"Forbidding" Signs

The problem with "landmark" cases such as ParkingEye v Beavis is that they don't remain "landmark" for very long. And attempting to apply them incorrectly are soon picked up by the Courts. 

In the cases of Parking Control Management v Bull, Lyndsay and Woolford, the parking company relied on this sign. It's a "forbidding" sign.


The legal argument

District Judge Glenn at High Wycombe on 21st April 2016, concluded that 

On each occasion when the defendants parked on the roadway they trespassed against the interest of Thames Valley Housing Association Limited and Thames Valley Housing Association Limited would have been entitled to seek an injunction from doing it and would have been entitled to sue them for damages and those damages might have represented a reasonable charge for doing what they had done. However, in my judgment, there was never any contractual relationship, whether one categorises it as a licence or simply some form of contractual permission, because that is precisely what PCM were not giving to people who parked on the roadway.

So you can forbid people if you own the land and seek damages but you can't ask a parking company on one hand to forbid and then on the other hand to ask for £100. There is no offer made in these circumstances that anyone is able to accept.

What you can do.

In every single parking case always check what the signs say - and what is the offer / deal. If you are getting something for the £100 (Beavis exceeded the original 2 hours offer) then there is likely to be a contract. If nothing is offered - forbidding - then no contract is likely to exist.

You can download the full transcript here



Have more questions? Submit a request


Please sign in to leave a comment.
Powered by Zendesk