No return?

Faye449

Afternoon gang,
would I be correct to say that as the signage doesn’t mention anything about a no return condition that there is nothing to stop someone from parking for 3 hours, driving around the block and parking again? 

D_P_Dance

Indeed.  In any case, no return clauses are a nonsense.  No judge in the land is likely to side with the PPCif the scammer were daft enougn to tke this to court.

Faye449

D_P_Dance said:

Indeed.  In any case, no return clauses are a nonsense.  No judge in the land is likely to side with the PPCif the scammer were daft enougn to tke this to court.

Thank you. I haven’t done it yet but I need to next week. Let’s see if they try and send me fine for it. 

Umkomaas

Faye449 said:

D_P_Dance said:

Indeed.  In any case, no return clauses are a nonsense.  No judge in the land is likely to side with the PPCif the scammer were daft enougn to tke this to court.

Thank you. I haven’t done it yet but I need to next week. Let’s see if they try and send me fine for it. 

You're a prime double-dip candidate with this plan.

nopcns

They can't send you a "fine" because they are not an "authority" that has those kind of powers. Remember that they are an unregulated private parking company that can only send you, the keeper, a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of the terms on their signs.

Whatever2023

D_P_Dance said:

Indeed.  In any case, no return clauses are a nonsense.  No judge in the land is likely to side with the PPCif the scammer were daft enougn to tke this to court.

No Return policies are put in place to deter people from doing what the OP suggests; therefore, by no means ‘a nonsense’.

nopcns

Whatever2023 said:

D_P_Dance said:

Indeed.  In any case, no return clauses are a nonsense.  No judge in the land is likely to side with the PPCif the scammer were daft enougn to tke this to court.

No Return policies are put in place to deter people from doing what the OP suggests; therefore, by no means ‘a nonsense’.

Says the unregulated ex-clampers, private parking companies apologist. You could tell the intellectually malnourished PPC to try and issue a court claim for the alleged contravention (not even applicable in this case as per the sign) for the vehicle returning to the location in less than the alleged x hours. Is it the vehicle, the keeper or the driver that has allegedly breached any such term?

What if the vehicle has more than one driver? Even attempting to hold the keeper liable under PoFA would fail as the second driver may have no idea that the other driver had already parked at the location.

Just more evidence of the greed of the unregulated ex-clampers in trying to extort money from motorists and being excused by one of the few propagandists for them.

steviebuk

They are also breaching GDPR regarding CCTV as ANPR cameras are NOT to be used for the prevention of crime. Had an argument, via email, with the local Waitrose car park company. I did a right to be forgotten regarding my numberplate for no other reason but to be annoying. They argued they keep them on record for prevention of crime blah blah. But I pointed out the above and they sent "evidence" they'd deleted the plate. It was poor evidence and I asked for it to be removed from the backups. They stopped replying after that.

I looked it up before I sent my right to be forgotten.