/ Motoring

Barry Beavis: why I fought my parking penalty in court

Parking fine

When Barry Beavis was served with a £85 Parking Charge Notice by a private parking company, he wasn’t willing to just accept it and pay up. Here’s Barry himself on why he decided to fight the charge in court.

My name is Barry Beavis and I am involved in a legal battle that could save all motorists millions of pounds.

Parking tickets are a right royal pain the whotsit. We’ve all had a parking ticket and we’ve grudgingly paid what’s due. But are the charges actually fair?

There are two types of charge and two types of parking “ticket”. The first one is a parking ticket issued by your local authority, normally in the guise of a traffic warden or police officer. If you get one of these then you have usually done something wrong, as these are issued pursuant to the Road Traffic Act.

The second type of charge is for parking on private land. Something like a retail centre, a supermarket, an out of town shopping centre and cinema or even a hospital car park.

Fighting my parking penalty

I received one of these Notices from ParkingEye. I visited Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford in April 2013. It offers motorists two hours free parking, but I had stayed for nearly three hours. I received a PCN (Parking Charge Notice) for £85 which I argued in a test case in Cambridge County Court was an unenforceable penalty, was not a genuine reflection of the parking company’s loss from motorists overstaying, and should not be allowed.

I had to research private parking companies to put together my defence in Cambridge. What I found made me so incredibly angry. I read experiences of people who had felt intimidated by letters asking them to pay the ‘fines’. This egged me on even more to fight my case on behalf of everyone who has been affected.

Yet, I lost. The judge ruled that there was a ‘commercial justification’ for the charges. New law was being written. Bad law, I think.

Taking it to the Supreme Court

I was amazed that the judge ruled against me. Contract law is simple in my opinion: if it’s a penalty then it is unenforceable. In my view, these parking companies had been getting away with it for far too long, yet here was a judge ruling in their favour. I was firstly shocked and then I became incensed; literally hopping mad.

I was given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal and in February 2015 the case was heard. Last week the judgment was handed down.

Lord Justice Moore-Bick, Lord Justice Patten and Sir Timothy Lloyd agreed that the £85 charge is intended to deter motorists from overstaying in the car park. Yet, they also held – in an unprecedented ruling – that the charge is still enforceable as it is not ‘extravagant or unconscionable’. Simply put – £85 is not too much.

I have been given leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. I think I should. Do you?

This is a guest post by Barry Beavis, who took ParkingEye to court to contest his parking ticket. All opinions expressed here are Barry’s own, not necessarily those of Which?. Which? intervened in the Court of Appeal proceedings to protect the wider consumer interest, to safeguard existing consumer rights and to ensure the law is fair for consumers across all markets.

21 July 2015 update – off to the Supreme Court

This case is now being heard in the Supreme Court. The hearing is due to end later this week, with a ruling not expected until later this year.

4 Nov 2015 update – Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court today gave its judgement on Barry Beavis’ case. Disappointingly, he lost. Parking fines issued by private companies have been ruled as fair and proportionate by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court agreed with Parking Eye that the £85 charge Barry received for overstaying by 56 minutes was justified as it discouraged people from overstaying at a site close to a railway station and law courts.

We intervened in the case to ensure important consumer rights that protect people from excessive fines in all sectors were not watered down. However, the ruling could now lead to people being more severely fined for things like missing appointments or being late for a nursery pick-up.

Our executive director Richard Lloyd said:

​​’This is a thoroughly disappointing judgment based on a narrow​ ​interpretation of the law. It will cause chaos if cowboy parking firms​ ​choose to take advantage of the ruling by hitting drivers with even​ ​more excessive charges. Our advice to consumers is to be on your guard​ ​and always appeal if you think a parking fine is unfair.’

We’re now planning to take the issue up with government ministers since a reversal of the judgment will require changes to the law.

17 April 2020

I hope you can help please. Back in February I received a Parking Charge Notice for entering a private car park (managed by Apcoa Parking) without a valid payment/permit. The car park is situated on a side road next door to a pub with a beer garden. It was only upon entering the side road I discovered that the pub did not have its own car park and was unable to do a 3 point turn to leave. This meant that I had no choice but to enter the paying car park as it was a continuation of the road I was on. Effectively, I had to do “U” turn in the car park and left immediately without parking.

Anyway, I received a PCN £85.00 charge (£50.00 if paid early) for this incident which I ignored. Today I got a letter from a debt recovery company demanding that I now pay a parking charge balance totalling £155.00! I did not receive any reminder notices from Apcoa Parking before this letter. I called the debt company to try and explain but the woman on the phone was really rude and was not at all interested. She just wanted payment from me.

I have looked on the Apcoa Parking website and was able to locate the original photo evidence which was on my PCN notice, but the option to appeal has expired so could not take it further. One of the pictures is a very dark night picture which does not show a car or a number plate, just 2 front headlamps! This picture is dated 27th Jan at 18:52. Then there is another picture in colour of the front of my car which shows my number plate quite clearly but it is dated 29th Jan at 14:29 which I believe would have been the correct date.

I have kept the screen shots of these pictures. So, the way that the cameras are positioned in the car park there should be a back view of me entering (which there isn’t) and a front view of me leaving. This would prove time of entry and time of leaving. There is no option it seems to contact Apcoa Parking to explain my situation. Should I now just ignore all communication from the debt company and wait for a court order if it materializes? And would I be looking at paying loads of money if I lost the court case?


Kim – My opinion is that you should indeed “just ignore all communication from the debt company and wait for a court order if it materializes”. Without a court order or warrant the parking charge cannot be enforced. If it should get to court, which I doubt, your evidence as stated here would lead to cancellation of the parking charge notice since no parking took place [your car was never stationary].

Kim says:
18 April 2020

Thank you for your quick reply John. I will do that. I intend to take photos of the road leading to the car park and also the position of the entry and exit cameras and any signs, just in case. I do hate injustice. I will let you know what happens.

Hello, I’m wondering if anyone can help me. I’ll try to keep this brief!

PCN received despite a VCS operative telling me it was OK to park behnd him (there were lots of cars in front of him too).

I appealed, turned down.

Case now going to Small Claims Court.

I don’t have any evidence ofthat conversation, altough the picture he took shows the van-sized spot he vacated to take a pic of my car.

I’m thrown by all the legal talk and naivley hope(d) that my pursuit of justice could come about by going to court and telling the judge exactly what happened.

All help gratefully received.

Richard – You will probably be recommended to seek a resolution between you and the other party by meeting an impartial mediator. This would be quicker and cheaper than going before a judge in the County Court. If the other side fails to appear or submits no evidence then judgment will be found in your favour; otherwise the arguments on each side will be rehearsed and a settlement offered by the mediator. If that is not satisfactory you would still have the right to make a formal court claim but your rejection of a mediated settlement might be taken into account. If you succeed you can claim your costs from the car park operator.

My advice would be to write a notice in your hall saying ” Any private parking firm who parks their letters on my doormat by sending them, do hereby agree that they amount of any parking fine they are writing about, 100 % of the fine may be deducted as a fine to the private parking firm for causing their letters to become parked on the registered keeper’s doormat by sending them” When they write you simply write back enclosing a copy of the notice and a letter saying ” I am most dreadfully for the heanious crime of overstaying a few minutes on your land as such I would like to settle the fine in full, I do however deduct a small fine to yourselves of 100% of the amount you claimed in respect of you parking your letters on my doormat whilst there was a clearly displayed sign saying this is not allowed. I do of course enclose a copy of the notice. In future, I would advise that you knock on the door and check that theres no signs like this in place before sending me letters asking for a fine.

Now if there is any difference owing please find a cheque enclosed for it. If on the other hand the total amount owing is under 1 penny (like it is on this occasion) then you will not find a cheque enclosed as there is no difference to settle.

Lots of love and big soppy kisses

The registered keeper of
vehicle reg ______________


Mark – That all sounds very clever, but have you tried it? Does it work?

I think that so long as the parking operator diligently follows the enforcement code and issues the notice to keeper correctly and in the right timescale you cannot evade the parking charge and that any prevarication will add additional costs to the demands.

This is all avoidable if you avail yourself of the challenge and appeal processes if you believe that a parking ticket has been issued without proper justification.

