When does parking on a retail park become trespass?

Guys_Dad

It's their private land and they have the right to allow who they wish to park there.

They don't want you and your colleagues using their cat park and have told you so and the possible ramifications if you do.

I presume they could get access to the registered keepers from the DVLA and if there are company cars involved, then your company get roped in.

Seems to me that they are perfectly within their rights and are going about informing your company officially and slightly officiously but with a solid foundation for any future legal action.

Personally, I am with any landowner who wants to stop people trespassing on their land and goes about it in a proper fashion. This does not include appointing PPCs who try to lay swingeing charges on motorists that far outweigh any contravention. In this case, however, they have given fair notice of their wish for your company employees to desist and their intentions if you do not. You have no lawful right to use their land as a free car park.

If this forum is getting to the stage where they are supporting people who feel it is their right to park on any bit of private land in spite of the landowner's request, then I fear it has lost its way.

Half_way

let me get this straight, you have a private car park where members of the public are invited to park, by the land owner and you have parked there.
However this land owner has now withdrawn this permission from you and as such you should no longer park in that place unless you are using the facilities that the car park serves. Once you have finished using the premises then you should park elsewhere..

The problem here is that some places may have an issue with people parking where they should not, and the easy option - although not the best option is to fall for the sales talk from the private parking companys that are only interested in getting money and not in managing the car park.

Madmike46

4consumerrights wrote: »

So they are not solicitors after all - and I agree with the above poster and think this is a direct dig at our nothern legal rep KIFL madmike46 porky pie

Especially apt with the timing too.

I genuinly don't know what your on about. I created this account today in order to gather further information regarding this situation. My names Mike and my favourite motorcycle racer is number 46... Theres no Porky Pies or apt timing. Just facts and genuine questions.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

If this forum is getting to the stage where they are supporting people who feel it is their right to park on any bit of private land in spite of the landowner's request, then I fear it has lost its way.

I’m not parking on my neighbours drive/garden or anything! Its a retail parkcar park, open to the public 24/7, people drive on and off all day every day. I’moccupying 1 space out of 100 others. I simply wanted peoples opinions on thelegalities of the matter. If I have no lawful right to park then that is fairenough, I’m just curious as to why I don’t have the right but other people do.Surly its a case of allow access to everyone or put up a gate/fence and denyeveryone access?

Hot_Bring

Guys_Dad wrote: »

They don't want you and your colleagues using their cat park and have told you so and the possible ramifications if you do.

To be frank, I'd be very angry if I found someone parking a car rather than a cat in a cat park that I owned ! :mad:

HO87

Harcourt's may indeed not be solicitors but the named individual most certainly is and is shown at the Law Society as being employed by Harcourts Ltd. Harcourts Legal Services do not appear to exist and do not appear to be registered at the SRA as an ABS.

If the letter is genuine then it is poorly written - the mixture of "unlawful" and "illegal" being somewhat telling. The terms have distinct legal interpretations and are not interchangeable something one might reasonably expect a solicitor of some 16+ years standing to appreciate. However, the letter is clearly intended as little more than a scare tactic - threatening injunctions is the giveaway here. Injunctions are generally only obtainable against named individuals and the fact that the letter has been addressed to the dealership betrays the fact that they do not know those details. Similarly, action would only be possible against the dealership if Harcourt's were able to successfully show that the dealership actively encouraged staff and their customers to use the car park. I presume that is not the case.

Attempting to suggest that the use of a car park in the way suggested might amount to conversion is to stretch the elastic very thin indeed given that a licence to use the car park is extended to the public as a whole subject to the implicit term that they use (become "customers" at) the adjacent premises.

That said the general licence to the public has now been withdrawn insofar as it relates to the car dealership, its staff and customers. It would therefore be politic to cease its use.

Any reply I wrote would be very brief but would not mention, on this occasion, Arkell v Pressdram.

4consumerrights

I think the letter is fake due to the way it is written - and as I previously pointed out and HO87 also stated you cannot issue a blanket injunction.

I also agree with the other poster especially after looking at the locations etc that this is Mike perkins wind up again prompted by the facebook pages and having a dig at KIFL.

Madmike46

HO87 wrote: »

If the letter is genuine

The letter is 100% genuine, I don't understand why people are doubting it or myself.

It was received to my company e-mail address this morning. It was sent to a director at my place of work and a bloke called Gareth Townley was CC'ed into it also. A quick google search reveals that Mr Townley is a director at Harcourt.

Sarah Sweeney is a real person as per LinkedIn and even a Daily mail article about how she tried to sue her previous employer DLA piper.

I have no idea who Mike Perkins is and don't even know what KIFL stands for... I'm sure that a moderator could clarify this by simply running my email address through Facebook/twitter/Instagram/LinkedIn

Moving on... What does SRA and ABS stand for as per H087's post, regards
Mike

Dave_TH

Madmike46 (I know who 46 is) I suspect this is not aimed at you but the author as fake.
SRA is the solicitors reg authority.

Madmike46 wrote: »

The letter is 100% genuine, I don't understand why people are doubting it or myself.

It was received to my company e-mail address this morning. It was sent to a director at my place of work and a bloke called Gareth Townley was CC'ed into it also. A quick google search reveals that Mr Townley is a director at Harcourt.

Sarah Sweeney is a real person as per LinkedIn and even a Daily mail article about how she tried to sue her previous employer DLA piper.

I have no idea who Mike Perkins is and don't even know what KIFL stands for... I'm sure that a moderator could clarify this by simply running my email address through Facebook/twitter/Instagram/LinkedIn

Moving on... What does SRA and ABS stand for as per H087's post, regards
Mike

4consumerrights

@MadMike - I am sorry I may have made a mistake regarding your intentions. This thread certainly appeared to have all the hallmarks of someone called Michael Perkins who owns Combined Parking Solution, one of the parking companies. He is well known for creating threads and winding this forum up and your timing coincided with comments made on different threads. All the parking companies monitor this forum and read the threads.

I know Sarah Sweeney is a solicitor and registered with the law society and I did read the linkedin page also. However neither Harcourt Limited and Harcourt Legal Services are registered, so by signing off the letter in that manner is an act of msrepresentation.

I asked you earlier was the firm registered with the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) and ABS stands for Alternative Business Structure.

That letter is a terrible attempt at a letter before action (looks fake too) for someone who is supposed to be a solicitor as it makes no attempt to quantify the damages sought. There is no detail as to how often or how many different cars they consider are tresspassing and indeed it would be difficult to quantify any loss incurred to the landowner for any such damage.

There is as you stated no signage at the retail park which restricts any access or specifies patrons only, but as others have stated landowners do have the right to invite who they want on to their land. Indeed if you parked your car in the morning say and then visited and purchased goods in your lunch hour or after work then you would also be deemed as a customer and not a trespasser if no time limits were imposed.

What was the reaction of your employer to this letter and your work colleagues. The letter also implies some of the customers at the car showroom are also using the car park. I cannot see a judge granting a blanket injunction on multiple unknowns when there is no quantifiable amount determined by this very nature.

Do you know whose car it was - they should be the one most concerned at this stage due to the photographic evidence.

It may be simpler to walk the 10 minutes and park elsewhere - then there will be no confusion - unless there is a possibility of car sharing at your works - you did state you have a small car park.

HO87

Madmike46 wrote: »

The letter is 100% genuine, I don't understand why people are doubting it or myself.

It was received to my company e-mail address this morning. It was sent to a director at my place of work and a bloke called Gareth Townley was CC'ed into it also. A quick google search reveals that Mr Townley is a director at Harcourt.

Sarah Sweeney is a real person as per LinkedIn and even a Daily mail article about how she tried to sue her previous employer DLA piper.

I have no idea who Mike Perkins is and don't even know what KIFL stands for... I'm sure that a moderator could clarify this by simply running my email address through Facebook/twitter/Instagram/LinkedIn

Moving on... What does SRA and ABS stand for as per H087's post, regards
Mike

My apologies. Perhaps I should have been more explicit.

Please insert the following as the first sentence of the second paragraph of my original post:

If the letter is genuine (in the sense that it was written by the person it is purported to have been drafted by) then it is poorly written - the mixture of "unlawful" and "illegal" being somewhat telling.

and the following as the third sentence of my original post:

I am therefore somewhat suspicious.

With respect the fact that the solicitor in question exists is no guarantee that she was the author of the letter (or the person behind the LinkedIn entry) anymore than Adolf Hitler (who undoubtedly also existed) was the author of the infamous Hitler Diaries Stern and Times Newspapers were suckered by.