An undercover investigation by Which? using GPS trackers has exposed ‘dodgy’ meet-and-greet parking firms operating at London airports.
Their unscrupulous behaviour included ‘treating vehicles and personal property with contempt – stealing personal possessions, speeding, and leaving cars in poor condition’, and parking them in unsecured locations. One was dumped in a back garden.
What’s more, Which? found that rogue operators could easily be mistaken for legitimate companies, because they often use multiple names that are switched once they start attracting poor reviews.
The consumer champion’s research follows reports of rogue airport meet-and-greet services from its members, with some revealing that they’ve had to hire a taxi to track down their vehicle on their return, or missed a flight as a result of long waits at drop-off.
Read on for the covert probe’s findings for three meet-and-greet services…
Quick Park – car dumped in back garden
An undercover investigation by Which? used GPS trackers to expose ‘dodgy’ parking firms operating at London airports. The consumer champion tested two parking firms at Heathrow Airport (above) and one at Gatwick airport
Undercover reporters booked a service with Quick Park, an off-site meet-and-greet firm at Heathrow Airport. Above, the reporter’s GPS tracker captures the vehicle speeding down the A4 at nearly 70mph in a 50mph zone
First up, undercover reporters posing as customers booked a service with Quick Park, an off-site meet-and-greet firm at Heathrow Airport that Which? says came ‘recommended by comparison site Deals4Parking‘.
After dropping the car off with the operator, the reporter’s GPS tracker captured the vehicle speeding down the A4 at nearly 70mph in a 50mph zone, Which? claims. Speeding at such a level is a criminal offence that could result in up to six penalty points or even a driving ban, Which? notes.
Which? also says that the Quick Park website promised parking ‘in a patrolled location equipped with CCTV, and crucially, Park Mark accreditation’. This would mean the space had passed a police risk assessment.
In reality, the GPS showed that the car was actually left in the back garden of an abandoned rectory five miles from Heathrow. The British Parking Association (BPA) confirmed to Which? that this is not an accredited Park Mark site.
When the investigator went to collect their car, they said ‘it took multiple unanswered calls and ultimately an 80-minute wait before the keys were handed back’ and that there wasn’t ‘even a cursory check’ to confirm they were the vehicle’s owner. In addition, Which? states that £4.50 in change had been stolen from the car.
Quick Park did not respond to requests for comment.
Mayfair Parking – speeding four times
The GPS tracker came in clutch for exposing Heathrow meet-and-greet firm Mayfair Parking, whose driver was caught speeding ‘on four separate occasions during the 10-mile round trip from Terminal 5’. See image above
A Which? reporter’s experience at Heathrow with firm Mayfair Parking was ‘not much better’.
The consumer expert says: ‘At the time of booking, the site appeared on the first page of Google search results and was also promoted on comparison sites Parking4You and Ezybook – making it appear legitimate at first glance.’
But, the GPS trackers came in clutch once more – Mayfair Parking’s driver was caught speeding ‘on four separate occasions during the 10-mile round trip from Terminal 5’. Plus, upon the car’s return, £4 had been taken, along with some sweets, alleges the consumer group.
The service was the only one to use a Park Mark accredited site, but when Which? investigators visited, they say it ‘left much to be desired’. Rather than being a secure car park, they were able to ‘drive straight in and wander around unchecked’.
Despite this, the BPA said it was satisfied that the site met the current Park Mark standard. But it remarked that it would be checked for suitability for its new AM-GO standard – a new higher standard for operators that’s now being rolled out.
Approved operators will be fully insured, staff will be qualified, uniformed and carry ID, and they will use designated drop-off and pick-up zones, as well as using Park Mark accredited parking sites.
Mayfair Parking told Which? it strongly disagrees with its findings, asserting it operates in a professional manner. It apologised if money was stolen from the car and said it was prepared to take appropriate action and return anything that was stolen on provision of further evidence. It also noted the car was stored in a BPA accredited site, picked up promptly and returned safely.
Gatwick Airport Parking Spaces Ltd – muddy car
Pictured is the investigator’s car before it was handed over to Gatwick Airport Parking Spaces Ltd
When the investigator’s car was collected from Gatwick Airport Parking Spaces Ltd, which is not affiliated with the airport, Which? says it was ‘dirty and muddied both inside and out’, as shown here
During the vehicle’s stay with Gatwick Airport Parking Spaces Ltd, Which?’s GPS tracker showed that the car was moved from Gatwick’s official car park to an offsite location ‘which appeared to be industrial wasteland behind a petrol station’
At Gatwick, Which? booked a meet-and-greet service through comparetheparking.co.uk and chose a service called Prime Parking. But, when the booking confirmation came through it showed the reporter was actually using Gatwick Airport Parking Spaces Ltd – a firm that Which? notes is not affiliated with the airport, despite its name.
