Car park charges

Tom1878

Hi, new to this so here goes, does anyone know what the law is regarding car park charging? I've been told that if a car park only has one entrance/exit you can't be charged for it, is there any truth in this?

Kosseegan

It depends on whether the formula applies. If the formula gives a value of greater than 3 you have to pay. Otherwise, it is free.

Procrastastudy

Tom1878 wrote: »

Hi, new to this so here goes, does anyone know what the law is regarding car park charging? I've been told that if a car park only has one entrance/exit you can't be charged for it, is there any truth in this?

LOL - a little knowledge is a ridiculous thing. A decision made yonks ago (I want to say Shoelane but could be wrong) says it would be unfair for you to be bound by conditions if you drove in and couldn't drive back out again. So you drive in and it's a €1000 a minute, for example. That's why car parks let yo drive in and drive out again under a certain time so you can read and agree to the terms, probably on a sign in the car park.

Thanks for you post really brightened my day - was this a taxi driver that told you this by any chance?

Tom1878

Kosseegan wrote: »

It depends on whether the formula applies. If the formula gives a value of greater than 3 you have to pay. Otherwise, it is free.

What's the formula?

Tom1878

Procrastastudy wrote: »

LOL - a little knowledge is a ridiculous thing. A decision made yonks ago (I want to say Shoelane but could be wrong) says it would be unfair for you to be bound by conditions if you drove in and couldn't drive back out again. So you drive in and it's a €1000 a minute, for example. That's why car parks let yo drive in and drive out again under a certain time so you can read and agree to the terms, probably on a sign in the car park.

Thanks for you post really brightened my day - was this a taxi driver that told you this by any chance?

No someone that works in the planning office, she said as there is only a single lane to go in and out that you can't be charged

Red Crow

Tom1878 wrote: »

No someone that works in the planning office, she said as there is only a single lane to go in and out that you can't be charged

That's a load of rubbish. They give you a grace period to allow yourself to drive out if you don't accept the terms and conditions of the car park (usually 10-15 minutes).

Kosseegan

Tom1878 wrote: »

What's the formula?

the square root of {(a +B)*f -g2.}
Where
a is the length of the car nearest the entrance,
b is the width of the gate and
f is the capacity of the car park and
g is the multiplicative inverse of the standard deviation in registration numbers as measured at noon on the first Tuesday in March of the preceding calendar year.

Tom1878

Kosseegan wrote: »

the square root of {(a +B)*f -g2.}
Where
a is the length of the car nearest the entrance,
b is the width of the gate and
f is the capacity of the car park and
g is the multiplicative inverse of the standard deviation in registration numbers as measured at noon on the first Tuesday in March of the preceding calendar year.

I get 42, is that the formula for the meaning of life the universe and everything!

Peregrinus

Kosseegan wrote: »

the square root of {(a +B)*f -g2.}
Where
a is the length of the car nearest the entrance,
b is the width of the gate and
f is the capacity of the car park and
g is the multiplicative inverse of the standard deviation in registration numbers as measured at noon on the first Tuesday in March of the preceding calendar year.

Close. Except you left out that, in the year following a leap year, 'g' is measured as of the Sunday next after the first full moon following the vernal equinox in the leap year. That's to solve the problem of the precession of the equinox, which - obviously - would otherwise bugger up the formula quite badly over time.

NUTLEY BOY

The case mentioned was Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking. The car park had a disclaimer sign. The sign could not be seen or read before drivers entered the premises so it's terms were not communicated before formation of a contract. I think the case arose out of an unfair contract terms issue.