"no return" instruction

HardTimes_2

Hi, This must have been discussed previously, but I can't find anything definitive.

My local supermarket carpark is monitored by parking-eye, and there is a notice promoting 90 minutes of free parking with no return within four hours.

The 90 minute free is fairly easy to comply with...

However, it is not stated if the no-return instruction applies to the driver or the car.

Sure, if it's the driver, I can make sure I don't return to the parking location within the time limit.

But if it's the car, well I share it with my family members. If I went to the supermarket in the afternoon, I won't know for sure whether any other family member had called in to do some shopping in the morning, what time they departed, etc., therefore I wouldn't know if I was complying with this.

thanks

PS I haven't (yet) received any pcn re this.... but over the christmas period, with several family members out and about shopping this no return clause becomes more pertinent

The_Slithy_Tove

A contract to park can only be made by a person (or other legal entity), not a vehicle. This is clearly one of the problems with a "no return" clause - PE cannot make an assumption that it was the same driver each time, even though they will. (Other problems with that clause include going back to a store soon after in order to return/exchange an item, or collect something you accidentally left there, etc., etc.)

HardTimes_2

The_Slithy_Tove said:

A contract to park can only be made by a person (or other legal entity), not a vehicle. This is clearly one of the problems with a "no return" clause - PE cannot make an assumption that it was the same driver each time, even though they will....

Thanks for your reply.

Interesting, I wonder if many PCNs are issued solely on the basis of infringing the "no return within..." clause? If the contract is with the person, but it cannot be proven it was the same person each time it doesn't seem to be something that could actually be enforced? Would this be a water-tight defence? I guess parking companies will try anything anyway, but it would seem more fuitful to focus on "free time" infrigements?

thanks

BTW does this also imply that the "no return within..." clause on council/road-side parking is also unenforcable (unless it can be proven to be the same driver)?

Umkomaas

PPCs will try anything. With no restraining regulation, they've nothing to lose, and with nothing to lose, they can't help but make money. 

Even if a court case found against them, they won't have broken any law, so they'll just keep doing what they've been doing.  Hyenas around a rotting carcass. 

There are very good grounds for the motorist to win at court, but how many choose to go through the stresses and strains of defending a claim, rather than paying off the PPC to save the hassle. It's an extremely profitable business, that's for sure.

The_Slithy_Tove

HardTimes_2 said:

BTW does this also imply that the "no return within..." clause on council/road-side parking is also unenforcable (unless it can be proven to be the same driver)?

No, because with council tickets, it's the owner who is liable, not the driver. 

Half_way

There would be nothing to stop them putting on the signs Blue cars no return within 30 minutes, red cars no return wthin an hour, all other colours 90 muinutes