Parking enforcement officers are ticketing cars in an area where it has not been possible for many phone users to receive the phone signal that they need to pay, a councillor said.
And even though Brighton and Hove City Council knows that many drivers cannot pay, it has not stopped parking fines from being dished out, Councillor Mark Earthey said.
He said: “There has been little or no mobile phone signal in Rottingdean for months – a fact known to Brighton and Hove City Council – yet still drivers are receiving tickets from enforcement officers.
“This is grossly unfair as the only means to pay is via the pay by phone app.
“The contract between the council and drivers for parking is ‘legally frustrated’, providing very strong grounds for appeal.
“EE customers have an indisputable case for appeal, given that EE has recently applied to the High Court for permission to build an emergency phone mast in the Marine Cliffs car park.
“Indeed, if both EE and the High Court accept there is an inadequate signal then maybe (the council) and its parking enforcement officers should too.”
Councillor Earthey, who represents Rottingdean and West Saltdean, added: “Customers of the other mobile network operators also have a very strong case.”
EE and Three shared a mast which was on the roof of the White Horse pub until it closed last year for a refurbishment. The mast was switched off at the end of August.
A company called MBNL, which provides mobile phone infrastructure for Three and EE, lodged plans to put up an emergency temporary mast at the Marine Cliffs car park, in Marine Drive, last May.
The company withdrew the plans after 17 objections were sent to the council citing the effect on a nearby bat colony, a loss of parking spaces and damage to the cliffs.
Last month, MBNL obtained a court order for an emergency telecoms mast in the same seafront car park and closed it to the public to put up the mast, base station and generator.
Councillor Earthey and his ward colleague Bridget Fishleigh, both Brighton and Hove Independents, have repeatedly raised parking payment problems in Rottingdean since the council scrapped parking meters for cash and card payments.
The council previously said that drivers could use nearby shops with PayPoint machines to pay for parking by cash or card. But Rottingdean currently has no PayPoint outlets.
Labour councillor Trevor Muten, who chairs the council’s Transport and Sustainability Committee, said: “We’re aware of concerns that phone network signal problems in Rottingdean could cause problems for people paying for parking by phone.
“However, our Rottingdean car parks consistently take around 3,000 successful phone parking transactions every month.
“We’ve had no appeals against penalty charge notices from drivers saying that they had difficulties using phone networks.
“A mobile phone mast was installed in Rottingdean last month intended to improve mobile phone signals.
“According to Ofcom all phone networks in the area are operational. This is in line with our experience of day-to-day operations in the car parks.
“As part of our ongoing review of parking arrangements in the city, we are also exploring other options to make it easier to pay for parking.
“We understand PayPoint is in advanced discussions with a new outlet in Rottingdean. We hope this will provide greater options for paying for parking there.
“We are sorry if any drivers have experienced inconvenience because of the phone signal problems. We are committed to fully resolving parking access for all in Rottingdean and across the city.”
Now if only there was some kind of magic technology available where you could pay for your parking. Maybe someone could come up with a clever idea where you put coins and notes into a machine of some form?
The Council don’t have a legal leg to stand on in the first place. They seek payment for parking yet fail to facilitate that payment by requiring the individual parker to pay for and possess special equipment, specialist apps and a their own individual stable phone signal to ‘comply’. Everything beyond that is demands, threats and harassment based on an unworkable system which is not our responsibility, amounting to unlawful charges. Ignore all the yellow bits of paper and enjoy the free parking. They have no contract with any of us. Everything has to be ‘reasonable’ or there is no transaction.
Horrible “advice” Barry, that is fundamentally flawed. This is not the first time you’ve tried to encourage others to commit unlawful actions.
I think what the poster actually means is for anyone receiving a PCN from the council should follow the appeals process.
The council wants the money. The council neglects to provide the means to pay the money. No contract. The fault is with them. On no planet are residents and visitors responsible for the council’s failure to provide a service.
It’s Council land Barry, if you don’t want to give the council any money for it then don’t park there and park on your own land.
There is no contract forcing you to park there, but if you do park there then there is an implied contract that you should pay for it. Can’t pay, then don’t park.
I’d hope so Matt, because I’d also agree with that. It would be very interesting to hear if the appeals are successful as well, because that could create a precedent.
Perhaps Councillor Trevor Muten could appreciate that only motorists that use EE (or any of the MVNOs that use EE) were affected by the loss of signal, so others could continue to use the PayByPhone app.
When he says that OFCOM say all networks are operating in the area I assume he is talking about the coverage tracker which only provides a prediction rather than actual measurements https://checker.ofcom.org.uk/
Perhaps our council could stop defending their typically poorly planned decision to stop using parking meters, and instead develop empathy for visitors, businesses, and residents with cars?
Indeed, it certainly weakens an appeal a bit, as a driver, by virtue of having a license, have agreed to obey all traffic rules and regulations, including those around parking. A driver signs this agreement when they pass their test.
Ben, correct drivers have passed a test and will follow the Rules, Guidelines and Laws printed in the Highway code, however, parking regulations and paying for parking are two completely different subjects. Nowhere in the highway code does it state drivers are committing an offence if they don’t pay for parking.
Not having a valid parking ticket is not a criminal offence as you implied to another poster. If it is proven the payment system was defective and there was no means of paying for a ticket, no contravention of any Terms and Conditions have been broken, therefore, ticketing motorists wrongly could well be classed as ‘unlawful’.
