Overstayed supermarket parking period question

[des8]

shopping is said to have been loaded.

But does G4S know that?
It will be for them to show the reason for parking there, not for the defendant to prove otherwise.
In any event once the shopping was finished, was the driver still a customer.
If they stayed for a reason other than shopping, do they cease to be a customer?

Not suggesting it would be easy or successful, but could be interesting

[atticus]

I edited my post after re-reading the OP's first post, which confirmed that cash had been spent in the shop.

Lawyers like interesting cases. But clients should be less keen.

[charitynjw]

There might be an argument to be had in that the signs clearly state "Customer Parking Only"

This means that a non customer parking there is trespassing, as non customers are not to park there.
Now it is not possible to contract to do something which is forbidden, which means that their claim for contractual damages must fail unless they can show the parker was a customer of the store

Now I understand the driver parked there whilst awaiting to collect persons who were in the nearby sports centre.
There were no available spaces in the sports centre hence the need to park in B&M's (near empty?) car park.
As the car park was near empty, B7M's losses caused by the trespass would be nil, so they have no realistic claim for damages for trespass.

Be an interesting defence to run, putting G4S to proof of driver's actions after parking

The sign in this case qualifies this by stating (in smaller print) that, if the terms are breached, the driver agrees to a £100 charge*.
This would arguably be the acceptance of the unilateral offer on terms, evidenced by performance (the act of parking) for consideration for value (the license to park, which, in this type of location, is likely to be granted by the parking company via their landowner agreement, or chain of agreements flowing from the landowner through various parties).
So quid pro quo.

*Interestingly, the site sign as described in the oft-quoted Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis (2015) does not do this. According to the judgment:-

"Failure to comply with the following will result in a Parking Charge of:£85". [1]

Imho, there was a potential argument that no actual unilateral offer was made.
As the contentious issue in that case was whether or not the actual amount charged (£85) constituted a penalty, this point wasn't really considered.

[1] [2015] UKSC 67
Lord Neuberger & Lord Sumption
at 91

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...0-judgment.pdf

[ppap]

There might be an argument to be had in that the signs clearly state "Customer Parking Only"

This means that a non customer parking there is trespassing, as non customers are not to park there.
Now it is not possible to contract to do something which is forbidden, which means that their claim for contractual damages must fail unless they can show the parker was a customer of the store

Now I understand the driver parked there whilst awaiting to collect persons who were in the nearby sports centre.
There were no available spaces in the sports centre hence the need to park in B&M's (near empty?) car park.
As the car park was near empty, B7M's losses caused by the trespass would be nil, so they have no realistic claim for damages for trespass.

Be an interesting defence to run, putting G4S to proof of driver's actions after parking

****

Thank you, This is a rather interesting point. I have just checked with the driver, At the time of the alleged contravention they were not customers - while there are regularly shop in the mentioned B&M, that afternoon they were not. (They did in the morning, but that is irrelevant, I guess). They shopped at a nearby Tesco, but all their activity was all based around the kids' sport tournament. The leisure centre has free parking for patrons, but that was full. So, I would not mind running by this logic of possible tresspass, but no damage was caused, also G4S was unlikely to be authorised by the landlord to pursue claims. What do you think? Should I contact G4S regarding this, of the B&M ?

[charitynjw]

****

Thank you, This is a rather interesting point. I have just checked with the driver, At the time of the alleged contravention they were not customers - while there are regularly shop in the mentioned B&M, that afternoon they were not. (They did in the morning, but that is irrelevant, I guess). They shopped at a nearby Tesco, but all their activity was all based around the kids' sport tournament. The leisure centre has free parking for patrons, but that was full. So, I would not mind running by this logic of possible tresspass, but no damage was caused, also G4S was unlikely to be authorised by the landlord to pursue claims. What do you think? Should I contact G4S regarding this, of the B&M ?

Speculative (re the lack of authorisation).
Have you asked for a copy of the landowner agreement?

[atticus]

By all means, if making things worse is no longer a concern.

[des8]

The only persons who can bring a claim for trespass are those in possession of the land e.g. freeholder/leaseholder but certainly not a management company, nor a licence holder.
A management company cannot be authorised to bring a trespass claim.

[ppap]

By all means, if making things worse is no longer a concern.

What do you see possibly making the matters worse? Does not the sign mean that UNLESS I am a customer, I should not park there? Therefore I am committing trespass. I am willing to be contacted by the land owner regarding this, should they claim for any damages cause by my trespass. How does a parking firm has anything to do with any other possible civil offense committed on that piece of land?

[atticus]

It is for you to assess the advice that you are given by strangers on the internet, and whether it helps you meet your stated objectives.

I do not share that interpretation; I doubt that a court will. The claim that will be brought will not be for damages for trespass. It will include a claim for court fees and further costs.

[ppap]

It is for you to assess the advice that you are given by strangers on the internet, and whether it helps you meet your stated objectives.

I do not share that interpretation; I doubt that a court will. The claim that will be brought will not be for damages for trespass. It will include a claim for court fees and further costs.

Sorry, I am not sure if I get the right message here. So.... Why would it even go to court? Aren't we talking about the parking company claiming? If I was not a customer, according to their entry sign, they have no leg to stand on for parking violation for a "Customers only parking" area. Is this correct so far? Please correct me if it is not. - So why would they pursue a court case they can not win? - The next step COULD be, they pass my details to the land owner or lease holder (B&M, I guess). They could potentially contact me regarding trespass, but as there was no damage caused and we are regular customers, I can not see an issue with simply agreeing with them not to bother.

Thanks for your help

[MIKE770]

How parking is managed - British Parking Association you tend to be going off tangent.

[ppap]

How parking is managed - British Parking Association you tend to be going off tangent.

Thank you, but this seems to be a very general write up. Is there a particular part you want to point out, which I should be educated by?

[atticus]

Do you not understand that a possible consequence of not paying the PCN is that you will be taken to court by the parking company? The claim will be founded on breach of contract.

By all means run that argument, but please understand that there is a serious risk that you will end up paying very much more. If I understand des8 correctly, he says it is an interesting argument, not one that is certain to succeed. My view, with respect to him, is that it has little merit.

Your choice.

[ppap]

Do you not understand that a possible consequence of not paying the PCN is that you will be taken to court by the parking company? The claim will be founded on breach of contract.

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?

[charitynjw]

Sorry, I am not sure if I get the right message here. So.... Why would it even go to court? Aren't we talking about the parking company claiming? If I was not a customer, according to their entry sign, they have no leg to stand on for parking violation for a "Customers only parking" area. Is this correct so far? Please correct me if it is not. - So why would they pursue a court case they can not win? - The next step COULD be, they pass my details to the land owner or lease holder (B&M, I guess). They could potentially contact me regarding trespass, but as there was no damage caused and we are regular customers, I can not see an issue with simply agreeing with them not to bother.
Thanks for your help

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.