News3 mins ago
Parking On Private Land
There have been many questions and answers about this but not quite the one I'm looking for. I am a member of a health club, belonging to a chain of hotels. as part of the higher level of membership fee I pay, one of the privileges of this is parking for free. The hotel has a barrier controlled car park.
There are also some other parking spaces around, not barrier controlled that they call 'permit only', but with no indication as to who these spaces are restricted to, or who can have a permit, and how they can be obtained/purchased. There is no machine to pay to use these spaces. There appears to be no logic as to why they are permit only, there is no staff name or car registration number against any of them.
The other day i was attending a booked class at the gym, and the car park was full to bursting. As were the 'permit only' spaces except one, which I parked in. Non of the other parked cars were showing any permit.
When I came out I had one of these penalty notice things, with a demand for £100, reduced to £60 if paid in 14 days. The usual thing. There is no way of paying to use these spaces, unlike the barrier controlled car park where you take a ticket from a machine, then when you pay the hotel staff, you get a ticket to get out. I have never been sure what the permit spaces are all about. So far as I can see, there is no loss to the parking company due to my parking in this space. If I had parked there instead of in the car park, it could be argued that they had lost the £6 I would have paid, except that I wouldn't have paid £6 as I get to park for free.
I went into the hotel reception and she said I should have given the staff my registration number and it would have been OK. Which I don't understand at all. Either this is permit only or it isn't. Can't quite work out why giving them your registration number constitutes a permit. And why this is not made clear on the notice.
In any case, I already pay an extra £10 a month to the health club to get the free parking, plus other stuff. Presumably the parking company get some of this, so surely this constitutes a permit. I have contacted the car parking company to relate all this to them, but would welcome some insights from anyone on here who has been affected.
It all looks rather like a minefield to me. I believed that courts do not enforce penalty clauses, only the loss to the company. However, I believe a case went to court regarding overstaying in a retail company's car park, and the penalty clause was enforced, due to managing the flow of customers throughout the day. This doesn't appear to be the case here.
For the past 6 weeks, the barrier to the car park has been broken, so people have been parking with impunity and not paying anything. I looks to me that they are going around picking on easy targets in an attempt to recoup some of their losses via penalty payments.
There are also some other parking spaces around, not barrier controlled that they call 'permit only', but with no indication as to who these spaces are restricted to, or who can have a permit, and how they can be obtained/purchased. There is no machine to pay to use these spaces. There appears to be no logic as to why they are permit only, there is no staff name or car registration number against any of them.
The other day i was attending a booked class at the gym, and the car park was full to bursting. As were the 'permit only' spaces except one, which I parked in. Non of the other parked cars were showing any permit.
When I came out I had one of these penalty notice things, with a demand for £100, reduced to £60 if paid in 14 days. The usual thing. There is no way of paying to use these spaces, unlike the barrier controlled car park where you take a ticket from a machine, then when you pay the hotel staff, you get a ticket to get out. I have never been sure what the permit spaces are all about. So far as I can see, there is no loss to the parking company due to my parking in this space. If I had parked there instead of in the car park, it could be argued that they had lost the £6 I would have paid, except that I wouldn't have paid £6 as I get to park for free.
I went into the hotel reception and she said I should have given the staff my registration number and it would have been OK. Which I don't understand at all. Either this is permit only or it isn't. Can't quite work out why giving them your registration number constitutes a permit. And why this is not made clear on the notice.
In any case, I already pay an extra £10 a month to the health club to get the free parking, plus other stuff. Presumably the parking company get some of this, so surely this constitutes a permit. I have contacted the car parking company to relate all this to them, but would welcome some insights from anyone on here who has been affected.
It all looks rather like a minefield to me. I believed that courts do not enforce penalty clauses, only the loss to the company. However, I believe a case went to court regarding overstaying in a retail company's car park, and the penalty clause was enforced, due to managing the flow of customers throughout the day. This doesn't appear to be the case here.
For the past 6 weeks, the barrier to the car park has been broken, so people have been parking with impunity and not paying anything. I looks to me that they are going around picking on easy targets in an attempt to recoup some of their losses via penalty payments.
