The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-13816, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on the Citizens Advice Scotland report, “It’s Not Fine”. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS) report on private parking charges, It’s Not Fine, and legal advice from CAS on how motorists can appeal against privately issued parking tickets; understands that the legal advice states that unclear signage, as well as fines that are not based on a “genuine pre-estimate of loss”, could be grounds for issuing a legal challenge to a ticket; understands that the British Parking Association recommends a maximum penalty charge of £100; further understands that many private parking firms charge in excess of the recommended £100 and often use aggressive tactics to extract fines from unaware motorists; considers that many motorists in Perth have been hit by excessive fines as a result of parking in Kinnoull Street multi-storey car park; believes that the CAS advice is the first time that a legal opinion on this matter has been published in Scotland, and welcomes this as a useful source of information for people affected by parking charges to consult before they pay a ticket.
17:07
I thank the members from all parties who signed the motion to allow it to be debated, and I thank those who have stayed behind to participate in or at least listen to the debate. I appreciate that members who intend to speak might want to talk about issues that they have experienced in their constituencies and regions; I encourage them to do so.
I think that a useful starting point would be for me to explain how I got involved in the issue. Since April my office has been inundated with letters, phone calls and emails from constituents who have been wrongly fined by a private car park in the centre of Perth. There has been an umbrella effect since then, with many constituents from other areas getting in touch after having seen some of the press coverage of the issue.
Although the rules for parking on public land are well defined with local authorities, the rules for parking on private land are far less clear.
In the early part of the year, the Kinnoull Street multistorey car park in Perth, which is operated by Smart Parking Limited, changed its operations to use number plate recognition software in addition to asking drivers to key in their registration plate details when paying for parking. As a result of poor signage and an overly complicated payment process, the new system has caused a great deal of confusion. I have even been contacted by a former Smart Parking employee, who claimed that the company deliberately introduced the new system with the sole purpose of driving up revenue from fines.
In addition, there have been blatant errors, whereby motorists have been fined despite having correctly paid for parking. I can testify to that: I was the victim of an incorrectly issued parking notice. Fortunately, I had retained proof of payment, so I was able successfully to challenge the notice. However, I should not have had to go to that trouble in the first place, because the fee had been correctly paid for the period in which I was parked. Incorrectly issuing fines is simply not good enough when one considers the mechanisms and tactics that some of the companies use to elicit payment.
A number of constituents have contacted my office in great distress after receiving intimidating letters from debt collectors threatening increased fines, expensive court action or a poorer credit rating following non-payment. As a result of those bully-boy tactics, a number of old and vulnerable residents have paid up despite not being due to do so, having correctly paid for parking. That is not on.
Citizens Advice Scotland received nearly 4,000 calls to its helpline in 2013-14 in relation to private parking issues. That was up a remarkable 50 per cent on the previous year. A further 15,000 people have also used its website to access information on the laws governing parking tickets on private land.
Despite the large numbers of complaints involved, it appears that the vast majority of private parking companies operate well and within the regulations and the code of conduct produced by the British Parking Association, as three quarters of all queries to Citizens Advice Scotland relate to just 15 firms.
I thank Citizens Advice Scotland for its role in increasing awareness among motorists of their rights as a result of the it’s not fine campaign. It is a must for motorists to know their rights and obligations when parking on private land, and I encourage drivers throughout the country to consult the help pages on the Citizens Advice Scotland website.
In July, Citizens Advice Scotland released an important addition to the campaign: a report with a detailed legal opinion on the rules for challenging a privately issued parking ticket in Scotland. That legal advice made it crystal clear that parking companies can only issue fines that are commensurate with the losses that they have incurred as a result of a driver overstaying their welcome.
For an example, if parking costs £1 an hour and a motorist is issued with a fine of £60, they would need to have been parked there for 60 hours to justify the charge. To put that into context, Smart Parking in Perth regularly issues penalty notices of £160, and I am aware of one case of an individual being charged as much as £200 when an unpaid charge was passed to debt collectors.
In no way am I suggesting that people should not pay for their parking. Having a car park is a legitimate business and provides a vital local service. Those who provide that service are entitled to be remunerated for it. However, the abuse of the privileges of ownership by some private car park owners is to be disputed.
Does Murdo Fraser agree that it is not just for parking in car parks but for going just a little bit over time limits that people receive these so-called fines, which are actually charges?
I am happy to agree with that point from Elaine Smith. That is exactly the situation in which many of my constituents have found themselves. Even if they are just a few minutes over their allocated time, they are hit with a £60 fine, which escalates up sometimes as high as £160 if they do not pay it. That is clearly disproportionate and people in that situation should consult the legal advice from Citizens Advice Scotland, which makes it clear that such penalties are disproportionate and, therefore, not legally enforceable.
