Parking Eye - What's the current advice for these?
Discussion
elanfan said:
Just had a cancellation of ticket notice from PE.
So far Me 4 - Parking Cos 0
One for Gerard here - what is your view on the particular merits of this as an argument.
PE locally to me have ANPR enforced 3 hour parking in what is otherwise a free car park with £100 penalty for over stay. Problem is this isn't just a supermarket or similar car park - it serves an M&S Food & Per Una, Boots, Laura Ashley, Pets at Home, Home Furnishings, a gym and sportswear retailer, mountain warehouse and a starbucks.
These shops are there to invite you in to browse and purchase. You could quite easily do a family food shop, pick up a prescription, browse for school or sports wear or home wares/furnishings and then follow that up with a leisurely danish and a mochachocastrawberrylatte and exceed the 3 hour limit by some margin.
I wonder if any court in the land would agree that this was a fair contract bearing in mind the intended use of the car park.
Whadyafink
I think the only way round it may for more car parks to be barrier and ticket on entry and exit, With all the ensuing traffic chaos back onto the local road network and queues out of the car parks So far Me 4 - Parking Cos 0
One for Gerard here - what is your view on the particular merits of this as an argument.
PE locally to me have ANPR enforced 3 hour parking in what is otherwise a free car park with £100 penalty for over stay. Problem is this isn't just a supermarket or similar car park - it serves an M&S Food & Per Una, Boots, Laura Ashley, Pets at Home, Home Furnishings, a gym and sportswear retailer, mountain warehouse and a starbucks.
These shops are there to invite you in to browse and purchase. You could quite easily do a family food shop, pick up a prescription, browse for school or sports wear or home wares/furnishings and then follow that up with a leisurely danish and a mochachocastrawberrylatte and exceed the 3 hour limit by some margin.
I wonder if any court in the land would agree that this was a fair contract bearing in mind the intended use of the car park.
Whadyafink
Anyone got a better idea ?
Not Parking Eye for this one, but exactly the scenario outlined above:
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11497515.Pensioner...
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11497515.Pensioner...
elanfan said:
I wonder if any court in the land would agree that this was a fair contract bearing in mind the intended use of the car park.
Whadyafink
How many shop there are there, and whether you are given 2 hours or 5 hours for free isn't the issue, if these are terms that you have accepted.Whadyafink
The pertinent issues would be the normal ones, those being whether there is in actuality a contract in place (signage issues) and whether the contract you have entered into has unenforceable terms.
Generally, courts do not intervene in contracts two parties freely enter into. If the terms aren't fair to you, don't enter into it is the short repost. If there is chance for an overstay, the thing to do would be to petition the shop owners to pressure the landowner to increase the maximum stay.
elanfan said:
The retailers would never sign up to take on the leases at the location if it was a paid car park. No customers no profit.
On this particular site the managers of the various businesses are sick to death of PE and want them gone. The Landlords need a kick up the jacksie.
Thats whats happened to our high streets - In the past free on road parking, free parking in carparks hasnt helped out high street shops prosper thats for sure. On this particular site the managers of the various businesses are sick to death of PE and want them gone. The Landlords need a kick up the jacksie.
CoolHands said:
What if you're illiterate. How can you enter into a contract simply by them putting a sign up.
Of if you have dyslexia and therefore cannot read. Surely punishment for someone like this would fall foul of the Disability Discrimination Act? Edited by photosnob on Friday 3rd October 17:13
nikaiyo2 said:
Not to pay them at Town Quay in Southampton, as you are in effect paying a bribe to PE that could get you in a bit more trouble than a £100 fine
Not only that, they have no legal right to even request money from you as Town Quay is not "Relevant land" ie, its land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (Port related Bylaws). This I understand and a little research made for interesting reading.PE donot own the land or have representation on behalf of the land owners (so cannot issue tickets for people parking there)
Back on topic, the advise generally is NEVER ignore correspondence, appeal and if unsuccessful, do your homework and take it to the regulator.
Appeals can be direct, but as many of us that have been through the appeals process can testify, adding relevant legal "Mumbo Jumbo" really does work and all helps to bolster the appeal
JustinP1 said:
elanfan said:
I wonder if any court in the land would agree that this was a fair contract bearing in mind the intended use of the car park.
Whadyafink
How many shop there are there, and whether you are given 2 hours or 5 hours for free isn't the issue, if these are terms that you have accepted.Whadyafink
The pertinent issues would be the normal ones, those being whether there is in actuality a contract in place (signage issues) and whether the contract you have entered into has unenforceable terms.
Generally, courts do not intervene in contracts two parties freely enter into. If the terms aren't fair to you, don't enter into it is the short repost. If there is chance for an overstay, the thing to do would be to petition the shop owners to pressure the landowner to increase the maximum stay.
nikaiyo2 said:
Not to pay them at Town Quay in Southampton, as you are in effect paying a bribe to PE that could get you in a bit more trouble than a £100 fine
What £100 fine?PurpleMoonlight said:
As someone who has a big problem with a
hole drivers doing what the fk they like on what is private property, you don't want to know .....
