An investigation into airport meet and greet companies operating at London airports has revealed shocking criminality after uncovering cases of petty theft and speeding.
UK consumer watchdog Which? booked meet and greet parking services with three companies over the summer period, fitting vehicles with GPS trackers to expose “dodgy” firms posing as legitimate operators.
But the organisation said its investigation is just the “tip of the iceberg”.
Heathrow police told Which? that 300 allegations related to meet and greet services have been made by travellers in the last two years. Some of the accusations against these companies include theft of a vehicle.
Rory Boland, editor of Which? Travel, said: “Our investigation has 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.”
Which? recommend that airport customers check the British Parking Association (BPA)’s new ‘AM-GO’ scheme that will show drivers approved operators who are fully insured and accredited.
Quick Park, an off-site meet and greet service at Heathrow recommended by comparison site Deals4Parking, proved too true to its name.
Which?’s GPS trackers captured one being raced down the A4 at nearly 70mph in a 50mph zone, an offence which if caught by a traffic camera, could result in maximum penalty of up to six penalty points or even temporary disqualification.
Its website promised parking in a patrolled location equipped with CCTV, and crucially, Park Mark accreditation, given out to companies whose facilities have passed a police risk assessment.
In reality the GPS showed the car 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 watchdog’s investigator attempted to collect the car, it took multiple unanswered calls and ultimately an 80 minute wait before the keys were handed back – all without even a cursory check to confirm Which?’s reporter was indeed the car’s owner. Once inside, they found £4.50 in change had been stolen.
Which?’s experience at Heathrow with Mayfair Parking was not much better. 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.
However, Which?’s GPS trackers revealed Mayfair Parking’s drivers speeding on four separate occasions during the 10-mile round trip from Terminal 5, and when the car was handed back, £4 had been taken, along with some sweets.
It was the only service to use a Park Mark accredited site, but when Which?’s investigators visited, they found much to be desired.
Rather than the securely locked car park they expected, they were able to drive straight and in and wander around unchecked.
The BPA said it was satisfied the site met the current Park Mark standard and would be checked for suitability for the new AM-GO standard in due course, a new higher standard for operators themselves.
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 but apologised if items were stolen from the car.
At Gatwick, Which? booked meet and greet services through comparetheparking.co.uk, selecting a service called Prime Parking.
However, when the booking confirmation arrived it showed the booking was actually with Gatwick Airport Parking Spaces Ltd – a firm which despite its name, has no affiliation with the airport.
Which? investigators were unable to see its terms and conditions until after the booking was complete, but they showed the company is shameless about the shortcomings with its service, the watchdog said.
The Ts and Cs warn 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 that “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, Which?’s GPS noted it moved from Gatwick’s official Orange Car park to an offsite location, which appeared to be industrial wasteland behind a petrol station.
On collection, no proof of identity was requested, and the car was returned dirty and muddied both inside and out.
Three pounds in change had been taken, and previously sealed water in the driver’s door had been swigged.
When Which? reported its findings to the BPA, it said the rogue behaviour it uncovered “just scratched the surface”.
The consumer group also shared its evidence with the police and Trading Standards, as well as reporting rogue sites to Google.
