Where I Live RSS Feed


Consumer advice chief blasts council car park ticket machines at Sainsbury's in Marlow

The new tickets - the front part of the tickets is shown on the left. Top is valid pay and display segment. Underneath is the discount voucher. The new tickets - the front part of the tickets is shown on the left. Top is valid pay and display segment. Underneath is the discount voucher.

A CONSUMER advice chief, hit by a £50 fine, is the latest to blast the parking ticket machines at the council run car park behind Sainsbury's in Marlow.

Ian Nixey, CEO of Windsor and Maidenhead Citizens Advice Bureau, said he will take his appeal to the top.

Mr Nixey, 63, from Marlow, says parking tickets are still unclear even after the change of machines in December.

See related articles below.

He was ticketed after parking in Central Car Park on January 13.

Though he accepted he made a mistake, he said the fine was unfair because he had clearly paid for a parking ticket.

After buying one, he tore the perforated paper ticket in two to separate the voucher.

But, without realising, he placed the discount voucher for Sainsbury's on his dashboard instead of the parking ticket.

Originally drivers were confused by the fact that a voucher was printed first, separately, before a ticket came out of the machine.

Wycombe District Council changed the machines after the apparent confusion.

Mr Nixey claimed even though the system has been changed, neither the instructions by the parking machine nor the ticket itself were at all clear.

The Henley Road resident said both parts - the ticket and voucher – look nearly identical, showing the start and expiry times and the fee.

He said: “I haven't done anything wrong, other than display the wrong part of the ticket in the windscreen.

“It looks for all the world like a parking ticket, it's the old saying, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.”

Mr Nixey said he accepts he made a mistake and that without his reading glasses on he had been unable to see the details of the ticket properly.

But he believes the fine is entirely unfair because he has proof he paid for his parking space.

Conversely, while the discount voucher was not accepted by the council as a ticket, Sainsbury's did accept the parking ticket as the refund coupon, seeing the obvious mistake that had been made, he said.

His appeal was rejected by WDC and he will challenge it at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Meanwhile Holmer Green resident Stan Samek is also taking his complaint to the top after mistakenly placing a Sainsbury's refund voucher in his car on December 3.

The management consultant said he displayed what he believed to be a ticket but was later dismayed to find in fact it was a voucher for the supermarket.

Figures showed this week 92 people had done the same.

His latest appeal to WDC has been refused so Mr Samek will ask The Traffic Penalty Tribunal to examine his case.

The tribunal is the final stage of appeal for motorists or vehicle owners against a penalty issued by a council in England.

He said: “I'm going to pursue it because I think it's totally wrong.

“Ultimately, they’ve admitted it's caused confusion, that the two parts of the ticket should be connected.”

What Wycombe District Council said.

In a statement WDC said some of the 92 motorists who got a fine for displaying a refund voucher accepted it while others appealed it.

“As is standard procedure, every appeal that we receive is reviewed and a decision made on a case by case basis.

“In some instances, some of these PCNs may have already been overturned depending on the nature of the appeal. Once a PCN case has been closed, either through a payment being made or a decision made through the appeal process, it cannot be reopened.

“There is no legal requirement to display any notices about a change to pay and display tickets, however to be helpful to car park users, we decided to display some.

“The notices were put up after the new refund voucher scheme was introduced and are still displayed.

“During December, an A-board was also displayed.”

WDC added it has to abide by any decision made by the parking adjudicator.

Sainsbury’s said in a statement: “We are sorry to hear that the council run car park is causing confusion with our customers.

“We have asked Wycombe District Council to take a more sympathetic view towards customers that accidentally display the refund portion of the ticket within their vehicle.”

Comments(15)

piran says...
11:43am Sat 4 Feb 12

I am amazed at the high handed manner of local councils especailly WDC. For instance this spree of fines in Marlow is typical. Obviously many visitors to Marlow have made the same genuine mistake. Its not just one or two. Or is this another council revenue raising exercise? Maybe this is a policy to force visitors to shop in more friendly towns away from Marlow?
You would hardly believe that government is "by the people and for the people". Councils govern with our consent and need to remember this, and stop being tyrants. It seems that WDC is against the people especially when it comes to parking in Marlow by the new Sainsbury's. Yet self-serving local politicians will support vocal, tiny minorites who complain about other peoples cars being legally parking on "their" roads.
We need to get rid of more "red tape", stupid rules/regulations and the aweful nanny state.

