Napier parking shysters ticket after 12 seconds

The_Deep

If the attendant witnessed the driver leaving the car park then why did he not attempt to advise him of the need for him to issue a PCN in order to mitigate costs?

Perhaps for the same reason that store detectives do not arrest thieves until they have left the premises. As I understand it, those who pay are free to leave the site without sanction, a different situation from that which prevails in free car parks.

People who use P&D cat parks without paying are, in my opinion, the same position as those who fill up with petrol and drive off without payment.

In this present instance Mr de Savary says the parker walked past the machine, and left the site. The parker says he/she did not.

trisontana

Yet another rebuttal sums up the above:-

All very eloquent with that rebuttal is Mr de Savary, but he forgets one very important point. Why did the attendant do nothing to mitigate the parking company's loss?

There's a detailed description of what the attendant witnessed and how that is carefully noted down. If he's close enough to witness what the motorist did he's close enough to inform the motorist he must pay for his parking before walking away. Mr de Savary seems well aware of what goes on in the Private Parking Industry so one would assume he's aware of 'VCS-v-Ibbotson'. To use the judge's words in that case: "You can walk off, not a problem, £80." Even more clear cut in this case, as unlike in VCS-v-Ibbotson, this isn't a free car park, so there is a tangible loss that can be mitigated.

So. Failure to mitigate loss, plus the POPLA slam-dunk of not GPEOL. I'd still recommend this motorist appeals.

The_Deep

The difference between this an Ibbotsen as I see it it that the Wickes car park was for wickes customers and no charge is made, and this one is for shopping in the village and for which the landowner rightly is entitled to receive a small payment.

I am not a lawyer, and I may be wrong, but surely the concept of mitigation of loss does not apply in the criminal law, and is not P&D bilking a criminal activity, just as is fare dodging?

Yes the aforesaid bilker may win a Popla appeal based on losses, but what would be the position if Napier brought a theft charge.

Also if mitigation of loss applies, should the police be using "bait" cars?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-21841620

BenefitMaster

The_Deep wrote: »

I am not a lawyer, and I may be wrong, but surely the concept of mitigation of loss does not apply in the criminal law, and is not P&D bilking a criminal activity?

Yes the aforesaid bilker may win a Popla appeal cased on losses, but what would be the position if Napier brought a theft charge.

I'd be interested to know what you think is actually being stolen.

The_Deep

I'd be interested to know what you think is actually being stolen.

Paid parking space. It is Mr de Savary's land, he pays for the upkeep of the surface, any fencing, machines, signs, painting lines, clearing litter, business rates, insurance, staff, etc. Do you not think that he is entitled to charge for parking to cover these costs, and to make a profit.

Umkomaas

Do you not think that he is entitled to charge for parking to cover these costs, and to make a profit.

I agree with the first part of your sentence TD, but struggle with

and to make a profit.

Just how much profit is there in a 40p charge, especially with needing to employ a 'warden' to police the 40 pences. Have you heard of the strategy, most often used in the retail trade, 'loss leader', or the one in the piscatorial world, 'set a sprat to catch a mackerel'?

esmerobbo

The_Deep wrote: »

Perhaps for the same reason that store detectives do not arrest thieves until they have left the premises. As I understand it, those who pay are free to leave the site without sanction,

People who use P&D cat parks without paying are, in my opinion, the same position as those who fill up with petrol and drive off without payment.

The_Deep wrote: »

and is not P&D bilking a criminal activity, just as is fare dodging?

Until you leave the shop you have not stolen anything, if you do leave your intent on depriving the owner of goods so an offence has been committed. However the store can not penalise you the law can.

I agree if you park on someone's land and there is a fee payable then it should be paid, if not any genuine loss should be recoverable. If the person parking owes 40P then that should be recoverable and any costs incurred in recovering it, but to have a blanket penalty cant be justified.

If you bilk unintentionally you pay the bill, intentionally you may get arrested, but the garage gets their money not a penalty set by them.

Guys_Dad

The story has evolved from the opening post.

The opening post suggested that the motorist was ticketed when he was reading the t&c and after 12 seconds. Now that would stretch most people's belief as expressed in the scenario outlined in post #2.

So we now have the explanation from Mr dS which suggests that the original post may have been fed incorrect information and there is an explanation for the 12 seconds.

Nevertheless, if anyone has contact with Mr dS, then, as he wishes to be transparent and reasonable, he should explain the reason why the mitigation action was not employed when the operative noticed the driver leaving the area and, indeed, whether or not he relies on the income from non-payers and overstayers to not only pay for the operative but also contribute to company profits.

BenefitMaster

The_Deep wrote: »

I'd be interested to know what you think is actually being stolen.

Paid parking space.

Theft is the act of dishonestly and permanently depriving a person of their property.

So, what is being permanently deprived here?

http://www.staffordshire.police.uk/info_advice/crime_prevention/business/reducing_crime/bilking/

As details of the vehicle have been left (the numberplate) no criminal act has occurred.

I am not a Lawyer (yet)

esmerobbo

I find it a wee bit hard to believe the OP of this story when he says he needed eye ointment yet believed 40p to park was excessive.

However it is a wee bit harder to believe anything a PPC or their employees say!