There is another issue, which is that car park operators need to make the terms of parking as clear as possible. It is a matter of contract law. When a motorist enters a car park, the terms and conditions on which they are to be charged need to be made clear. Too many cases exist of incoherent signs and illegible small print, which mean that people are not clear about their rights.
There appears to be a serious disconnect between the practices of some private car parks and the code of conduct created by the British Parking Association, which is fair but is clearly not being followed in many cases. There needs to be fairness and transparency for car park operator and motorist.
For example, many private car parking firms call their fines parking charge notices—a term that is similar to penalty charge notices, which are issued by local authorities and have legal standing. Blurring the lines between public and private appears to be a tool that some private car park operators use all too frequently.
The authorities in Scotland have a strong record when it comes to legislating for private car parks, with Scotland being the first country in the UK to outlaw private clampers. There have been a number of calls from CAS for the establishment of a fair and independent appeals process, similar to that in England and Wales. It has also called on the Scottish Government to consider establishing a mandatory register to operate car parks.
My request today is simpler than that. It is for the Scottish Government to clarify the law around parking in private car parks so that people are better aware of their rights. Increasing awareness for motorists will ensure that fewer people are duped into paying incorrectly issued tickets and will also help drivers recognise their obligations when parking privately. If that is done, we could cut down on confusion and frustration for car park operators and motorists.
I close by again commending CAS for its work in this area. Better-informed consumers and drivers will be well placed to fight their corner against unscrupulous car park operators.
17:15
I, too, congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing the debate. I lodged a similar motion which also congratulated CAS on its report. I thank members who signed my motion as well as Murdo Fraser’s. It will be a wee bit difficult not to replicate some of the points that Murdo Fraser made in his speech, but I will try.
This issue first came to my attention some years ago when there were substantial retail developments in Galashiels, with Asda Walmart, Tesco, Marks and Spencer and Next all coming to town. Local people in Galashiels were quite unfamiliar with being charged for parking at what they quite rightly consider to be local shops, and quite a few were caught out in the early months. I dealt with many of those cases.
As Murdo Fraser said, people generally come to see their MSP when they are at the end of the road and are receiving threatening letters. Some of the people who came to see me were just about to pay up or did not have the money to pay up, and I did what I could for them. One of the first things that I raised in that regard was that this is not a criminal matter; it is a matter of contract. In each situation involving a contract, it must be clear to people that they are entering into a contract. That is why the notice that is displayed as the driver enters a car park should be what is known as an invitation to treat—Murdo Fraser will correct me if I am wrong on that, based on his legal experience. The sign should be an offer that sets out the price for the service. The CAS report contains an example of a notice that is clear—it is big and blue and has a P on it—and an example of one that is cluttered and which people might not be able to read as they are driving in past it.
Does the member agree that the only way to make it clear that someone is entering a contract is if there is a barrier?
I do not know whether a barrier would be physically possible. Some of the supermarkets that I go to are extremely busy. However, I believe that the notices should be displayed clearly. One of the victories that we had concerned a shopping area where the notices were extremely small—indeed, there was only one little notice as people drove in and people were unaware of it. Consequently, we were successful in rebutting the fees that were being asked for. People ought to know that they are entering into a contract.
Another thing that makes a situation difficult is that the money that is being asked for is referred to as a charge. It is not; it is a fee. Part of the contract says that a person can stay for a set period of time for free and that, after that, there will be a fee that must be paid. Murdo Fraser is quite right in saying that that fee should be commensurate with what would be a reasonable charge for staying there.
Another issue is that some of the firms are entitled to access the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency register to obtain the name of the registered owner of the car. In that regard, I should say that one of the rebuttals that we used was that the person who received the bill for the fee was not the driver of the car. I am not suggesting that people should always say that they were not driving the car, but it is the driver of the car who entered into the contract, not the registered owner, who cannot have seen the notice in the first place.
Many people feel that they have committed an offence. It is not their fault; it is because of language that is used. I am being kind when I say that, because I think that some of the companies deliberately use that language.
In public areas where there is legislation that puts in place criminal offences around parking, the charges are quite clear. Usually, the charge is £60, or £30 if the driver stumps up quickly, as some of us have had to do. Once, I was five minutes over time because I was speaking to a taxman in George Street. I will never forgive him because he cost me £60 just for telling me something that—
I hope that the member set it against her tax.
I did not.
One of the other issues is that there is no right of appeal. If someone appeals, they are appealing to the very people who are putting the alleged charge on them. I very much agree with Murdo Fraser. I hope that the minister will consider regulating the issue through legislation so that we all—the parking companies and the public—know where we are, so that it is clear that there are limits on the amount that can be charged for staying excessive time and so that there is a right of appeal to a third party. It should also be possible to use mitigation in some circumstances, for example when there are reasons why someone has been 10 or 15 minutes over.