geoffW says...
11:49am Sat 4 Feb 12

To say that "some of the 92 people ... accepted it" doesn't make it right.
.
There are people in this world who don't want to make a fuss, are to intimidated by authority, etc. That doesn't mean that taking advantage of them and bullying them is acceptable.
.
Too many jumped up jobswoths are still employed by council, hiding behind the word/excuse "proceedures". Obviously the council doesn't want to employ anybody who can think for themselves and employs the braindead. Cheaper probably.

sparky49 says...
12:27pm Sat 4 Feb 12

These tickets clearly state "voucher" on one half. You admit you made a mistake, you admit you did not use your reading glasses, you admit you knew the issues regarding the car park and yet still moan you have received a penalty. It is not a FINE it is a penalty notice, only Courts can issue fines. Pay it and don't go bleating to the press because you are a CEO.

chris toff says...
1:13pm Sat 4 Feb 12

sparky49 wrote:
These tickets clearly state "voucher" on one half. You admit you made a mistake, you admit you did not use your reading glasses, you admit you knew the issues regarding the car park and yet still moan you have received a penalty. It is not a FINE it is a penalty notice, only Courts can issue fines. Pay it and don't go bleating to the press because you are a CEO.
Sainsbrys must be loving this too , not having to refund peoples parking costs because they (the drivers) have left the voucher on the dashboard insted ot their parking ticket.
it does clearly state Voucher people just seem to be in too much of a hurry.

piran says...
2:14pm Sat 4 Feb 12

sparky49 wrote:
These tickets clearly state "voucher" on one half. You admit you made a mistake, you admit you did not use your reading glasses, you admit you knew the issues regarding the car park and yet still moan you have received a penalty. It is not a FINE it is a penalty notice, only Courts can issue fines. Pay it and don't go bleating to the press because you are a CEO.
You must be unique having never made a mistake! These people PAID to park and made a genuine mistake (over 90 shows it was not a one off but obviously confusing). The bloody council is elected by us and for us, not to use more "red tape" and hid behind excuses such as "rules". By putting the wrong ticket in their car windows clearly demonstrated to even the stupidest traffic enforcer that they had paid, and that is the spirit of the parking rule. It just needed some common sense from the “parking police”. Also did it not occur to the useless authorities that a sudden spate of over 90 fines being fined in a “newish” car park showed that something was wrong? The WDC should refund all those 90 fines/penalty notices. We want visitors to Marlow and must not discourage our visitors, by sheer bureaucracy, to shop elsewhere. The council needs to see the bigger picture. So do the Nazi-like traffic enforcers. Marlow and WDC needs to support successful businesses and not persecute motorist by petty rules.

GeoranToon says...
3:42pm Sat 4 Feb 12

The obvious and simplest change would be to scrap the Failure to Display rule.

If a motorist has paid for parking and can prove it, then the fine should be quashed as a matter of course.

Guidance should also allow motorists a reasonable window to get change for the meter.

See:
www.telegraph.co.uk/
motoring/news - "How to fight a parking ticket"

citizen-of-marlow says...
6:01pm Sat 4 Feb 12

Make that 93.Even though I have both sides of the ticket due to one fluttering to the ground I am still being fined.

bluebanana says...
7:24pm Sat 4 Feb 12

If you're unsure why the machine has given you 2 tickets, why not put both in your car on display to be on the safe side? After all, having the parking cost refunded by Sainsbury's will make hardly any difference to cost of running a car, so why bother separating the tickets anyway.

I routinely pay for parking wherever I am, even if I'm only going to be there 10 minutes. Most car parks are under a pound for an hour. Yet it's laughable that some people will drive around the free on street parking areas looking for a space, and using up more than a pounds worth of fuel in the process! Free parking is not a right, it's a privilage.

disgusted-ratepayer says...
4:18pm Sun 5 Feb 12

Bluebanana, are you perchance Caroline Hughes, Head of Environment at Wycombe District Council, on a salary of £80,456.00 as at October 2010? If so you can afford not to reclaim parking from Sainsbury's. Ms Hughes is responsible for answering the letters of complaint written by the unfortunate persons caught out by this Council money-making trick. Even assuming that Ms Hughes works productively for 37.5 hours for 45 weeks a year (allowing for holidays) that equates to £47.67 per hour. Add in 20% on-costs for NI, Pension etc Ms Hughes costs the rate payer £57.21 per hour. Assuming that a two page letter takes just 1 hour to write (optimistic) the cost to the rate payer of upholding a doubtful £25 fine is more than double the fine. Hardly a justifiable expenditure. An unquantifiable cost to the WDC is the loss of any remaining goodwill of its ratepayers.

Go here to see how senior staff at WDC cost rate payers £1 million a year including on-costs: http://www.wycombe.g
ov.uk/do-it-online/o
pen-data/salaries-of
-senior-staff.aspx.

bluebanana says...
4:46pm Sun 5 Feb 12

You seem to have this site confused with the Daily Mail. I don't care how much our public servants get paid, especially as it has nothing to do with someone moaning about making a mistake in a car park (i.e. this article). But what I can confirm, is that the Head of Environment would not be the one replying to your letters. Complaints are handled by staff at the lower end of the scale.

disgusted-ratepayer says...
6:43pm Sun 5 Feb 12

From your response, bluebanana, it's clear you are familiar with the organisation of WDC Environment Services department. Maybe you can alert Ms Hughes to the strength of feeling on this blog. To justify her lofty salary she should bring some leadership to the department. Car parking policy should be about bringing order to the streets in terms of where and how people park their cars so that citizens can go about their business without undue hindrance. At present she seems to be endorsing a policy of enforcing the letter of the law rather than its spirit. Her department is now being tainted with the petty officialdom often associated in this country with car park attendants and some dignity is required.

piran says...
11:41pm Sun 5 Feb 12

disgusted-ratepayer wrote:
From your response, bluebanana, it's clear you are familiar with the organisation of WDC Environment Services department. Maybe you can alert Ms Hughes to the strength of feeling on this blog. To justify her lofty salary she should bring some leadership to the department. Car parking policy should be about bringing order to the streets in terms of where and how people park their cars so that citizens can go about their business without undue hindrance. At present she seems to be endorsing a policy of enforcing the letter of the law rather than its spirit. Her department is now being tainted with the petty officialdom often associated in this country with car park attendants and some dignity is required.
well said disgusted-ratepayer - come on Bluebanana help sort out this petty bureacracy that seems to waste thousands of ££ of my council taxes fighting HS2 without my agreement yet quibbles over car parking mistakes. What a scandalous way for a council to encourage visistors to Marlow.

bluebanana says...
10:47am Mon 6 Feb 12

I agree that it is a bit petty but I suspect the council will argue that it's Sainsbury's problem because they introduced the refund vouchers to attract shoppers. I think the reason the council can't accept these appeals is because, to the letter of the law, a valid parking ticket was not displayed. If they allowed people to get away with using refund vouchers as parking tickets, that sets a precedent which could lead to all sorts of future claims using this case as the example. Once you set the precedent, there's no going back.

Personally I think Sainsbury's should refund these penalty tickets or negotiate on your behalf with the council to get them cancelled. But then they'd want proof that you actually bought stuff in their store, & you had actually paid for a ticket etc etc. They should just buy the car park, would make everything a lot easier.

gpn01 says...
10:47am Mon 6 Feb 12

GeoranToon wrote:
The obvious and simplest change would be to scrap the Failure to Display rule. If a motorist has paid for parking and can prove it, then the fine should be quashed as a matter of course. Guidance should also allow motorists a reasonable window to get change for the meter. See: www.telegraph.co.uk/ motoring/news - "How to fight a parking ticket"
The simplest route would be to not charge for car parking.

GeoranToon says...
1:53am Fri 10 Feb 12

gpn01 wrote:
GeoranToon wrote:
The obvious and simplest change would be to scrap the Failure to Display rule. If a motorist has paid for parking and can prove it, then the fine should be quashed as a matter of course. Guidance should also allow motorists a reasonable window to get change for the meter. See: www.telegraph.co.uk/ motoring/news - "How to fight a parking ticket"
The simplest route would be to not charge for car parking.
Whilst it might appear a simple solution to *not* charge for parking, think of the unforeseen consequence when every available space in town becomes so full of cars all day long to render it virtually impossible to park for shopping or other short-term visit. A parking charge at least is a form of rationing, but should not be used as a deliberate entrapment by the Failure to Display and other petty restrictions.

click2find

Most popular


About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree