Please help!! 20+ parking tickets

lyndsay1989

I found a nearby building that rents out parking spaces so as of the 28th of this month, parking should no longer be an issue. Until then I will pay for public car parks on the weekend.

Just to clarify, the majority of people living in my building are students without cars, hence the large number of empty spaces since the parking restrictions came about. I have advertised many times to rent one of these spaces but this is constantly taken down. If I do park in the car park, it is only ever in the space of someone who does not own a car. So I am not depriving any one of a space.

Herzlos

lyndsay1989 wrote: »

Just to clarify, the majority of people living in my building are students without cars, hence the large number of empty spaces since the parking restrictions came about.

Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper & easier to rent a permit from one of the resident students? If they don't have cars I'm sure one of them will be happy to give you one in exchange for a case of beer every now and then.

I'd also be inclined to continue to park, so that you can get at least another ticket to appeal properly. You've already got 20 so another one won't make a difference.

The_Deep

If I do park in the car park, it is only ever in the space of someone who does not own a car. So I am not depriving any one of a space.


You most certainly are. The landlord, his/her family, friends, workmen employed by him/her, the tenant's friends, family his/her delivery drivers, etc.


Please stop trying to justify your actions,

Herzlos

But they've also said they check regularly. So you think that even if a car park is never near capacity, she'd still be depriving someone who doesn't own a car of their hypothetical space, even if it's demonstrably never used?

I get your annoyance at 'bilkers' and people who prevent you visiting your tennants, but neither is actually happening here.

nigelbb

Herzlos wrote: »

Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper & easier to rent a permit from one of the resident students? If they don't have cars I'm sure one of them will be happy to give you one in exchange for a case of beer every now and then.

The OP has already tried this:-

lyndsay1989 wrote: »

I have advertised many times to rent one of these spaces but this is constantly taken down.

The_Deep

But they've also said they check regularly. So you think that even if a car park is never near capacity, she'd still be depriving someone who doesn't own a car of their hypothetical space, even if it's demonstrably never used?

So, are you saying that if John Lewis is have a dozen left handed corkscrews, and no-one is buying any, it is OK to help yourself?

You have no idea of the problems I have had in one of my flats with, how shall I put this, people who have help in paying their rent, parking in my space. The MA wanted to bring in UKPC, it was only when I pointed out to them the problems they might have, that they held off.

Herzlos

The_Deep wrote: »

So, are you saying that if John Lewis is have a dozen left handed corkscrews, and no-one is buying any, it is OK to help yourself?

They aren't the same thing. In your example JL is permanently deprived of property. In the example we're dealing with a person without a car is temporarily deprived of parking a car in a space designed for such, where sufficient space is still available. It'd only be an issue if everyone had a car visitor at once, and given the car park is mostly empty, that's unlikely. I'm sure they'd also move it if asked.

You have no idea of the problems I have had in one of my flats with, how shall I put this, people who have help in paying their rent, parking in my space. The MA wanted to bring in UKPC, it was only when I pointed out to them the problems they might have, that they held off.

That's an entirely different situation though; I imagine in your case spaces are at a premium, and there are no other spaces when yours is being used? That's not what's happening in the OP's case, where she's parking in one of what seems to be numerous empty spaces, causing no inconvenience to anyone.

The_Deep

They aren't the same thing. In your example JL is permanently deprived of property. In the example we're dealing with a person without a car is temporarily deprived of parking a car in a space designed for such, where sufficient space is still available. It'd only be an issue if everyone had a car visitor at once, and given the car park is mostly empty, that's unlikely. I'm sure they'd also move it if asked.


All sophistry, trespass is trespass, It is a similar argument to that used by insurance cheats.


That's an entirely different situation though; I imagine in your case spaces are at a premium, and there are no other spaces when yours is being used? That's not what's happening in the OP's case, where she's parking in one of what seems to be numerous empty spaces, causing no inconvenience to anyone.


Again, there is right, and there is wrong. You seem to have a problem distinguishing between the two.

Quentin

The_Deep wrote: »

All sophistry, trespass is trespass, It is a similar argument to that used by insurance cheats...

Nothing you are saying is relevant to this thread or this forum.


And to compare the OP's action to those of an insurance cheat is just ridiculous

Herzlos

The_Deep wrote: »

All sophistry, trespass is trespass, It is a similar argument to that used by insurance cheats.

How do you manage to equate insurance fraud or theft with parking in an unused parking space in an empty car park? I'm not going to get into whether or not it's actually trespass, either.

Again, there is right, and there is wrong. You seem to have a problem distinguishing between the two.

Not at all. But not everything is black and white. There's technically-wrong-but-can't-actually-affect-anyone like in this case.

You seem to be unable to differentiate between 2 parking situations though. But this is all very much off topic.