. SCORES of drivers who have had £150 ***** parking tickets have been told they are lawful. Trading standards — which had been deluged with complaints from motorists who received tickets from the Liverpool-based car park operator — has investigated car park signs and how the tickets are issued. Hundreds of people joined Facebook campaigns after they were issued with tickets in the **** car park, while visiting nearby *** and ********. The £150 tickets are reduced to £75 if paid within a fortnight. Motorists said the penalties were too much and unfair because many are issued at night, when there is no reason for limited waiting to be enforced. Number plates are snapped by cameras and number plate recognition gets DVLA owner details of motorists who stay beyond the one-and-a-half hours — day or night. Tickets are not issued at the time but drivers get a letter through the post. Isle of Wight Council trading standards manager Richard Stone said: "We have taken a thorough look at this issue and found that, while the parking operation at Staples is not popular, it is lawful. "We have also noticed the number of complaints about parking at this site have reduced since the issues were highlighted in the local media.">>

Civil Enforcement Ltd. strike again! My car was left in a car park serving several retailers and which has a 90 min. limit. I do not think it was left for more than 90 mins. but have no proof as the firm want £10 for a picture. I (as registered keeper) have received a "PCN" - defined as Parking Charge Notice, note, requiring payment of £150 (!! - my exclamations) - generously reduced to half if paid within 14 days) as the car was, it claims, left 11 minutes over the limit. The reg. no. is correctly stated, as is the make, but the model is "DVL", whatever that is! Shall I ask them who the driver was, as some advocate (including Pepipoo) or just ignore it? Whatever contract there might be, I cannot see that the firm or landowner could have lost money at a rate of £150 per 11 minutes or over £800 per hour. The car park is free for the 90 mins. and seldom full so I query whether there was any loss at all.