Which? investigators ‘were unable to see its terms and conditions until after the booking was complete’. But, the consumer champion says that when the terms came through, Gatwick Airport Parking Spaces Ltd was ‘shameless about the shortcomings with its service’.
Which? says: ‘It warns that in some cases cars will be parked in locations without CCTV, can be parked in fields, in compounds up to 15 miles from the airport, or even in a public facility. One alarming line noted: “While our overflow car parks have a hard standing surface, it is important to note that some of our car parks lack the necessary planning permission for airport parking.”‘
During the vehicle’s stay, the Which? GPS tracker allegedly showed that the car was moved from Gatwick’s official ‘Orange’ car park to an offsite location, ‘which appeared to be industrial wasteland behind a petrol station’.
When the car was collected, Which? says no proof of identity was requested and the car was returned ‘dirty and muddied both inside and out’. Cash change totaling £3 had been taken and ‘previously sealed water in the driver’s door had been swigged’.
Gatwick Airport Parking Spaces Ltd did not respond to requests for comment.
Comparison sites – why they’re part of the problem
Which? alleges that some comparison sites are ‘part of the problem’, stating that when researchers looked for Heathrow parking with the Deals4Parking website, it offered seven providers to choose from, all with high ratings of 4.9 out of 5 stars.
Having dug deeper, Which? claims that none of the seven companies appeared to exist independently of Deals4Parking.
It says: ‘Just two of the options listed – Quick Park and Greg Maurice – were listed on Companies House, where it emerged that both recently incorporated firms shared a director. That director resigned last year from a firm called Falcon Parking Ltd – the trading name of the comparison site Deals4Parking.’
Which? adds: ‘Hiding behind a comparison site might help rogue traders absolve themselves of responsibility when things go wrong.’
The BPA told Which? that ‘relatively few providers have appropriate insurance to operate a meet-and-greet service, and most rogue traders are completely uninsured’, which puts drivers at risk of being out-of-pocket should damage occur.
When Which? reported its findings to the BPA, it said the rogue behaviour it uncovered ‘just scratched the surface’. Which? also sent its evidence to the police and Trading Standards, and reported rogue sites to Google.
Tip of the iceberg…
Which? says the issues it uncovered are likely the tip of the iceberg, with Heathrow Police telling the consumer champion that it had received 300 allegations related to meet-and-greet services in the past two years.
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: ‘Our investigation revealed rogue meet-and-greet airport operators treating vehicles and personal property with contempt – stealing personal possessions, speeding, and leaving cars in a poor condition.
‘Worryingly, rogue operators are often prominently listed in search engine results and on some comparison sites. With generic names that change as soon as they attract poor reviews, consumers can easily be caught out. As a result, Which? has now reviewed airport parking operators so we can recommend the brands you can trust.
‘In future, consumers should also check the BPA’s new approved Meet and Greet operator scheme, AM-GO, which is gradually being rolled out across the country. Approved operators will be fully insured, and all sites used will be Park Mark accredited.’
A London Gatwick Airport spokesperson said: ‘London Gatwick has no relationship with any alleged rogue meet-and-greet parking companies, even though many of them have “Gatwick” in their name. Legally these firms can operate on the airport as long as they do not break our bye-laws.
‘If passengers are considering using a third-party meet-and-greet parking provider, they should check for positive reviews on Trustpilot, or other reputable review sites. The British Parking Association also has some good advice. For complete peace of mind, we would however strongly recommend that passengers use official on-airport parking.’
A Heathrow Airport spokesperson said: ‘We do not endorse any operators other than Heathrow Airport on-site official parking, even though some may have “Heathrow” in the name. Under competition regulations we do have to allow them to operate. If choosing to book with a third-party, passengers should look for positive reviews on Trustpilot, or other reputable review sites, or Trading Standards’ Buy With Confidence accreditation.
‘If any incidents occur with a third-party operator we would always advise passengers to register a complaint with their local Trading Standards as they can then investigate. We have also established a direct link with Trading Standards and send all complaints to this contact to support any investigations or cases they are building against these companies.’
A Google spokesperson said: ‘Protecting users is our top priority and we have strict ads policies that govern the types of ads and advertisers we allow on our platforms.
‘We enforce our policies vigorously, and the ads flagged to us have been removed and the accounts suspended. We continue to invest significant resources to stop bad actors and we are constantly evaluating and updating our policies and improving our technology to keep our users safe.’