Before all that happens, there is an obligation on supermarkets and major retailers to take some responsibility for what happens to their customers and not just leave it to other companies. Such companies are often situated in the south—they issue their letters from the south and from London and are not aware of Scots law. The supermarkets should take it upon themselves to say, “This isn’t fair to our customers. I’m going to intervene here on behalf of Mr and Mrs X.”
17:21
I, too, congratulate Murdo Fraser on bringing the debate to the chamber. It is an issue that is important to many people in Scotland, including hundreds of my constituents, who have sought my help with these unfair charges. I had intended to lodge a motion to get a debate on the subject so I am pleased not only that Murdo Fraser has done so, but I am not on the chairing rota tonight and can participate in the debate. My colleague Cara Hilton also had a motion on the issue entitled something along the lines of “It’s Not Fine”.
I first became aware of this parking problem a number of years ago and since then I have lodged motions, written multiple letters and represented hundreds of constituents in relation to it. Last year, I campaigned on the issue in conjunction with the Coatbridge community forum, which handed out leaflets on the matter to my constituents. As far back as 2009, I lodged a motion about the charges entitled “Highway Robbery” because I believe that that is exactly what many of those companies are doing. Dick Turpin hasn’t got a look in.
I, too, congratulate Citizens Advice Scotland on its awareness-raising campaign, which is referred to in the motion, and on the helpful legal advice that it has issued. I have a close relationship with my local citizens advice bureau, which refers people to me, perhaps because my office is just round the corner. I am very happy to write to the private companies on behalf of my constituents.
I will give some examples of the problems. Many of the people who approach my office having received charges are elderly, or are disabled and their blue badges have fallen off the dashboard or been placed upside down. As I alluded to in my first intervention, I have had a number of cases in which people have been issued charges by car parks with a time limit because they have left the car and gone back later in the day, after shopping elsewhere. Inevitably, those people have spent a great deal of money in local shops, so there is definitely no loss to traders involved. Some shoppers from outside my constituency have contacted me to say that they will never shop in my local retail parks again. In that respect, parking restrictions and charges can lead to a loss of town centre trade, thus affecting the economy in places such as Coatbridge.
A woman approached me for help because she had been out shopping and had spent quite a bit of time in the supermarket in whose car park she was parked. On her return to her car, she had to breastfeed her baby, which took her over the time limit and meant that she was sent one of these charges.
All these people—old, young, mothers and disabled—are then harassed by the parking companies and debt collecting agencies and, as Murdo Fraser said, often feel bullied into paying the charge.
I have written to a number of different companies on behalf of hundreds of constituents and the responses vary. Some cancel the charge, some say that they will reduce the charge and some ignore my letters. I have even had a response in which a company has cancelled the charge but has asked my disabled constituent, whose badge was on the dashboard but was upside down, to pay a £15 donation to disabled charities. That is unacceptable, not least because companies can use such charitable donations to claim tax relief.
I have found that elderly people in particular do not feel comfortable ignoring the letters that arrive from parking companies. They are comforted when I write on their behalf and they are very relieved if the charges are then cancelled.
I represent a constituency with high levels of poverty and deprivation, and I feel really angry that my constituents are receiving those charges in the first place. They are then worrying about them, and in many cases they just pay out the money, which they can ill afford. Referring to the intervention that I made earlier, given that the issue falls under contract law, I think that it would be very difficult for the companies to prove a case in court, no matter the signage. How can it be proved that people have read the signs, no matter what size they are?
That brings me to an issue that is reserved to Westminster but relevant to this debate and which Christine Grahame touched on. It involves the release of drivers’ details from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to some of those private companies. Not only are such releases concerning with regard to data protection, but reports last year show that they are also costing the taxpayer money. Apparently a subsidy arises due to the private firms paying £2.50 for documentation, but it costs the DVLA £2.85 to process. Last year the agency received 1.8 million applications from private companies, which cost the public purse around £612,000. Therefore it is costing us public money to help the private parking companies harass and extort money from our constituents. That cannot be right.
Before I conclude, I think that it is important to be clear that I do not condone irresponsible parking that causes a danger to other road users or pedestrians, nor do I condone selfish parking—parking across two bays, thus stopping others getting a space—and I certainly do not condone ignorant people parking in disabled bays when they are not disabled or parking in parent and child bays without children. However, there are ways in which shopping centres or supermarkets can deal with those situations without employing companies that harass their customers, as Christine Grahame mentioned.
I will continue to fight for the many constituents in Coatbridge and Chryston who are affected by private parking companies, but it really is about time that the practice was stopped. I congratulate Murdo Fraser for raising this important issue and Citizens Advice Scotland for its work. I hope that those highway robbers can be stopped in their tracks, because it really is not fine.
17:27
When Elaine Smith was speaking, I wondered whether, like Murdo Fraser and Christine Grahame, she was going to confess that her motivation was altruistic—in the interest of her constituents—which would have been very fair and accurate.
