Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: UKPC Parking Charge
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Chrisso50
Parking notice on 6.2.16 demanded £100 parking charge. Vehicle was left at retail park for no longer than the 90 mins limit period stated on sign in car park. Ticket says it was placed on windscreen within 1 minute of parking. It says "vehicle owner/driver left site.'

Amazingly, whether or not you visit the shops at the site a charge is made if you leave the site without removing the car. Friends advise me 'ignore'. But is this still current/good advice?
emanresu
Appeal that you did not overstay and if they disagree (which they can't) then send a POPLA code. All you want is a POPLA code.
Chrisso50
Thanks Emanresu. But the parking sign says "Retail Park User Only 90 Minute Maximum Stay." Underneath, in smaller lettering: "This land is private property. If you leave this site whilst your vehicle remains in this car park you will be liable to receive a parking charge notice."

So can UKPC claim that 'if it was on a notice you agree to those terms'?
Lynnzer
look for "bring your toothbrush."
No attempt to mitigate loss if the saw you leave the site. If they didn't then they had no knowledge that you did anyway.

They're up a creek with no paddle here.

Of course you always ask them to prove you left the site. They won' thave a video clip of it I'm sure. If they don't they must bring in the patrol fella who you can then ask why he didn't warn you.
Gotcha.....
ostell
Please define "The Site"
Lynnzer
QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 12 Feb 2016 - 14:58) *
Please define "The Site"

Pretty obvious really, The Site = The retail park.
I wonder if any boundary is shown on the edges of it? How would you know for certain?

Anyway, no mitigation was made so Wickes looks a good one to me.
ostell
Not really. I think it was VCS who fell over on this one as there was no definition of the boundaries of the site.
The Rookie
As per Beavis ruling, all aspects of the contract should be clear, so if it was in much smaller print it doesn't apply.
Lynnzer
QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 12 Feb 2016 - 16:08) *
Not really. I think it was VCS who fell over on this one as there was no definition of the boundaries of the site.

Yes, really. Did you read the judgement? It was more or less down to the operative not warning the driver that they shouldn't wander off site.
OK, the fact that the site was part of a vet's practice was also part of his take on the matter but if an operative sees someone walk off site then he should have warned them of the consequences.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.