Correct. The council wants the money for parking so the onus is on them to provide a workable variety of payment options using the council’s OWN equipment and signal. This is not the responsibility of the parker who commits no crime by not paying if no reasonable and universal means of doing so exists.
The driver agrees, by virtue of using the car park, that they are able to pay using the methods provided.
Your argument is the equivalent of going into a shop that only accepts cash, and demanding that they must take your credit card.
It’s true about payment, however, 241 and 245 direct a driver to not park in controlled areas and for specific people. In this I would suggest that an area marked for people who have purchased a ticket would apply.
It’s not a criminal activity, it’s definitely within the realm of tort. It’s be interesting to see if the argument of a specific phone provider not having a signal in an area is reasonable grounds for an appeal. On the one side, the system itself is working and available, and part of the contract is to ensure a driver has a method of paying, otherwise do not park there. It’s the equivalent of not having change in that sense. An argument might be made that they could have paid for it as reasonably possible.
On the other hand, a driver would reasonably assume that they would have access to the most common methods of payment.
Either way, I’d be interested in hearing the outcome to this one.
Newhaven offers free parking. Perhaps it’s time Rottingdean did the same since there are probably no more shops and facilities in Rottingdean than Newhaven. Plus our Council is no longer offering a workable-for-all parking payment system. So they should not be charging anyone until they can.
Ben, you’ve answered your own post here in a way, with the comment using the methods provided. If that system isn’t working and there’s no alternative, you can not be ticketed.
Aye Matt, depends on how it ends up being interpreted at appeal; once it goes one way or the other, that pretty much dictates how every other appeal will have to go.
Does that explain why cyclists and pedestrians think, as they don’t require licences, that traffic laws and the Highway Code do not apply to them?
Does that also apply to any other laws applying to residents such as robbery and assault?
I was not aware that having a licence makes any difference to how laws apply to motorists but would appreciate citations to support your statement.
BTW what is your relationship with Brighton and Hove City Council and do you receive anything from them in terms of payment?
Maybe, although legalisation does apply. Like I said, it’s a case of strengthening a driver’s responsibility and accountability through a signed contract, their licence.
Not sure what you’re asking for the second question. Some people are held to higher or different standards due to their profession or vocation. Medical, for example, have a much higher duty of care compared to a layperson.
And, as I have mentioned before, I amicably engage with the council on several occasions over several issues in my area as a resident. I find that’s a much more effective and successful way then just complaining on a news website, in my experience.
Why must I pay an admin fee for paying a parking fee by App, when no other option is available? – RIP OFF BRIGHTON
Same non logic system for cars and public transport, how to encourage people to use the public transport and leave your cars at home, how do they expect any logic out of rubbish systems with anti logical timetables run by foreign companies extorting max profit before service, all majestically approved by the muppets in command.
It’s not about fairness,or keeping the traffic flowing, as was/is the purpose of parking enforcement.
It is simply a revenue raising cash grab from motorists by greedy wasteful councils.
Councils should be banned from any sort of enforcement, as they simply cannot be trusted not to abuse the draconian powers they have been given
It’s a car park, David, hardly “draconian”. If you don’t like it and don’t want to pay for it, then don’t park there.
Why do entitled motorists always expect something for free from others? The solution for you is to buy your own land and park there, if you don’t want to pay others for your choice in using their land to park on.
The app just won’t accept my Mastercard debit card, no parking for me in BHCC. Utterly ridiculous situation. Lots of local businesses no longer seeing my money, Worthing and Lewes businesses are.
Ok. I think you might be overselling the impact you have on local businesses.
Parking is an extortion racket in our city. The council take a punitive steps against anyone as long as it enriches them. Well done Cllr Earthey for challenging them.
Bates Rd and Preston Park area are also blind spots…
Parking enforcement is simply a cash cow for local authority… along with unlawfully bus gates and now double red lines, yet another tax on those least able to afford the cost of living.
Nothing unlawful about a bus gate!
Take the bus! rottingdean is very well served by bus. Also there is a nearly always half empty car pa park a few minutes walk from the White Horses up the road towards Saltdean.
Stay out of Brighton use Seaford. Free parking, shops, nice stroll along the bay. Grab a coffee and stick two fingers up to Rottingdean and the rest of Brighton. Spend your money elsewhere.
The headline “Councillor pledges to back parking appeals by left drivers with no signal” does not make sense. Should it say “after” instead of “by”?
Thanks Christopher – and well spotted. My mistake and now corrected.
All about making money !! Salt Dean / Rottingdean have never had a decent phone signal !!
I tried once but it did not work.
I do not want to be forced to download the app.
Okay. That’s a really weak argument to make though. “I don’t wanna” is the kind of argument a child would make.
The counter retort would be I don’t wanna have to not use an app, and has the same weak value of argument, right?
I don’t agree it’s a weak argument.
When I get on a bus, I have choices, pay with cash, by card, Key Card or pre purchased scratch card. When I go shopping, there are choices of payment methods.
I personally don’t want an app, I’d rather pay at a machine using my card.
Sadly this city has gone backwards, there used to be various options, cash, card or pre purchased scratch cards. Now it’s just one option.
I accept the trend of going cashless, but alternatives still need to be available to those who don’t want or can’t use the app.
Ah, but that’s a much better argument! Diversification of payment methods I can get behind. A simple “I don’t wanna” though isn’t a great argument.
Although, talking about being unable to use an app, that is becoming a weaker argument when looking at overwhelming smartphone ownership trends; an app is typically just their website in a mobile format, so even in Katy’s statement, there’s an alternative.