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by iloveglee. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There seem to be a lot of irrelevancies in your post.
If a land owner (or the company controlling car parking on behalf of them) displays a clear sign, effectively saying that "Parking here will cost you £60 unless you've got a permit", then by parking your car there without a permit you automatically enter into a legally-binding contract to pay the £60. Everything else is irrelevant. (It doesn't matter if it's totally impossible to obtain a permit; the contract is still valid).
Where a company does accept certain types of permit to allow free parking, it's up to them to determine what formats such permits can take. A permit doesn't need to be a physical document displayed in the windscreen of the car; it can simply be an entry made in the duty log of the company which owns (or controls) the car park. For example if you find that you need to stay in a Tesco or Asda car park for more than the two hours which is normally allowed (perhaps because you're working on the site or because your car has broken down), all you need to do is to speak to the staff on the customer services desk, so that they can enter your registration number into their duty log. However they can't do it retrospectively.
Similarly, it seems that the hotel staff on the site you parked at could have similarly issued you with an appropriate authorisation if you'd spoken to them before you parked there (or as soon as you'd done so).
The test cases which have come before the courts have shown that companies controlling parking are entitled to levy charges for unauthorised parking which include BOTH the cost of parking AND a contribution towards the costs of managing the car parking system, so it's unlikely that £60 (or even £100) would be seen as unreasonable.
Pay up!
If a land owner (or the company controlling car parking on behalf of them) displays a clear sign, effectively saying that "Parking here will cost you £60 unless you've got a permit", then by parking your car there without a permit you automatically enter into a legally-binding contract to pay the £60. Everything else is irrelevant. (It doesn't matter if it's totally impossible to obtain a permit; the contract is still valid).
Where a company does accept certain types of permit to allow free parking, it's up to them to determine what formats such permits can take. A permit doesn't need to be a physical document displayed in the windscreen of the car; it can simply be an entry made in the duty log of the company which owns (or controls) the car park. For example if you find that you need to stay in a Tesco or Asda car park for more than the two hours which is normally allowed (perhaps because you're working on the site or because your car has broken down), all you need to do is to speak to the staff on the customer services desk, so that they can enter your registration number into their duty log. However they can't do it retrospectively.
Similarly, it seems that the hotel staff on the site you parked at could have similarly issued you with an appropriate authorisation if you'd spoken to them before you parked there (or as soon as you'd done so).
The test cases which have come before the courts have shown that companies controlling parking are entitled to levy charges for unauthorised parking which include BOTH the cost of parking AND a contribution towards the costs of managing the car parking system, so it's unlikely that £60 (or even £100) would be seen as unreasonable.
Pay up!
^^^ Please ignore Bundleone (and the uninformed idiots who continue to provide misleading advice on Facebook, etc). The matter has been tested all the way up to the Supreme Court:
https:/
https:/
//I read somewhere only today, .. that a penalty notice is not enforcable and should be ignored, whereas a penalty charge is normally issued by police or council . Worth looking itup.//
no it isnt worth looking it up - we know the position.
On Martin Lewis the other day and possibly you werent listening - parking fine - appeal thro the council, parking charge appeal thro their own appeals tribunal
if you want to appeal ( 2/3 of the fines are turned over ) *
otherwise, suck your belly button in close your eyes and pay.
* - Eye Hospsital - geddit ? didnt notice the lines were white ( not me ) and not yellow (me) - so £30 goes into some fat cats pocket.
King St., Manchester - day obscured, month and year showing on disablity card (aka spazz card) - I appealed on the grounds of stupidity and they allowed it o9n the grounds of "proportionality"
no it isnt worth looking it up - we know the position.
On Martin Lewis the other day and possibly you werent listening - parking fine - appeal thro the council, parking charge appeal thro their own appeals tribunal
if you want to appeal ( 2/3 of the fines are turned over ) *
otherwise, suck your belly button in close your eyes and pay.
* - Eye Hospsital - geddit ? didnt notice the lines were white ( not me ) and not yellow (me) - so £30 goes into some fat cats pocket.
King St., Manchester - day obscured, month and year showing on disablity card (aka spazz card) - I appealed on the grounds of stupidity and they allowed it o9n the grounds of "proportionality"
I actually did look at the test case, evidently this was about overstaying in a retail company's car park. I can just about agree with this, on the basis that for one person to occupy a space in the car park, but isn't spending money, denies another person the space, who might be spending money. So a case for loss can, and was made.
this was different, these spaces are not chargeable. had i parked there instead of using the paid for car park, there would have been a loss, i.e. the cost of using the car park. however, i already pay a higher level of membership to the health club which allows me to park for free. ergo, i have already paid, up front, every month. the health club website isn't actually specific about where to park, i.e. it doesn't say you have to park in the barriered park. there is no mention of what the procedure is if the car park is full, and you have to park in the so called 'permit' spaces.
i believe i do have an argument that there is no loss, plus, there were many other cars parked, by non health club members, in the hotel for a conference or some such, who did not get a ticket. presumably they had been given instructions as to what to do re parking.
I on the other hand, have only been told by the health club that my larger monthly subscription allows me to park for free. in which case, I was not aware that in order to park in these spaces you had to go to reception to give your registration number. clearly, had I known that I would have done exactly that.
I agree, the notice said no unauthorised parking, penalty whatever. i think i have reasonable belief that i am not parking unauthorised. I approached one of the reception staff who said this is not our car park. so i am not entirely certain now ..... do the hotel actually own the land and pay the car parking company to manage it, or have they sold off the parking areas to a parking company? if the hotel can prevent people getting a ticket if they give their registration number this suggests to me it is their land. but in that case why is this not made clear to anyone who may park there.
on the ticket it does say you can go onto their website online and write to them to say why you think you have been given the ticket unfairly. someone who also goes to this health club had the same problem a while ago, she was asked to give the ticket to the hotel staff and they would sort it out. didn't happen in this case.
i think people who do park in an unauthorised spot, or park for longer than they should, would probably pay up without too much complaint if the amount asked for was reasonable. £100 (or £60 if paid within a certain length of time), is not reasonable. It does not in any way reflect the amount of loss(if any), or reflect the amount it costs to walk around the car park and put tickets onto cars.
This I believe is the reason this causes so much aggravation, and people taking a chance, not paying and ignoring aggressive demands for payment. Had this been a charge for £6 which is what the car park costs, plus say £10 for their so called trouble, i might have just griped about it, but paid up. As I think most people would. The general public just don't like the idea of being ripped off.
I do agree though, it might be worth contacting the hotel manager and asking if they can help (presuming that this actually is their land).
this was different, these spaces are not chargeable. had i parked there instead of using the paid for car park, there would have been a loss, i.e. the cost of using the car park. however, i already pay a higher level of membership to the health club which allows me to park for free. ergo, i have already paid, up front, every month. the health club website isn't actually specific about where to park, i.e. it doesn't say you have to park in the barriered park. there is no mention of what the procedure is if the car park is full, and you have to park in the so called 'permit' spaces.
i believe i do have an argument that there is no loss, plus, there were many other cars parked, by non health club members, in the hotel for a conference or some such, who did not get a ticket. presumably they had been given instructions as to what to do re parking.
I on the other hand, have only been told by the health club that my larger monthly subscription allows me to park for free. in which case, I was not aware that in order to park in these spaces you had to go to reception to give your registration number. clearly, had I known that I would have done exactly that.
I agree, the notice said no unauthorised parking, penalty whatever. i think i have reasonable belief that i am not parking unauthorised. I approached one of the reception staff who said this is not our car park. so i am not entirely certain now ..... do the hotel actually own the land and pay the car parking company to manage it, or have they sold off the parking areas to a parking company? if the hotel can prevent people getting a ticket if they give their registration number this suggests to me it is their land. but in that case why is this not made clear to anyone who may park there.
on the ticket it does say you can go onto their website online and write to them to say why you think you have been given the ticket unfairly. someone who also goes to this health club had the same problem a while ago, she was asked to give the ticket to the hotel staff and they would sort it out. didn't happen in this case.
i think people who do park in an unauthorised spot, or park for longer than they should, would probably pay up without too much complaint if the amount asked for was reasonable. £100 (or £60 if paid within a certain length of time), is not reasonable. It does not in any way reflect the amount of loss(if any), or reflect the amount it costs to walk around the car park and put tickets onto cars.