As John says – have you tried it? Does it work? I very much doubt it.

The Parking Charge – the “fine” – is backed up by a poorly thought-through piece of legislation (POCA 2012), supported by an astonishingly inept Supreme Court decision (Beavis).

Mark’s suggestion sounds like a good idea, but it’s unlikely to impress a judge in the County Court. There is no law behind it. I anticipate the parking company will win its case and add yet more lolly to its ill-gotten gains.

The section of POCA which deals with parking needs to be repealed, while the judges who made the daft decision in the Supreme Court need to go back to university to re-sit their first year (they’ll learn about some important legal principles – especially conflict of interest – things they’ve clearly forgotten since they were elevated to the rarefied atmosphere of the Supreme Court). In the meantime, DVLA should cease providing details to companies which seek charges in excess of £20. Why are all the motoring organisations so silent on this issue?

Daniel says:
26 January 2021

Hi there.. I’m desperate for some help. I was made redundant in Sep20 so this £85 penalty charge isn’t great…
– on the 15th Dec20, I drove into Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford with my family.
– I parked in the disabled bay as we have a blue badge for my son.
– We spend a number of hours Xmas shopping (Got purchases on bank statements) and received a penalty charge notice for over staying 13minutes!
– I am living in temporary accommodation in Colchester and my post is redirected…
a) this has only just arrived to me and missed the cheaper cost deadline
b) post deliveries in Colchester have been delayed due to COvid!!
c) Are these notices enforceable as years ago they weren’t and you could ignore them?

ANY HELP would be appreciated all.


Daniel – I am sorry you have been the subject of unfortunate circumstances, but if you overstayed the parking time limit for Blue Badge holders then I think you will be liable for a parking charge. You might be able to appeal for a cancellation on compassionate grounds, or for payment at the appropriate rate for a car without a Blue Badge, but with your mail being redirected there are potential risks to the exchange of correspondence and parking companies are not known for their sympathy.

I would recommend you to pay the £85 in order to avoid the possibility of further escalation. If properly issued, the parking charge notice is certainly enforceable and should not be ignored.

We are constantly seeing aggrieved motorists, who have failed to observe parking requirements, complaining about the penalty and advising them that, other than to hope for goodwill, there is little they can do. They have transgressed.

The bigger point, I maintain, is that many accept that they have, indeed, transgressed but are most aggrieved at the excessive, and perhaps extortionate, penalty they are told to pay. Like Daniel’s £85 for a 13 minute overstay. And I say extortionate because there is a further large penalty if you fail to pay up quickly.

I would suggest maximum penalties should be set at £20 (except in car parks where this is less than the parking charge avoided). I believe that would relieve much of the aggravation from those who accept their error.

The last time I looked, councils and private operators took in around £1.5 bn (£1500 000 000) a year from parking penalties. Far more than we lose in push payment fraud that Which? vigorously campaigns on. Yet no campaign to address the consumer detriment caused by parking penalties. Perhaps they see no way it can be changed? They have never told us why they are not prepared to act for consumers.

I entirely agree, Malcolm. As in many other fields, Which? asks people to give examples of consumer detriment but then does absolutely nothing about it.

Two London borough councils are recently reported to have gathered over £!0,000,000 each in the last accounting period from parking penalty charges and many others are not far behind. This case is about a private land parking contravention and I suspect there is a similar level of extortion in parts of London where parking space is at a premium and off-road parking charges are high.

Hi everybody I wonder if anybody has had an experience like mine and could advise me. Iwent to a local shopping centre car park run by parking eye .Ipurchased a ticket and went to the shops (you dont have to display the ticket as it is camera controled) I Left the car park within the alloted timeand went home.Acouple of weeks later i got a ticket through the post saying i had breached their terms and conditions by not correctly keying in the correct number plate 2 digits were wrong.I appealed the ticket through their website by email as you cannot contact them by personal mail c to cut a .long story short they didnt want to know Solicitor letters followed and the out come was to take it to mediation which i did. My defence being that i had paid for the time i was parked so no one was out of pocket. the solicitor for them said no but offered to cut the charge to £150 from£ 260 bout i said no and that i was willing to take it to court and hope common sense will prevail .if anyone has any advice I wouldbe grateful Thanks for reading

Hi Edward – If the company is a member of the BPA some tolerance is now allowed: https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf

If you have evidence that you have paid and the registration number you entered was mostly correct it might be worth going to court. In your position I would join Which? Legal for inexpensive legal advice. I hope that common sense will prevail. Best of luck.

