DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 55872--------------------------------------------------
Incorrect signage?
DIR By: unzippy
Date: January 30, 2025, 9:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello.
Is there any mileage when signage is incorrect?
the Lidl carpark signage states 'Free Parking' and to get that
you must enter your registration in store.
In order to enter your reg you need to scan your receipt first.
In order to get a receipt you need to buy something.
If you need to spend money, how can it be free parking?
For comparison the local ALdi has the same system, minus the
need for the receipt
Just be clear - I haven't got a ticket, I'm just offended by the
sign!
HTML https://i.imgur.com/ZbUhD4K.jpeg
#Post#: 55876--------------------------------------------------
Re: Incorrect signage?
DIR By: b789
Date: January 30, 2025, 9:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's private land. If you own the land, you can put up a sign
that says anything.
#Post#: 55887--------------------------------------------------
Re: Incorrect signage?
DIR By: 666
Date: January 30, 2025, 10:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> It's private land. If you own the land, you can put up a sign
that says anything.
>
--- End Quote ---
Possibly, but if you intend to rely on that sign to regulate
parking then you need to be a bit more careful.
One of our parking experts will no doubt provide a more helpful
answer.
#Post#: 55889--------------------------------------------------
Re: Incorrect signage?
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 30, 2025, 11:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The original question was whether there is "any mileage when
signage is incorrect".
It's not quite clear to me what exactly is meant by that
question. If the OP was asking if they can take any action
against anyone on the basis of the signage alone (in the absence
of a PCN having been issued etc.), then b789's answer would seem
to be a decent succinct summary of the situation.
Whether the signage would be capable of forming a contract
between the parking operator and a particular driver would be
another matter, and would depend on the circumstances of the
particular case.
#Post#: 55894--------------------------------------------------
Re: Incorrect signage?
DIR By: b789
Date: January 30, 2025, 11:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I'm not a "sign expert" but I do consider myself a
"parking expert", at least when it comes to unregulated private
parking companies. So, I shall refine my answer:
If the landowner wants to rely on the sign to enforce parking
terms, they must ensure it is accurate and not misleading. The
sign claims 'free parking', but requiring a purchase contradicts
this and could render it unenforceable if challenged. Misleading
signage won't hold up in a legal dispute.
However, my original answer still stands because, fundamentally,
the owner of private land has the freedom to put up a sign with
any message, as long as it doesn’t break laws such as
advertising regulations, planning restrictions, or public
nuisance laws. The content of the sign itself doesn’t matter
unless they intend to enforce it or use it to mislead or defraud
someone, in which case stricter rules apply.
#Post#: 55901--------------------------------------------------
Re: Incorrect signage?
DIR By: Dave Green
Date: January 30, 2025, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: unzippy link ---
>
> In order to get a receipt you need to buy something.
> If you need to spend money, how can it be free parking?
--- End Quote ---
Of course it's still free parking even if you have to spend
money on something else.
If you buy a loaf of bread for £1 and you don't have a car, £1
is what you pay.
If you've parked up in their carpark and buy the same loaf of
bread and get your parking ticket validated, you have still only
paid £1 and as there was no additional charge for the parking,
it is free.
If you saw an advert in PC world for a TV with a free soundbar,
would you expect to be able to walk in and get the soundbar
without having to spend any money?
The offer of free parking at Lidl's is no different. You have to
spend money on something to entitle you to the freebie.
#Post#: 55905--------------------------------------------------
Re: Incorrect signage?
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 30, 2025, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Although the requirement to purchase something does bring up an
interesting thought - if you turn up in good faith to buy a loaf
of bread, as per Dave's example, but arrive to find they have
run out, would the store give you a receipt to use the parking
terminal, or would you essentially be faced with the choice of
either buying something you didn't want vs receiving a £100
parking charge and having to fight your case with ParkingEye?
#Post#: 55906--------------------------------------------------
Re: Incorrect signage?
DIR By: Boomer
Date: January 30, 2025, 12:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The sign (contract) says that to park (for free) you "must enter
your vehicle registration using the terminal in store". No
mention of receipts, or how you qualify as a "customer".
If they prevent you from entering your vehicle registration
because you don't have a receipt, isn't that frustration of
contract or something?
#Post#: 55909--------------------------------------------------
Re: Incorrect signage?
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 30, 2025, 12:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think in such situations there would be all sorts of arguments
one could deploy to fight the charge, but on a purely practical
level it'd be a bit of a ridiculous state of affairs if one was
issued in such a circumstance and surely wouldn't be
particularly good for Lidl's business.
Of course this is all hypothetical, although it is the Flame
Pit.
#Post#: 55911--------------------------------------------------
Re: Incorrect signage?
DIR By: b789
Date: January 30, 2025, 12:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Given what we do know, based solely on the sign, the conditions
and the scenario can be consolidated as follows:
1. What the Sign States:
[indent]• The sign explicitly states that the driver must input
their vehicle registration number (VRM) in a terminal inside the
store to receive free parking during store trading hours.
• Outside of store trading hours, the sign allows free parking
for the same 90-minute period without requiring VRM entry,
presumably because the terminal is inaccessible.[/indent]
2. No Mention of a Purchase Requirement:
[indent]• Since the sign does not state that a purchase is
required to use the VRM terminal, the "free parking" offer
appears to be unconditional—at least as per the written terms on
the sign.
• If, in practice, the terminal requires a receipt to validate
parking, this would contradict the sign and create ambiguity,
potentially rendering the parking terms unenforceable if
challenged.[/indent]
3. Potential Practical Issues:
[indent]• If a driver enters the store intending to comply by
entering their VRM but finds that the terminal requires a
purchase receipt, they would face an unclear situation. Without
prior knowledge of this hidden condition, the driver could
inadvertently breach the terms.
• Similarly, if the driver is unable to use the terminal due to
no purchases (e.g., items out of stock or no desire to buy
anything), the driver could be unfairly penalised despite acting
in good faith.[/indent]
4. Equal Free Parking Outside Store Hours:
[indent]• The allowance of 90 minutes of free parking outside
store hours, without any VRM entry requirement, highlights the
inconsistency in enforcing the VRM entry during trading hours.
If parking is offered unconditionally outside trading hours,
requiring VRM input during trading hours could be seen as an
unnecessary and potentially arbitrary restriction.[/indent]
Conclusion:
[indent]• The sign itself does not explicitly require a
purchase, so the offer of "free parking" appears valid on the
face of it.
• However, if the store in practice requires a receipt to access
the VRM terminal, it creates an unwritten condition that
contradicts the sign, making the parking terms unclear and
unenforceable.
• Lidl and ParkingEye would have to clarify this ambiguity,
either by updating the sign to explicitly mention receipt
validation or ensuring that VRM entry is accessible without a
purchase. Clear communication is essential if the sign is
intended to form a contract with the driver.[/indent]
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 5
DIR Next Page