Parking Tiso Perth

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Hay 12 Dec 2015
Quick car-share reminder as per last year - the 2.5 hour parking restriction is still in force in the Tiso carpark in Perth.
You can stay longer (up to 24hrs) if you log your reg. no. with the store.
Either drop in or call 01738 634464 and we'll do the rest.
Bruce
1
 top cat 12 Dec 2015
In reply to Hay:

When you say 'in force', what exactly does that mean? Presumably some penalty, so what penalty and how do you enforce it?
11
 Joak 12 Dec 2015
In reply to top cat:
A simple face to face chat or phone call for 24hrs free parking in a retail car park sounds pretty good to me. If some smart arse tried to abuse this and got wheel clamped I certainly wouldn't shed a tear! (This comes from a guy that nearly got arrested for a wee rammy with an unreasonable traffic warden in Ayr many moons ago)
Post edited at 22:57
1
OP Hay 12 Dec 2015
In reply to top cat:
We don't. It's a retail park and the folks who own it monitor the parking. It's an automatic number plate recognition system with a time limit.
 top cat 14 Dec 2015
In reply to Hay:

I think wheel clamping in Scotland is not legal?

So what's the penalty? Under Scottish law.
5
 DannyC 14 Dec 2015
In reply to top cat:

Hey Mr Cat, maybe give the poor guy a wee rest eh? It isn't even Tiso's car park. Hay's come on here to be helpful and make climbers' lives easier. 24hr, free, well-lit parking near a roundabout on a main route North is really useful - and appreciated.
Peace, love and free parking,
D.
 Fraser 14 Dec 2015
In reply to top cat:

> I think wheel clamping in Scotland is not legal?

> So what's the penalty? Under Scottish law.


Why not research the issue and let us all know?
2
 Brian Pollock 14 Dec 2015
In reply to top cat:
If notice is given, via a sign or otherwise, likely a fine which would be enforceable in the same way that any debt is. The basis would be that a private car park is exactly that, private, and your right to use it is subject to the terms imposed by the owner.

Phoning ahead seems pretty reasonable and even comforting to know there won't be any surprises when you return if leaving a car there overnight.
Post edited at 15:18
1
 ross 14 Dec 2015
In reply to Hay:

Thank you for organising this Bruce, I made use of it yesterday, left my car there at 5am, got a lift North and phoned from the crag when you opened to be added to the list.

Thanks again, much appreciated and it's great that your are encouraging car sharing.

Cheers, Ross.
 JohnnyW 14 Dec 2015
In reply to ross:



> Thanks again, much appreciated and it's great that your are encouraging car sharing.



Agreed
MarkJH 14 Dec 2015
In reply to Brian Pollock:
> If notice is given, via a sign or otherwise, likely a fine which would be enforceable in the same way that any debt is. The basis would be that a private car park is exactly that, private, and your right to use it is subject to the terms imposed by the owner.


Within reason..... Under Scottish law, penalty clauses (not fines) can only be a genuine pre-estimate of loss due to breach of contract. If not, then they cannot be enforced by the court.

In any case, whatever the legalities, basic manners would say that you behave as the landowner requests in a private car park. 24 hrs of free parking seems generous and very decent of Tisos to offer this.
Post edited at 17:48
 digby 14 Dec 2015
In reply to Hay:

Why on earth would you want to spend 24 hours shopping in Tiso?
 Welsh Kate 14 Dec 2015
In reply to digby:

Well, the breakfast was very nice last time I was heading past!
 top cat 15 Dec 2015
In reply to DannyC:

> Hey Mr Cat, maybe give the poor guy a wee rest eh? It isn't even Tiso's car park. Hay's come on here to be helpful and make climbers' lives easier. 24hr, free, well-lit parking near a roundabout on a main route North is really useful - and appreciated.

> Peace, love and free parking,

> D.

Guys, I'm only asking! I never go to Tiso's and never car share.............................)
1
 EddInaBox 15 Dec 2015
In reply to MarkJH:

> Under Scottish law, penalty clauses (not fines) can only be a genuine pre-estimate of loss due to breach of contract. If not, then they cannot be enforced by the court.

Are you sure? As far as I know The Supreme Court has the final say concerning civil law in Scotland, and therefore the recent win by Parking Eye (Parking Eye v Beavis) suggests you are incorrect.
1
Removed User 16 Dec 2015
In reply to EddInaBox:

"As far as I know The Supreme Court has the final say concerning civil law in Scotland, and therefore the recent win by Parking Eye (Parking Eye v Beavis) suggests you are incorrect."

The Supreme Court may be final court of appeal within the UK but in cases under Scottish jurisdiction it still has to apply Scottish law - Parking Eye v Beavis was under the jurisdiction of English law and is therefore nor relevant.
 EddInaBox 16 Dec 2015
In reply to Removed Userrabthecairnterrier:

What is the Scottish Law regarding parking then, the Parking Eye case was won on the grounds that a penalty may be imposed if there is a commercial justification, overriding the commonly held belief that (at least in England) the maximum recoverable was the amount lost?
Removed User 16 Dec 2015
In reply to EddInaBox:

Markjh pretty much covered that above. Basically penalty charges must be proportionate otherwise a court may well decide the terms are onerous and therefore void. My understanding is that it costs a parking company about £3.50 a shot to get the keeper's details from the DVLA, so add that plus another couple of quid in other admin costs to the sum lost in potential revenue and you will end up with a figure considerably less than most parking operators will try to get away with in excess charges. Private clamping was illegal in Scotland because the courts considered it to be a form of extortion; excessive overstay charges are no different. Unfortunately a lot of people just pay up anyway so the practice continues.
 EddInaBox 17 Dec 2015
In reply to Removed Userrabthecairnterrier:

> ...Private clamping was illegal in Scotland because the courts considered it to be a form of extortion; excessive overstay charges are no different.

I know that private clamping was made illegal in Scotland long before it was in England, but the majority of laws in the two countries are broadly similar still, if the laws concerning contracts and penalties are different then obviously the Beavis vs Parking Eye case may have no relevance, but if the law is the same then the Supreme Court decision would be applicable in Scotland too, specifically that a charge of £85 would not be considered excessive or unconscionable, therefore not extortionate.

A lot of opinion and folk lore is quoted on the internet as fact, it is very hard to establish the truth without citations and references. Can anyone provide links to primary sources to support the postulation that the Supreme Court ruling does not have a bearing in Scotland?

1
Removed User 18 Dec 2015
In reply to Hay:

From Citizen’s Advice Scotland:-

“If you get a ticket on your windscreen or through the post, and you think that it is unfair because, for example:-

• the charge you are being asked to pay is too high. The law on this point comes from contract law and common law. When there has been a breach of contract because the signs were clear and a contract was formed the amount charged has to relate to a calculation of the loss to the landowner. This is where the common law provides some guidance. The landowner can claim for lost income if you occupy a space that someone else could have paid for and used, but only if the car park was full and there were no parking spaces left. For example, if parking cost £1 an hour and you have been issued with a parking charge notice for £30, you would need to have parked there for 30 hours to justify the charge. If you challenge the ticket because the amount charged seems too high, you can also ask for a breakdown of how the landowner’s losses were calculated”
Removed User 18 Dec 2015
In reply to Hay:

Sorry, that last post was meant as a reply to EddinaBox.
 Jon Wickham 19 Dec 2015
In reply to Hay:

Thanks Bruce.

Jon

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...