This I believe is the reason this causes so much aggravation, and people taking a chance, not paying and ignoring aggressive demands for payment. Had this been a charge for £6 which is what the car park costs, plus say £10 for their so called trouble, i might have just griped about it, but paid up. As I think most people would. The general public just don't like the idea of being ripped off.
I do agree though, it might be worth contacting the hotel manager and asking if they can help (presuming that this actually is their land).
not sure whether to be flattered or insulted peter pedant!!
I have filled in the appeal procedure online, stating where I think they have been deficient in their notice. i will wait events.
I have spoken to a member of staff who had one!! not sure of the circumstances but she appealed and they rescinded it.
I have filled in the appeal procedure online, stating where I think they have been deficient in their notice. i will wait events.
I have spoken to a member of staff who had one!! not sure of the circumstances but she appealed and they rescinded it.
compliment of course
make sure you keep a copy of the onlline appeal
I think I had to do it on paper and pointed out the unnecessary run around and therefore cost - and was told writing to the wrong person was no good at all, would be ignored and binned
and the system ... was meant to work like that.
make sure you keep a copy of the onlline appeal
I think I had to do it on paper and pointed out the unnecessary run around and therefore cost - and was told writing to the wrong person was no good at all, would be ignored and binned
and the system ... was meant to work like that.
thank you. interestingly because of the information i have read on here, i have had occasion, and the interest to delve more into the law about this. ought to know about contract law, judge rinder goes on about it all the time!
the beavis case was very interesting, but don't pretend to have read it all, just the basic important points. it actually doesn't apply to all parking notices, but rather those where there has been free parking, but has been overstayed, and whether the amount being demanded represented a loss, and was proportionate.
i think the argument was around the amount being demanded being a penalty which isn't allowed usually, but in this case the car park company argued successfully that as parking is free, their only source of income is the penalty for overstaying!! something not quite right there i think but that was the ruling.
i believe that in my case, i could argue there was no contract due to ambiguous and confusing signs. basically they offer a space to disabled, but only in a disabled space. very clear. they offer a space to permit holders to park displaying their permit. very clear. what they don't do is to offer anything to non permit holders, although they don't say this is permit holders only. in fact the only people with a permit are staff. apparently everyone else has to apply to reception for permission to park, and the 'permit' is virtual, i.e. they upload your registration onto a website. so there can be no display of a permit in this case.
they don't either on their notice give any information as to how to obtain this 'virtual' permit. i shall probably argue no contract, therefore no breach if it comes to it. hopefully it won't.
I think these parking companies are sharks frankly, and the one involved here has exceedingly bad reviews!! it would be nice to take them on actually. provided it didn't cost me my pension.
the beavis case was very interesting, but don't pretend to have read it all, just the basic important points. it actually doesn't apply to all parking notices, but rather those where there has been free parking, but has been overstayed, and whether the amount being demanded represented a loss, and was proportionate.
i think the argument was around the amount being demanded being a penalty which isn't allowed usually, but in this case the car park company argued successfully that as parking is free, their only source of income is the penalty for overstaying!! something not quite right there i think but that was the ruling.
i believe that in my case, i could argue there was no contract due to ambiguous and confusing signs. basically they offer a space to disabled, but only in a disabled space. very clear. they offer a space to permit holders to park displaying their permit. very clear. what they don't do is to offer anything to non permit holders, although they don't say this is permit holders only. in fact the only people with a permit are staff. apparently everyone else has to apply to reception for permission to park, and the 'permit' is virtual, i.e. they upload your registration onto a website. so there can be no display of a permit in this case.
they don't either on their notice give any information as to how to obtain this 'virtual' permit. i shall probably argue no contract, therefore no breach if it comes to it. hopefully it won't.
I think these parking companies are sharks frankly, and the one involved here has exceedingly bad reviews!! it would be nice to take them on actually. provided it didn't cost me my pension.
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Are There Any 'Liberal' Justices On The...
News10 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
