Chris Marshall: Parking cameras can cost drivers dearly

Bill Colborne says he was mistakenly "fined" 110 while dropping off and later picking up his daughter after the sophisticated plate recognition cameras assumed he had been there all day.

He is not alone. Since we ran the story a number of other motorists have told the Evening News of similar experiences.

Despite harnessing the latest technology to catch drivers overstaying their welcome, the system clearly has flaws.

But it opens a wider question – does the retail park have the right to attempt to demand money from motorists it deems to be using the car park for purposes other than shopping?

While there is something disconcertingly Orwellian about the cameras, it is the very legality of using them that has raised the hackles of motorists.

Parking Eye, the Lancashire-based firm which provides the technology, says it is working within the law and has acted in "good faith" by cancelling penalty charges where drivers have shown a mistake has been made.

The company charges 80 plus a 30 administration charge for drivers who stay longer than three-and-a-half hours, but reduces the fee to 50 if it is paid within two weeks.

The company has received the backing of industry body the British Parking Association, which says Parking Eye is operating within its strict code of practice.

Barrie Segal, one of the UK's leading experts on parking charges, says the letters sent out by Parking Eye, which are headed Parking Charge Notice (PCN), are misleading and could even be illegal.

"These companies have no powers," he says. "In my experience, if people say 'we don't agree, we want our day in court', then these companies will ditch it. These letters are misleading and I believe that's illegal. It gives the impression it's something it's not. The problem is that many people have a moan but then they pay up. People have to fight it."

The BPA's code of practice states that if a motorist refuses to pay a charge, the parking company can take "informal debt recovery action".

This can include telephoning or writing to the driver, but must not include personal visits from the firm or a debt collector.

The final recourse of action is to take the driver to court if they continue to refuse to pay the fine.

Patrick Troy, chief executive of the British Parking Association, says Parking Eye is adhering to the BPA's code of practice which governs parking tickets.

He adds: "The BPA continuously looks to raise the standard of off-street parking and is currently reviewing and developing the code with members of the scheme to incorporate better practice."

Neil Greig, of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, also takes the view the tickets are legal, but require a proper appeals process to prevent drivers from falling victim to problems with the system. "The regulations are very sparse," he says. "Provided they have a big sign that everyone can see and permission from the landowner, they can operate. Clamping is illegal in Scotland but this sort of civil enforcement is growing in popularity.

"In this case, they need a proper appeals process that is independent of the company itself. Ultimately, it will be the shopping centre that suffers if people continue to get tickets and go and shop elsewhere."

Based on a quick survey of the Capital's main retail parks and shopping centres, it seems that Hermiston Gait is one of the few places in Edinburgh to employ the automatic number plate recognition system.

The retail park's proximity to the Edinburgh Park train station no doubt leads to commuters chancing their arm and attempting to use spaces outside stores such as Tesco and B&Q as park and ride sites.

If that is the case, then surely the answer is to provide more spaces for the station, rather than employ overwhelmingly punitive measures to change drivers' habits.

Or why not simply charge people a daily rate to park there?

The 110 penalty notices sent to shoppers using Hermiston Gait compares unfavourably with the measures employed by other shopping centres in the city, such as the Gyle and Ocean Terminal.

Andrew Cronie, centre manager at the Gyle, said: "Our security staff walk a number of beats, one being the car park. We do it at 9am, noon and then 3pm so that should give us a good indication if someone has stayed too long.

"We're not allowed to clamp and we don't give out fines. Instead, we just put out a polite reminder telling people that they can only stay for three hours.

"We're not allowed to put it on the windscreen, so we just put it on the side of the car and it can come off easily with any oil-based cleaner."

Indeed, even supermarkets such as the Sainsbury's store at Westfield Road – which is a magnet for motorists because of the close proximity of both Tynecastle and Murrayfield stadiums – are more laid back, with fines only handed out to repeat offenders.

At a time when the costs of on-street parking and parking permits are hitting drivers hard, the fines being handed out by these private car parks adds insult to injury.

Clearly drivers cannot expect to leave their cars at out-of-town shopping centres all day for no charge – doing so in the city centre would be unthinkable.

But the car park operators need to exercise common sense and a modicum of restraint.

Yes, they are running a business. But it is the shopping centres themselves that will suffer if drivers decide they have had enough and head elsewhere.