Employee Off Site Parking Rights

Hezzawithkids

This is being faced by an increasing number of employees, myself included. When Prescott was in charge of Transport under Labour he passed a regulation that said anyone building new offices can only allow for a % of employees to park on site so fewer parking spaces than employees. The idea was to encourage people to use public transport but all it really does is encourage people to park down residential streets etc.

Where I currently work they go one further. Not only do they restrict who can park on site its also a disciplinary offence to walk to the office down the dual carriageway access route (which has no pedestrian paths) to the campus. You could argue that its up to the individual to be stupid enough to risk doing so but the company would argue they are looking after our safety plus they need to think about their reputation and responsibilities as a major employer in the locality.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that issues like this go hand in hand with being an employee of a big company these days and they can become political hot potatoes. Personally I've come up with a parking strategy that doesn't break the rules and suits me perfectly, then I get on with my day.

Loanranger

We have people parking in our road to avoid the work place parking levy imposed by Nottinghamshire County Council. Our road is on a school bus route so you can imagine the problems this causes at busy times.
It's inconsiderate of those parking here, half on road half on pavement so wheelchair and pushchair users have limited space.
The huge majority of employees pay up so why are there always a few who decide to park on grass verges and cause problems? Many grass verges have been totally destroyed and are just muddy strips now.
I am no fan of the work place parking levy, BTW, I think it's an iniquitous charge to supposedly get money to pay for a tram no-one wants. A Labour Council imposed it and the large employers eg Boots, Nottingham University and the Queen's Medical Centre have rolled over instead of standing up to the council demigods. The University now employ some jumped up firm of bullies to impose parking charges too.
All bad.

dizzyrascal

jimjames wrote: »

Absolutely. But at present there are no parking restrictions and I would guess that the local residents do not want that either as it would restrict their ability to park when/where they want too. With no restrictions legally it does mean that anyone can park on that street.

It doesn't affect me personally but based on the less than desirable location I wouldn't want to park my there anyway as it is unlikely to have all wheels when I return!

I'm also interested to know how a company can identify which private vehicle a member of staff is driving outside the premises to link a vehicle to an employee. Again I cannot see any obligation on an employee to provide personal vehicle details if it isn't being parked onsite.

Firstly, the residents would get to park if restrictions were brought in. My city has thousands of street that now only have residents parking or metered parking for 4 hours or less. The council wouldn't just put double yellow lines down a residential street.

Secondly, I think you will find that the residents themselves will happily forward photos of cars that are regularly parked on their street if their ability to park is becoming an issue.

A.Galloway

Is this a joke or what?

As an employer, I have no legal right to demand such a thing from employees. There is nothing in the statue books!

Put it this way, If I dismissed someone for parking their car on a public highway, I would be in court getting my backside sued!

On the plus side, you could get a very large payout should you be dismissed.

A.G

Johno100

Here's a question. If by restricting where employees can legally park close to their place of employment, they put say lone females in a more vunerable position as regards their personal safety. Would the employer be in breach of their duty of care to the employees and be open to legal action if something happened to that employee?

Likewise, employees with impared mobility?

A.Galloway

Johno100 wrote: »

Here's a question. If by restricting where employees can legally park close to their place of employment, they put say lone females in a more vunerable position as regards their personal safety. Would the employer be in breach of their duty of care to the employees and be open legal action if something happened to that employee?

Likewise, employees with impared mobility?

Not at all. We/they don't have a duty of care for employees outside the workplace.

Women or not, they are equal under law. Men are vulnerable too, not just women.

A.G

Uncertain

A.Galloway wrote: »

Is this a joke or what?

As an employer, I have no legal right to demand such a thing from employees. There is nothing in the statue books!

Oh for heaven's sake!

There doesn't need to be anything "in the statute books".

Why comment on something you clearly know nothing about? Read what has been said and learn from it.

There is no question that it is 100% lawful for an employer to have such rules for new employees and enforce them with disciplinary action.

The only possible question here is whether it would be (legally) reasonable to impose such a change on existing employees. I certainly wouldn't stake my job on it not being so.

CKhalvashi

Uncertain wrote: »

Virtually all contracts have something in them about following all reasonable management instructions. Even if they don't it is still an implied term so it all comes down to what is reasonable.

We don't know the circumstances or reasoning in this case but I certainly wouldn't want to stake my job on it.

We have similar rules with regard to parking on-site here, and the general advice is to briefly block part of our car park and ask someone to open the warehouse door (we often have staff vehicles parked in our warehouse)

We have sufficient parking, and we're not anywhere near public roads though (see below, as I just went out to illustrate), but about 20 parking spaces, and sometimes upto 40 people in the office can cause a problem occasionally.

CK

Johno100

A.Galloway wrote: »

Not at all. We/they don't have a duty of care for employees outside the workplace.

Women or not, they are equal under law. Men are vulnerable too, not just women.

A.G

I fully agree with you on this and where an employee parks has nothing to do with the employer. However I am suggesting that by this employer getting involved in saying where the employees can and cannot park he is perhaps leaving himself vunerable and liable if something untoward happens to an employee as a consequence of this ruling.

dizzyrascal

Johno100 wrote: »

Here's a question. If by restricting where employees can legally park close to their place of employment, they put say lone females in a more vunerable position as regards their personal safety. Would the employer be in breach of their duty of care to the employees and be open to legal action if something happened to that employee?

Likewise, employees with impared mobility?

The university where I work has no available on-street parking within 2 miles in any direction and has only limited parking on site on a first-come first-served basis, same goes for the large hospital next door, so how does that work with your vulnerable workers approach?
You could be mugged/attacked anywhere, doesn't have to be on the way back to your car.