Money Moral Dilemma: Is it OK to use other people's leftover parking time?

HO87

Radiosmurf wrote: »

Our local car park requests you to input your reg number. I always put in 000. I have never had a problem - what's the offence? Amnesia? The ticket can then be transferred to another motorist to use up any spare time. So long as you have paid they don't care.

It could well be, of course, that the reason for the need to input the reg number was to eliminate the very problem being contributed to. Whilst your LA may not care the same will almost certainly not apply elsewhere.

Radiosmurf wrote: »

In any case has anyone ever been prosecuted for transferring a parking ticket?

If by prosecution you mean have they been issued with a penalty/parking charge notice? Yes. Frequently.

Radiosmurf wrote: »

I was once a passenger in my daughter's car and paid for her parking. The instructions were to input YOUR reg number. So I did although my car was at home! I was aching to get a fine and see what the authority's answer would be to my defence that I had only followed their instructions to the letter.

Neither councils, adjudicators nor courts take kindly to those who try this approach. It would have cost you.

This thread must be being mirrored on other boards. As Umkomaas has already commented on there seem to be a large number of regular posters who have never posted on this sub-board and a lot of new members who may have registered simply to post in this thread.

Whilst from a moral standpoint I have no problem with what it seems is the consensus on this topic, from a legal point of view there is no justification and, worse, from the perspective of private parking companies, it plays straight into their hands in boosting their already not insubstantial profits. On that subject, those posters in this thread who continue to suggest that an across-the-board "ignore" policy is the thing to do are completely mistaken.

@MSE Joanne - it is always a mistake to mix moral debates with legal issues. The title of the thread should therefore be changed from "Moral Dilemma" to "Legal Dilemma".

esmerobbo

It seems everybody's argument is "I have paid for the space for a period", which is indeed correct.

However the clue is in "I have" not we have.

As HO87 say's it is never a good idea to mix moral and legal issues.

The paid for time is being offered to you, and paid for by you.

We would all like to see free parking provided by councils, but it would only be free to us. It would not be free to the council, it needs paying for. I don't think any of us think being given a PCN for not paying, or using a transferred ticket is fair.

However they have to have a deterrent, to avoid abuse. Anyone who thinks we can do without traffic control and enforcement, read what happened in Aberystwyth when CEO's were done away with.

All that matters is the bottom line, if the sums don't add up to cover costs, or losing money then the fees will go up.

Also a point to consider some councils issue "Excess Charge Notices" for car park contraventions, for these they offer an appeal to the council, if you lose then it's pay or magistrates court!

Once again simply playing devils advocate.

I have passed on and used paid for space.

WhiteChristmas

It shouldn't by now but, once again, it surprises me that so many people get worked up about councils running car parks to make profit.

The councils are having more responsibilities dumped onto them by Westminster but aren't getting the funding to provide a decent service. The money has to come from somewhere - they have to raise cash wherever they can.

Increasing parking charges and levying fines for those who avoid them are perfectly valid targets for increased revenue. No matter what you've convinced yourself, driving is a choice, not a right or an essential, so parking is a non-essential service and should be chargeable such that it subsidises other, more important, services.

Or maybe you'd all prefer it just be added to your council tax?

All that said, I have no problem whatsoever with passing on tickets; just watch out for the cameras.

oldnewhand

esmerobbo wrote: »

OK can we open it up, I have both passed on and used tickets with time left on in the past and will no doubt do in the future.

However lets look at it from another angle. If you owned a restaurant and someone came in for a meal, and as they did someone left after eating only half their steak and chips, would you find it acceptable for the person coming in to sit and eat the food left without making a purchase? If you owned a pub would it be OK for someone to come in and drink up all the left over slops without buying a drink? If you ran a bus would it be OK for someone to pass a ticket as they got off to someone getting on?

After all the food, beer and ticket have all been paid for!

Just asking!

I can see your argument but given that much of the parking we have to pay for is in order to pay for something else, such as shopping, train journey, cinema, theatre etc it's not quite the same. Restauranteurs don't make a charge for you to sit on a chair (yet) so that you can then buy your meal which basically what carparks do. This is the element of parking charges that I personally object to. I feel that if businesses want me to patronise them they should provide me with somewhere to park. If people didn't find charges so objectionable and most wardens weren't so officious in order to meet their targets they would be less likely to pass on their ticket time whenever possible.

Fitzmichael

Yes, of course, the occupation of the space has been paid for and its purpose, to share out scarce space, has been accomplished. Councils are there to provide such services to the citizens and should not be allowed to charge more than the cost of providing the service. I am sure the vast majority think like me, that Councils (and the NHS) - no matter how cash-strapped - should be forbidden to run these services as money-making ventures.
Of course again, you'll now usually have to enter your reg number, precisely to stop such sharing. Commonly too, the machine will probably not give change nor accept cards. Why has Pay and Display replaced barriers and Pay on Exit? I asked officers whom I knew, in two Council areas, and was told it was because the former raised more income, but the official answer was that they did not need to pay staff to man the barrier in case of difficulty. They were surprised that no-one made the instant obvious response that it must cost just as much to have at least one warden constantly patrolling, as well as someone available for emergencies. I parked in a Council carpark one Boxing Day, with nothing going on. There were half a dozen other cars in the vast space and I assumed that the day would be free but glanced at the, indistinct, notice I passed and got a 1hr ticket. On return with a few mins to spare, I was surprised to find a warden perched ready to strike, who began to move off when he saw me (obviously knowing which car I was heading for). His activity was not only unnecessary but inimical to the interest of citizens, but the tickets on the three remaining cars would more than pay his week's wages. Three cheers for democracy.

Bikertyke

loocyloo wrote: »

how on earth does the unique serial number tell the parking attendant who originally bought the ticket? it will only say at what time and at which machine ( if there are several ) and doesn't identify the purchaser or their vehicle!


I pass on tickets and accept others. just a nice thing to do.

Attendant patrols the car park and logs displayed tickets every hour. If a ticket is displayed on a different car on a subsequent patrol, they will know instantly that it has been transferred.
They may do it differently, but that's one obvious way; it's very easy to check.
As I say, feel free to do it. But don't complain if you get fined cos you thought you were cleverer than them, and then find out you weren't!

hutch610

I've done both. If cameras catch you how are the council going to fine everyone surely that would cost them more in the long run. I say carry on.

Herzlos

minicooper272 wrote: »

Technically it's wrong, and you can receive a fine for it. Having said that, I have accepted and will pass on pre-paid tickets if I can get away with it, it just seems like the courteous thing to do.

They can't fine you, they can claim for the loss caused by your breach, but since the space was paid for already, there is no loss. Just because it's written on the back of the ticket (that you paid for before seeing) doesn't make it valid or binding.

You pay for a service, and until the service is used up it's paid for. If you bought biscuits would you have a morality discussion on giving half the pack to your neighbour because you don't want to finish them?

If there was sufficient time remaining, I'd give/take a ticket that didn't have my reg number on it. We used to do it with daily underground tickets all the time. These days I'm usually in pay-on-exit places though which are much fairer anyway.

Herzlos

Bikertyke wrote: »

Attendant patrols the car park and logs displayed tickets every hour. If a ticket is displayed on a different car on a subsequent patrol, they will know instantly that it has been transferred.
They may do it differently, but that's one obvious way; it's very easy to check.
As I say, feel free to do it. But don't complain if you get fined cos you thought you were cleverer than them, and then find out you weren't!

There's no way they are logging serial numbers. It's a complete error prone waste of time.

Most of the people getting PCN's for sharing tickets are because the 'Enforcement Agent' watched them do it, and instead of mitigating just issued tickets. Ergo none of them are valid anyway.

nigelbb

If you pay for a session at the swimming pool but only have a quick dip do you pass on your ticket to someone queuing up to pay? What about your One Day Travelcard? Organisations can apply whatever terms they want when they sell you something. If the service is sold to you for your use but you choose not to stay the full length of time that you paid for then that's your loss but giving your ticket to someone else doesn't render their use of the unexpired portion legitimate.