Edward, from memory if you input two digits incorrectly your penalty should be limited to £20. https://inews.co.uk/essentials/lifestyle/cars/car-news/drivers-who-enter-wrong-car-details-to-be-spared-parking-fines-383097

Hi, im going to the county court in November, having been chased aggressively by gladstones solicitors on behalf of Uk car parking management for overstaying on private land, I have genuine reasons why my vehicle overstayed but these a*******s just want money, they dont care about my reasons for overstaying, any ideas on what to say or do on the day, cheers B

Just give your reasons for overstaying and prevail on the mercy of the court. You don’t explain why your vehicle overstayed so it is impossible to advise whether you are likely to be let off the parking charge.

Reasons are usually of no consequence, overstaying being an absolute contravention, but you might be shown some leniency or compassion and ordered just to pay the normal charge without any escalation for enforcement and court action, but I wouldn’t count on it. If the parking charge isn’t cancelled I would expect there would be costs to pay.

Bryan says:
15 June 2021

Judges do not take mitigating circumstances into account. They only consider points of law.

When parking on private land, the relevant points of law are:
Signage in the car park.
The contract between the landowner and the private parking company.
The identity of the driver.
The grace periods before and after the parking event.

The Money Saving Expert Private Parking Forum has free advice to help you fight your PCN in court.

Susan says:
26 August 2021

My son recently received a PCN from CPPlus ( no idea who they are) for parking for 15 mins whilst collecting a an order from a shop. Ok, he probably thought he could just quickly park up and collect with no fee to pay as he didn’t even leave the car. On reading the ways to pay I noticed that the company charge an “administration fee” of £1.50 if you pay online using a card but it also said the “cheapest way to pay” was by phone using an 0844 number. On looking this up BT charge 30p per minute or part of a minute for ringing an 0844 number and most mobile operators charge a set fee of 25p then 25p per minute. I would expect it to take more than 5 minutes to enter the PCN number, the reg number, the card number , the security number and then wait for the payment to go through. So how can this be the cheapest way? Their information on the letter is therefore incorrect. Anything I can do? I would say most firms do not charge any extra these days for paying online by card.

Hello Susan. I don’t know CPPlus either. A few questions – and an immediate suggestion of three “do nots”!

1) Did the PCN come through the post? I assume so given the above narrative. If so, the golden rule if you contact the company is NOT to identify the driver. Any communications must be as Registered Keeper, not driver. This includes of course being wary of using first person pronoun if describing actions on the day.

2) Do not ignore the notice. If you do, fees will escalate and they will have six years to take you to court. Appeal in time (which freezes the early payment discount offer while the appeal is reviewed and responded to). But do not identify the driver even inadvertently. Appeal detail will depend on the notices displayed in the car park, the notice received and whether the notice is PoFA compliant. Most are not which provides a straightforward route to appeal with near 100% success. The appeal needs to identify the PoFA non-compliance, and end with a “therefore I am not obliged to disclose the driver’s details and refuse to do so” or similar.

3) Avoid the phone. In addition to the silly charge rates they may trick you into an “I was only there…” statement – disclosing that you were driving.

Susan – Companies are allowed to use expensive numbers for enquiries and new business but must provide an 01, 02 or 03 number (standard rate, and free on many tariffs) for use by existing customers to make contact or complain. This has been in place for about seven years. I know people who have run up bills using an 0871 number to book rooms at Premier Inn hotels. Thankfully this company has moved to using 03 numbers for bookings as well as customer services.

I do not know whether it is legal for CPPlus to use an 084 number for accepting payments. Maybe Which? could advise.

Since January 2018 it has been illegal to make a surcharge for using a credit or debit card.

As Roger has said, do not ignore the notice. 🙁

Susan says:
26 August 2021

Thank you for the advice.

Susan says:
26 August 2021

Also the “offence” happened on the 3rd July and the PCN was dated 16th August. which was 44 days later. Is this acceptable? Is there a time limit for them sending out PCNs?

Susan says:
26 August 2021

Also the PCN “offence” date was 3rd July but the PCN was dated and sent on 16th August. This is 44 days later. Is this OK or is there a time limit for sending out the notices?

They have up to 56 days to contact the Registered Keeper. (and cannot do so for the first 28 days for PoFA compliance). However, there are likely some other aspects that are non-compliant with Schedule 4 of the PoFA. Well worth checking – before appealing.

www dot legislation dot gov dot uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted is the link (mods feel free to reconstruct)

The notice received by the keeper must comply with all aspects of Paragraph 9 (and implicitly 10) of Schedule 4. The relevant text below for your information:

9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));
(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;
(i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).
(3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices which each specify different parts of a single period of parking).
(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.
(7)When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.
(8)In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—
(a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
(b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.
10(1)The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe evidence which must accompany a notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) or paragraph 6(1)(b) (as the case may be).
(2)The regulations may in particular make provision as to—
(a)the means by which any prescribed evidence is to be generated or otherwise produced (which may include a requirement to use equipment of a kind approved for the purpose by a person specified in the regulations); or
(b)the circumstances in which any evidence is, or is not, required to accompany a notice to keeper.
(3)The regulations may—
(a)include incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory or saving provision;
(b)make different provision for different purposes.

Go down the list one by one -= and identify any non compliances. Also if possible check the actual notices in the car park match and are reasonably placed that a driver would spot them on entrance or having parked walking to the pedestrian exit.

Further to my query I appealed to CPPLus parking quoting the 14 day period to send the PCN out as per the POFA and appealing on the grounds they took 44 days (6 weeks) to send the PCN out. I received a reply today ( 1 month after the initial appeal) saying they did not issue the PCN under the POFA guidance and according to the rules by the DVLA and the BPA they have 7 months to send the PCN out. They then asked for me to supply the name and address of the driver and gave me another 14 days to supply them with the information. Having looked up the BPA rules it appears that they can, but if they use the non POFA route they cannot hold the registered keeper responsible. I am not sure if I am understanding this properly. Can anyone help??? If I write back and say I do not know who was driving the vehicle at the time of the offence what will happen? Also they did not supply a reference to POPLA and I thought if they rejected an appeal they had to do this. Help please ASAP.

Susan says:
3 November 2021

Up date on this problem with CP Plus…… firstly thanks everyone for the advice especially about the POFA. I used this after they turned down my first appeal and said they hadn’t enforced the POFA and had 7 months to send the parking charge notice. I then replied that we could not supply them with details of the driver and as they hadn’t used the POFA then I was under no obligation to supply them with t and they couldn’t make me name the driver. SUCCESS…. they rescinded the charge! Many thanks everyone I’ll certainly remember the POFA and have it saved and studied in detail now!

Congratulations Susan. It’s always good to hear feedback from those who have managed to find a solution to their problems.

And credit to Roger Pittock for elucidating the arcane convolutions of private land parking enforcement. These companies appear to be unscrupulous and treat the legal requirements with contempt by attempting to hold the registered keeper to ransom.

Absolutely. I guess that Roger has had some experience dealing with parking charges. 🙂

Great news – good to see one of these pernicious parking predators defeated by a private citizen.
But isn’t it appalling that this ineptly drawn-up legislation was introduced in the first place? Not just that, but in the face of overwhelming evidence of these leeches extracting vast sums of money through their bullying tactics, the situation is allowed to continue. Susan stuck up for herself. Many thousands of motorists have paid up for a quiet life, despite being entirely innocent.
The most we ever hear of is proposals for a code of practice. A code of practice will not deal with the situation. Schedule 4 of POFA should be repealed. If my local council can control its car parks with a ticketless pay-on-exit system I don’t see why private companies can’t do the same. If that means a few dozen parking predators go to the wall, so much the better.

Absolutely. I guess that Roger has had some experience dealing with parking charges

You may think that. You may very well think that. I couldn’t possibly comment.

Susan says:
5 November 2021

I totally agree with the last comment. Pay on exit is by far the fairest way. and companies would make money as everyone would have to pay to park otherwise they wouldn’t get out of the car park and these cowboy parking enforcement companies would lose out. I also think there should be a limit on the charge they can make. How can they justify asking for £60 charge when you park for half an hour which would have cost say £1? It’s more than loan sharks charge. We need better legislation on this.

At the risk of criticising Which? again, I feel very disappointed that the ‘consumers’ champion’ has never shown the slightest interest in taking up the issue of extortionate parking charges under the private land parking regime. It really is a scandal that there is no proportionality in the relationship between the scale of a contravention and the penalty applied.

Given that the purpose of parking control is to encourage the orderly and efficient management of a limited amount of space it would seem to me to be in operators’ interest to incentivise short stays but have an escalating unit tariff for those vehicles that stay the longest; there would then be no need to penalise any marginal overstaying which currently generates a ticket in many car parks.

Let’s hasten the day when alternative public transport facilities and home delivery services no longer require us to drive into town and city centres and find somewhere to park.

I would no doubt be criticised that I have repeatedly suggested Which? should take action. It is, with public authority penalties, a £1.5 billion a year industry.

My repeated requests have only been made because Which? have never provided a response as to why they will not tackle or campaign against this iniquitous system that imposes quite disproportionate charges for, in the most part, relatively trivial offences.

The simple solution of paying on exit is attractive but has disadvantages in many situations. For example, many car parks do not lend themselves to barriers and the potential cost of equipment would maybe remove them from use. We could make private car parks serving shops free – paid for by the retailers – but they would inevitably be misused by shoppers avoiding council car parks that need to, and should, raise parking revenue, or by commuters.

But the core problem is imposing quite disproportionate penalties and subsequent charges on those who inadvertently or otherwise fall foul of the regulations. Reduce the basic penalty to £20 (say) and I believe most of those who currently complain would accept that as they know they have broken the rules.

I agree that not all car parks are suitable for pay on exit. However put a cap of £20 on the penalty charge and I suspect exit barriers would spring up wherever it is possible. Where it is not possible the charge would be enough to put people off overstaying.
Ideally any money raised through penalty charges would go into a central fund (e.g. the lottery fund) from which the parking companies would gain no benefit – that removes the issues of conflict of interest (sadly six of the Supreme Court judges in Beavis did not understand this basic legal principle). The parking companies would be paid by the landowner who benefits from the increased custom which the car park brings.
If only this country had organisations to represent the interests of consumers and motorists….

Pay on exit does not necessarily need barriers. A traffic light is actually all you need. If people then choose to exit without paying either there and then or on-line within the next few hours, an elevated parking charge would be entirely justified.

The biggest problem I’ve seen with pay-on-exit is a failure of ANPR to recognise the car at/approaching the barrier and a horrendous queue behind it while the hapless driver attempts to negotiate with the remote “attendant”.

Tomorrow I have an appointment to have my eyes tested. I am confident that I will be able to park outside the town centre and walk in. Before parking enforcement was introduced several years ago, there was often little chance of finding a space. Today I’m going to have my flu jab and I expect to be able to find a space to park because the free on-street parking period is strictly enforced, judging by the number of times my number has been recorded by a warden. It would be useful if the effectiveness of different penalties was objectively assessed to get rid of profiteering, but the charges do have to act as an adequate deterrent.

My local authority is feeble when it comes to enforcement of on-street parking regulations – yellow lines, zig zags etc are merely street decoration (though they can be pretty hot in their pay and display car parks). And that is the crux of my issue with parking enforcement generally. It is aimed mostly at people who have parked safely in a car park rather than those who cause danger on the streets. Profit comes first. We’ll only deal with safety if we’ve got time.

There seems little point in having regulations if they are street decoration and not enforced. What I would like to see is a proper analysis of penalties to discover what acts as a deterrent without being excessive. That could well depend on how much parking is in demand.

What I’d like to see is satnav-linked smart parking to save tens of hapless motorists driving around for as space when – with appropriate inter-vehicle comms, appropriate space allocation could prevent so much of this by directing relevant drivers to the free space near(ish) to where they need to be.