One of the first cases that I dealt with involved my mother and my stepfather. They had only one car. One of them had parked early in the day and the other one had gone down to the same car park later. They received one of those so-called fines and were very upset about it.
Presiding Officer, there we have it: three out of three members so far have been affected by the issue. I can make it four out of four, because I too have been subjected—as a passenger, of course—to someone incurring an excessive and unfair fine. That is a 100 per cent record of members being motivated on the issue not—of course—through self-interest, at all.
The Citizens Advice Scotland report is accurate in revealing an issue. It is not about irresponsible parking—we will return to that matter in the very near future, and I have a position on that to share imminently. It is about irresponsible charging for parking, which is undoubtedly an issue.
Elaine Smith said that the practice should stop and it should stop now. I agree. If I had a magic button to press that would make it so, I would press it, but it is more complicated than making a simple change in the law.
I am working with the operators on a partnership basis to impress upon them the concerns that have been raised, I have assisted with the Citizens Advice Scotland report and I have heard in the chamber and outwith it the experiences of members, who have given me many case examples of how the unfair application of a charging regime has impacted their constituents.
There are legal issues, some of which are devolved and some of which are reserved. Regarding Murdo Fraser’s plea to clarify the law and to raise awareness, of course I can commit to that, but that in itself will not be enough to solve the problem. It will need a stronger approach—although I have, through officials, had the message shared with the operators that I expect action to be taken on transparency, signage, stopping excessive charging and other matters.
Christine Grahame requested legislative action and stronger regulations, which are being explored. If the approach continues to be unsatisfactory, I may well have to regulate or to propose regulation—it may be that there is time to consider that in a future parliamentary session. I fear that the actions of a minority, which members have described, mean that regulation may be required. It is disappointing to hear that some private businesses—that is what they are, in essence—are acting outwith the spirit of what is provided for.
I am gratified to hear that the minister is considering perhaps regulating. I will put it no stronger than that, as he has not. In the meantime, is the question of a right of appeal, either to not have to pay or to have mitigation, being dealt with? If such a right was available, people would not have to go to their MSP or Citizens Advice Scotland.
Appeals procedures may be in place at the moment. However, as Christine Grahame described, they are voluntary and are sometimes not particularly effective because the question is this: who regulates those who make the decisions?
There is a different position south of the border, where there is an independent appeals service. The introduction of such a service for Scotland is being explored, although a change in position would be required here to ensure that it was enforceable. We have a voluntary partnership approach that I think is not working, which is why I have to consider regulation and legislation to be appropriate. It would be better if operators were just to act more responsibly, fairly and consistently across the country.
The minister will be aware of the British Parking Association’s code of conduct. Does he agree that if all companies followed that to the letter and to its spirit, we would not need further regulations?
I agree. We could also make further progress on capping fines and charges. If we were to remove the bad practice of pretending that there are statutory penalties, that would address another issue. If we had better signage, that would address the contract issue. A range of things could be done voluntarily. My difficulty, as minister, is that if companies do not volunteer to do those things, we are left only with legislation and regulation. A fair approach to companies has not translated into companies taking a fair approach to their customers and to people with whom they have entered into contracts.
Will the minister give way?
I will take one more intervention, then I will finally be able to make progress on my speech.
I know that it is not the minister’s responsibility, but does he have an opinion on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency handing out information about number plates, which allows companies to harass people and to send debt collectors to them?
There are a number of issues there. If a range of things were in place, such as companies keeping to conditions and operating responsibly as per the code of conduct, and there was an independent appeals service, issuing such information would be a responsible thing to do. I do not agree with arbitrarily issuing such information, which allows people to be hounded unfairly and given the impression that they have broken the law. If companies kept to the code of conduct and companies acted ethically and responsibly I would have more comfort. That is why I am taking a look at this very complex issue.
Every member so far has given an accurate appraisal of how their constituents have been affected, which is why we must look closely at what Parliament will be able to do. As minister, I want to send a strong message. We need clear signage and a fair and consistent approach that treats people reasonably. We need companies not to pretend that people have breached the law and for them therefore to face all sorts of penalties should they not comply. Fines should be capped at a reasonable level and the CAS guidance should be acknowledged. We will move forward to ensure that people are treated more fairly, which is the essence of the CAS campaign.
As a Scottish Government minister I cannot say, “Don’t pay the fine.” It would be irresponsible of me to give that message. However, if people check their legal rights and responsibilities, many will realise that they have not breached what they think they may have breached. My advice is that people should check their rights, check the law, seek representation and do the right thing.
The Scottish Government will take on board all today’s comments and convey them to all the operators. We will strive for a fairer, more transparent and more reasonable approach, so that no one is unfairly charged to the point at which they are being caused anxiety and financial loss.
Meeting closed at 17:34.Previous
Decision Time