Trespass? Does it make any difference

Trunk

I would like to ask if there is a difference between getting a parking charge in a car park and getting one for parking on a forecourt despite a VCS ‘No Parking’ sign (there being no offer of parking). I am asking this because it may be relevant to my situation.
Several posts here and in other places have hinted that in the latter case it is actually Trespass and because of this only the landowner (not BW Legal etc) can take you to court. However I haven’t been able to find this set out clearly anywhere. Can anyone help or point me in the right direction?

bargepole

It makes a huge difference.

A sign which says 'No Parking' does not make any offer, and therefore cannot be deemed to have formed a contract between the parking operator and the motorist. If somebody parks there, he may be considered a trespasser, and only the landowner (or another party with good title) can sue for trespass, for which damages are likely to be nominal.

This was determined by District Judge Glen in the 'High Wycombe Three' case heard in April this year, and the Approved Judgment can be found here: https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/208607905--Forbidding-Signs

Trunk

Thanks Bargepole, that's just what I was looking for

Coupon-mad

And it was covered in the Beavis case that it was the 'agreement on the charge' as offered in prominent signs that formed a contract and that in a trespass case ParkingEye would have had no case:

Supreme Court:

97. ''ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass. This is because it lost nothing by the unauthorised use resulting from Mr Beavis overstaying.''

and

''But it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement on the charge, Mr Beavis would not have been liable to ParkingEye. He would have been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but that liability would have been limited to the occupation value of the parking space.’’


And at the earlier Court of Appeal (these were not challenged by the Supreme Court) Sir Timothy Lloyd remarked at 50:

''The law would allow damages for trespass against the overstayer without regard to what the operator would have done but for the trespass: see for example Swordheath Properties v Tabet [1979] 1 WLR 285. Thus, the actual effect of the trespass on the car park operator's position is not relevant in any event. However, unless the defendant's occupation has been of particular value to him, the compensation would be limited to the market value of the occupation during the period of trespass.''