Highview Parking Letter

[RedPlanet21]

Hello all!

This letter was received from Highview Parking. It describes a parking charge for contravening terms and conditions displayed on signage. The driver did not see this signage due to the darkness, as it was around 10 PM. The car park was accessible and mostly empty.

Upon revisiting the car park, there is signage near the entrance, but it does not face the entrance and is easy to miss, particularly at night.

The charge appears excessive considering the time of day, the availability of spaces, and the duration of stay.

Any advice would be appreciated.

[charitynjw]

Hi & welcome to LB.

How do they know who (drivers/parkers) were playing bingo & which ones weren't?
The signs that you've posted are directing to other signs which have the T&Cs?

[RedPlanet21]

Thanks for the welcome.

I am not sure how they would know. It is possible nobody was playing bingo if the car park was mostly empty, or it may be speculation.

Those are the two signs found on return to the car park, one above the other, but there may be other less prominently displayed signs. I would need to go back to be certain.

[charitynjw]

Thanks for the welcome.

I am not sure how they would know. It is possible nobody was playing bingo if the car park was mostly empty, or it may be speculation.

Those are the two signs found on return to the car park, one above the other, but there may be other less prominently displayed signs. I would need to go back to be certain.

You do need to do so, as the sign(s) with the T&Cs are the ones which form the unilateral contract with the driver. (Or not, if they are defective.)

[des8]

That sign is forbidding at time of this parking incident unless one is playing Bingo
Parking Period: 22.00 to 22.27
Sign states: "Parking charges apply Mon to Sun 07.00 to 18.00
Outside of these hours parking is permitted for Bingo Customers only"

So they can't be looking for a contractual charge, only trespass and that's a different ball game.

[RedPlanet21]

These are the other signs in the car park, positioned away from the entrance, although I assume that won't really matter.

The driver did not see the signs due to the time of day, and there are also no pay machines which further led the driver to believe this was not an issue at the time.

[charitynjw]

des8 is imho correct.

Outside of the hours quoted, only bingo folks can park there.
That being the case, if not playing bingo, it is impossible to contract with them

[RedPlanet21]

With that in mind, is the charge worth contesting? Or would trespass be worse?

[charitynjw]

With that in mind, is the charge worth contesting? Or would trespass be worse?

No
The parking co can't 'do' you for trespass, only the landowner can.
& it would be such a trivial matter (they would have to quantify the damage caused), it isn't worth their while (or money!)

[ostell]

So you go for a forbidding sign not creating a contract and therefore there can be no breach of the non existent contract and therefore no liability for any charge. The only claimant would be the landholder for trespass and then only for nominal damages.

Here's a piece I had saved about forbidding signs, it's up to you to verify

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.