Money Moral Dilemma: Should I park outside someone else's house to avoid paying?

Mercdriver

andygb wrote: »

I had this problem when I was commuting to London. The weekly parking would have added another £25 per week onto my already astronomic costs, so I parked about half a mile away from the station in a very quiet, unrestricted, quiet street on the outskirts of the village. For a few days it was OK, and then I returned from work one evening, to find stickers all over my windscreen on the driver's side, telling me in no uncertain terms not to park there (someone must have had real OCD, given the amout of stickers). I wasn't even parked near anyone's drive, yet some NIMBY just thought I shouldn't be there. It took an absolute age to get the stickers off the screen.
I didn't park there again, because I wasn't sure what would happen if I did.

Strange, I thought most employers paid extra due to London Weighting. You made a choice to work in London and take advantage of the weighting which was designed to help with living expenses within London. Perhaps this should be reviewed for those that live outside Greater London?

Mercdriver

EssexHebridean wrote: »

OP - absolutely nothing wrong with what you're doing - legally OR morally. If anyone challenges me about parking on the street I always make sure I get a pic on my phone of both them and the house they live in, AND make a note of the conversation, so that if there are issues with vandalism later I have at least a starting point to take action from. Advising them that this will be the outcome generally ensures that I return to a car in precisely the state I left it.

How useful do you think this 'evidence' will be if there is vandalism and the people you photograph simply deny it? (Hint: think chocolate fire grate)

Mercdriver

jgriggle wrote: »

You're right, no-one forced me to take a job which would make me subject to parking charges. That's why I don't have a job which makes me subject to parking charges - there's a residential street nearby where I can park for free. I made sure of that before I accepted the job.


I'm not sure what's arrogant and ignorant about parking legally. It's no more arrogant and ignorant that choosing a house with no parking and then thinking you have more right to park on the road next to it than anyone else.

You could have taken a job that had onsite free parking. You chose not to.

andygb

Mercdriver wrote: »

You could have taken a job that had onsite free parking. You chose not to.

These days you take a job where you can, and you get to your place of work by the cheapest, most efficient way possible, and if that means parking sensibly in an unrestricted residential street, then that is what I do.
None of my employers have ever paid for parking or travel expenses for me, and I would think that is so for the majority of workers in the UK.

Tammykitty

Mercdriver wrote: »

You could have taken a job that had onsite free parking. You chose not to.

The same argument can be used for people buying a house though - they could have bought/rented a house with off street parking


£8 a day spent on parking is £160 a month.


jgriggle took a job, where they could park for free in residential streets to avoid paying the £160.


The residents of the house which they park outside could have bought/rented a house with off street parking - for £160 a month, they could spend a extra £35k on a house purchase (2.5% - 25 years) - for this they could get maybe get a driveway?
Would an extra £160 in rent get them a driveway?


You can't say people are tight for not wanting to pay for parking, when the residents on the street don't want to pay for parking either (By either using the same car park the commuters can use, or by getting a house with off street parking)

Mercdriver

Tammykitty wrote: »

The same argument can be used for people buying a house though - they could have bought/rented a house with off street parking


£8 a day spent on parking is £160 a month.


jgriggle took a job, where they could park for free in residential streets to avoid paying the £160.


The residents of the house which they park outside could have bought/rented a house with off street parking - for £160 a month, they could spend a extra £35k on a house purchase (2.5% - 25 years) - for this they could get maybe get a driveway?
Would an extra £160 in rent get them a driveway?


You can't say people are tight for not wanting to pay for parking, when the residents on the street don't want to pay for parking either (By either using the same car park the commuters can use, or by getting a house with off street parking)

My point is that his argument is circular. You can't say that the people in the area are tight if all they can afford is the house they have. It's the same argument he and others are using. Difference with him, is that he has deliberately chosen to have no consideration for people, for which there is a special place in hell.

Remember this is a moral argument, not a legal one.

I believe in c(k)arma...(Pah-dum Tisch)

Mercdriver

andygb wrote: »

These days you take a job where you can, and you get to your place of work by the cheapest, most efficient way possible, and if that means parking sensibly in an unrestricted residential street, then that is what I do.
None of my employers have ever paid for parking or travel expenses for me, and I would think that is so for the majority of workers in the UK.

London workers get paid more specifically because of living expenses being considered more expensive than elsewhere. Was London the only place you could have worked? If not, you took the extra money and shat on the local people in effect.

I choose to do work that means I travel a lot outside the UK. Where I am right now it is 1am. I could save myself money by parking in one of the streets in Harmondsworth where there aren't any restrictions. But I think that is wrong and inconsiderate. My car is taxed and insured and I could leave it in a residential street for a month if I am away that long (which is often the case), but instead, I search for the best deal I can find for a hotel+parking and collect points on a hotel loyalty scheme...

AnotherJoe

fizzking wrote: »

I agree that parking all day, every day, on a residential street is the height of selfishness.
The culprit has no idea whether it might cause more than inconvenience to the residents and probably could not care less if emergency and delivery services can't access it easily.
You are causing offence just so you can go and earn money.
Have some decency and pay up.

if its legal /safe to park there, it shouldn't cause issues for emergency services. There's a difference between parking legally not blocking anything, and parking selfishly blocking access, which for some reason have become muddled together in this thread, but they are very different things.

Delivery services, as far as i am aware, have the right to park anywhere at any time for any duration, including stopped the middle of the street or on double yellows or completely blocking pavements, by using their magic flashing hazard lights.

Norman_Castle

Tammykitty wrote: »

The same argument can be used for people buying a house though - they could have bought/rented a house with off street parking

The argument is being used in response to "you should have bought a house with a driveway". As above, its a circular argument, and a weak excuse for ignoring problems caused by commuters.

jgriggle

Mercdriver wrote: »

My point is that his argument is circular. You can't say that the people in the area are tight if all they can afford is the house they have. It's the same argument he and others are using. Difference with him, is that he has deliberately chosen to have inconvenience people, for which there is a special place in hell.

Remember this is a moral argument, not a legal one.

I believe in c(k)arma...(Pah-dum Tisch)

I haven't chosen to inconvenience anyone. If somebody owns a car and chooses to live on a street where the only parking is on the public road they have chosen to inconvenience themselves.


The street I have been parking in for 14 years has always been used for parking in the daytime. Anyone who knows the area knows that. Anyone moving there would have struggled to park when viewing the property. That would normally be a dead giveaway that parking is a potential issue.


In terms of 'that's all they can afford', these houses cost far more than mine, which has a drive. That's the deal with living close to the town centre.


However, I am prepared to compromise. Send me a cheque for £2000 and I'll park in the car park. It's right opposite where I work so that would be brilliant.