What like shopping you mean and er parking in the FREE car park provided and spending over £40 in the shops. There's only one ahole drivers doing what the fk they like on what is private property, you don't want to know .....hole around here and it ain't me!JVaughan said:
nikaiyo2 said:
Not to pay them at Town Quay in Southampton, as you are in effect paying a bribe to PE that could get you in a bit more trouble than a £100 fine
Not only that, they have no legal right to even request money from you as Town Quay is not "Relevant land" ie, its land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (Port related Bylaws). This I understand and a little research made for interesting reading.PE donot own the land or have representation on behalf of the land owners (so cannot issue tickets for people parking there)
Back on topic, the advise generally is NEVER ignore correspondence, appeal and if unsuccessful, do your homework and take it to the regulator.
Appeals can be direct, but as many of us that have been through the appeals process can testify, adding relevant legal "Mumbo Jumbo" really does work and all helps to bolster the appeal
Even if PE did have representation on behalf of the landowner they still couldn't invoke keeper liability as land to which Byelaws apply is specifically excluded under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.
This is also made clear in the relevant government department's guidance - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Nor is this issue with Town Quay something new. POPLA assessor Chris Adamson upheld an appeal on exactly those grounds back in March this year.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/po...
What beggars belief is that the DVLA is claiming that it was unaware of Byelaws being applicable at this location until 5th August.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/226619/resp...
PE are well aware that they have been acting outside the law yet they still try it on. How anyone can defend the private parking industry when it's biggest operator behaves in such a disgraceful fashion is beyond me. Associated British Ports also have some questions to answer imo.
The whole thing smells worse than a Grimsby trawler on a hot summer day, but it looks like the soft and smelly stuff may be about to hit the fan.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/ar...
Although given the amount of money Swansea rakes in from data requests by that particular PPC I'm not holding my breath...
Edited by Red Devil on Saturday 4th October 02:47
PurpleMoonlight said:
As someone who has a big problem with ahole drivers doing what the fk they like on what is private property, you don't want to know .....
So you are all up in a range about people parking without permission but causing no damage or loss, yet you are perfectly happy with companies making charges that have no legal basis. hole drivers doing what the fk they like on what is private property, you don't want to know .....The former isn't ideal, but landowner can sort that with barriers, the latter is just wrong at every level. The parking companies know that the charge is basically fraudulent.
blueg33 said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
As someone who has a big problem with ahole drivers doing what the fk they like on what is private property, you don't want to know .....
So you are all up in a range about people parking without permission but causing no damage or loss, yet you are perfectly happy with companies making charges that have no legal basis. hole drivers doing what the fk they like on what is private property, you don't want to know .....The former isn't ideal, but landowner can sort that with barriers, the latter is just wrong at every level. The parking companies know that the charge is basically fraudulent.
Why should a landowner have to go the expense of putting barriers up just because some idiots think they have the right to park where they want?
Parking companies giving out fraudulent fines isn't ideal, but a few letters and an appeal should get it sorted.
Whilst you seem to think parking any where you like is ok, in my my book, neither is acceptable at all.
elanfan said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
As someone who has a big problem with ahole drivers doing what the fk they like on what is private property, you don't want to know .....
What like shopping you mean and er parking in the FREE car park provided and spending over £40 in the shops. There's only one ahole drivers doing what the fk they like on what is private property, you don't want to know .....hole around here and it ain't me!I think one small part is 15mins free by the kfc to try and let people use it.
They even have notices plastered all over the inside of the store.
A problem they have is due to the close proximity of the town centre where the council car parks are pay people are 'displaced' onto private business.
What's your solution ?
blueg33 said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
As someone who has a big problem with ahole drivers doing what the fk they like on what is private property, you don't want to know .....
So you are all up in a range about people parking without permission but causing no damage or loss, yet you are perfectly happy with companies making charges that have no legal basis. hole drivers doing what the fk they like on what is private property, you don't want to know .....The former isn't ideal, but landowner can sort that with barriers, the latter is just wrong at every level. The parking companies know that the charge is basically fraudulent.
Owning land comes with responsibilities, one of those is that if you have an issue with parking then erect barriers, its what we do.
Other responsibilities include a liability to 3rd parties on the land, liability to neighbours etc. That's why landowners pay for insurance.
The point was though. If no loss is suferred and other spaces are available, what is the damage?
A well managed paid for carpark makes huge amounts of money.
If PPC's are acting legally then that's fine. But mostly they are found to be wanting in the eyes of the law.
Other responsibilities include a liability to 3rd parties on the land, liability to neighbours etc. That's why landowners pay for insurance.
The point was though. If no loss is suferred and other spaces are available, what is the damage?
A well managed paid for carpark makes huge amounts of money.
If PPC's are acting legally then that's fine. But mostly they are found to be wanting in the eyes of the law.
elanfan said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
As someone who has a big problem with ahole drivers doing what the fk they like on what is private property, you don't want to know .....
What like shopping you mean and er parking in the FREE car park provided and spending over £40 in the shops. There's only one ahole drivers doing what the fk they like on what is private property, you don't want to know .....hole around here and it ain't me!Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Saturday 4th October 09:43
Countdown said:
Regardless of damage or loss, do you think it's ok for people to park on private land without permission?
Of course I don't. Its why my carparks hasve barriers. But there are different degrees. Overstaying in a free car park is not the same as parking on someones drive for instance. Not paying in a csrpark that is mostly empty is not the same as not paying in one that is full.
Landowners need to decide what they want from their car park and act accordingly. Using a PPC who have no legitimate authority to collect penalties is not the way to do it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff