Overstayed supermarket parking period question

[ppap]

Imho you are incorrect.
The sign goes on to state that if the driver breaches the t&C's, they agree to pay £100.
Usually in this type of situation (parking in a supermarket car park), the parking company is given authorisation to monitor breaches of the granted licence to park, & to issue pcn's upon breach. It is a contractual situation.
For a better grasp of the precedent ruling on this type of issue, read the Supreme Court judgment given in Parkingeye v Beavis (2015), available on the Supreme Court website.

Oh, I see. Yes, that's fair enough. By the way, I went back and did a video in the dark (the actual alleged contravention was in dark and rain). I really don't think the signage is sufficient. I thought they were all over the place, but no, most of the signs are OTHER signs, not about the parking. Almost as deliberately trying to make people to miss them.

[des8]

The defence of forbidding signs has , I read, been used on a number of occasions.
Pepipoo forum has a number of threads discussing this, and from one of them I picked this comment:
"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."

Now whether or not the OP would want to run this and risk losing and having to pay additional (fixed) court fees or winning and claiming his minor costs, it is his decision.
The trouble with small claims track is that it is a lottery.

[ppap]

The defence of forbidding signs has , I read, been used on a number of occasions.
Pepipoo forum has a number of threads discussing this, and from one of them I picked this comment:
"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."

Now whether or not the OP would want to run this and risk losing and having to pay additional (fixed) court fees or winning and claiming his minor costs, it is his decision.
The trouble with small claims track is that it is a lottery.

===

Yes, thank you, I have also read some intelligent comments on these lines. I am trying to figure out if this defence is applicable for my case here... So basically in this case it is not a question of not displaying permit, but rather losing my right to park there by overstaying. Nevertheless, the signage is still "forbidding" nature and they did not offer us any other option (invitation) to stay longer. As soon as we park for more than 90 minutes and we have no option to pay for extra time, so their terms and conditions are forbidding - hence not a contractual relationship. Do i understand this correctly?

[atticus]

Thank you, I do understand that. Obviously that's why I am doing my homework now. But you did not answer my question. Would a simple trespass fall under any contract re. "Customer's only parking"? Is trespass a breach of their suggested contract if I was not a customer? So if I understand correctly, you disagree with this part, so you are saying that ANY kind of parking there (customer or not) falls under the parking firm's rules. Right?

Right.

...

I do not see how it can be said that this sign forbids parking, but others may view it differently.

[des8]

===

Yes, thank you, I have also read some intelligent comments on these lines. I am trying to figure out if this defence is applicable for my case here... So basically in this case it is not a question of not displaying permit, but rather losing my right to park there by overstaying. Nevertheless, the signage is still "forbidding" nature and they did not offer us any other option (invitation) to stay longer. As soon as we park for more than 90 minutes and we have no option to pay for extra time, so their terms and conditions are forbidding - hence not a contractual relationship. Do i understand this correctly?

I don't think the defence is one of an overstay period being trespass, but the whole period being trespass and not contractual

IMO the signage prohibited anyone parking on that land unless they were customers of B&Q.
Anyone not being a customer is trespassing.
If the driver is a customer they agree to a specified charge if they break terms and conditions.

further down the signage states "Terms of Parking Without Permission"
It does not state where permission can be obtained but presumably applies to non customers and only has one applicable term viz you agree the keeper will be liable to an unspecified charge
That might be considered by a court to be an unfair term in a contract

Might not be the easiest of defences, but do your homework, find the right case law etc and with a sympathetic judge.............

PS this defence will not be accepted by the parking company, but if prepared to take the matter to court, I would wait until parking company issue claim which will be on basis of breach of contract

[charitynjw]

===

Yes, thank you, I have also read some intelligent comments on these lines. I am trying to figure out if this defence is applicable for my case here... So basically in this case it is not a question of not displaying permit, but rather losing my right to park there by overstaying. Nevertheless, the signage is still "forbidding" nature and they did not offer us any other option (invitation) to stay longer. As soon as we park for more than 90 minutes and we have no option to pay for extra time, so their terms and conditions are forbidding - hence not a contractual relationship. Do i understand this correctly?

Once again I will mention Parkingeye v Beavis (2015).
Do you honestly think that you can distinguish the instant case? Very brave to even try, imho.?