Have I got this right?

nitpicker99

I've been lurking long enough to know most of the wrinkles, but I'm thinking of complaining about this one, so some advice would be appreciated.

The shopping centre car park is free and parking is limited to 4 hours, no return within 1 hour. Charge for contravention £60. I have confirmed with the PPC and the landowner that the "no return" condition applies regardless of the length of the first stay.

So - arrive 0900, leave 0930, return 1000, leave 1030 and the conditions are breached. The driver in the next bay arrives 0900 and leaves at 1030 and the conditions aren't breached.

The BPA's COP states that the charge must be a genuine pre estimate of loss.

There could be an argument for a loss with an overstay (lost opportunity for someone else to park etc) but l for the "no return" case above the loss must be zero as the space is actually occupied for less time in breaching the conditions than by observing them.

The charge cannot then be a genuine pre estimate of loss for the "no return" case.

If I've got this right I will report it to the BPA who will no doubt, as always, reply fairly blandly, but would the DVLA be interested?

The car parking arrangement and signage is new after 1 October.

ManxRed

If you want to get a bit more technical about this, 'no return within X hours' means that if you contravene this it comes under Trespass, not Contract. They are effectively withdrawing implied rights for access for the second visit.

Therefore ONLY THE LANDOWNER can claim, and only for actual or nominal damages in respect of Trespass. The PPC cannot legally go anywhere near this.

A lot of PPCs don't understand the difference between Contract and Trespass.

Paperbird

"I have confirmed with the PPC and the landowner that the "no return" condition applies regardless of the length of the first stay."

Does it say this on the signs too.

AlexisV

They would have an uphill task arguing they are owed tens of pounds from you picking up a sandwich at lunchtime and a pint of milk on the way home at night.

nitpicker99

"Does it say this on the signs too."

No it doesn't. I would have interpreted "Parking limited to 4 hours. (No return within 1 hour)" as meaning the restriction was, say, having parked 8-12 you couldn't return until 1, but they're saying different.

(It gets better - the landowner referred to the charge as a penalty charge in an e-mail to me - but I'm keeping my powder dry on that one.)

Coupon-mad

Sounds like you are up for complaining to the shop (no loss, rip-off, won't be shopping there again, etc.) and also a POPLA appeal? You'd have to appeal to the PPC first. The DVLA won't be interested and the BPA will tell you the signage is clear enough as per their 'Code'. So go for the retailer and POPLA.

Only do the appeal and POPLA if it was in E&W and as long as the PPC is an AOS member who is not currently banned by the DVLA. And if POPLA don't agree I assume you know the decision is only binding upon the PPC?

Paperbird

nitpicker99 wrote: »

"Does it say this on the signs too."

No it doesn't. I would have interpreted "Parking limited to 4 hours. (No return within 1 hour)" as meaning the restriction was, say, having parked 8-12 you couldn't return until 1, but they're saying different.

(It gets better - the landowner referred to the charge as a penalty charge in an e-mail to me - but I'm keeping my powder dry on that one.)

Got a supermarket near me with 90 minutes and no return within 2 hrs so every time I visit I try to return an hour later but so far I haven't managed to get a ticket, even parking over the line doesn't work.
Come on Euro car parks you're missing out on wasting some money.

RENEGADE_2

Free car park = zero losses.

If you park at 0900, you may come and go as you please until 1300, it is not what they say, it is what the court would say - and nobody would look upon this as being a breach of terms.

ric3vic

And people commit trespass, not cars. Just because a particular vehicle returns it cannot be assumed that the same driver has returned.

ManxRed

ric3vic wrote: »

And people commit trespass, not cars. Just because a particular vehicle returns it cannot be assumed that the same driver has returned.

A good point, well made.