Sausage tycoon fined for Ferrari parked across two parking places

i like to park my sausage in 2 places, whats that about a Ferrari?
dont think my reading skills are up to much tonight.
 
It is interesting in so far as the article stated he previously owned a BMW which was damaged in a carpark of a hotel.
It states that he eventually got the hotel to pay for the damage.

That impresses me more.
As for this two tickets two spaces, but i won't be surprised if he loses, if the rules states must be parked within the lines.
Norn iron so it is.
 
Well it was within the two lines of the space he bought...

Hope he fights it.

I would be annoyed if I saw it won't lie but if he bought two spaces I couldn't really argue it.

I've got a normal car and I still struggling to get into it sometimes with how badly some people park :(.
 
I think it’s fine if he bought two tickets - that said, the sorts of people who run private car parks, do tend to be nightmarish little creatures who’ve gotten their first taste of dishing out a bit of power.
 
No problem from me either, apart from he bought a Ferrari instead of a Mclaren :) Unless of course the Ferrari is his everyday car and the Mclaren is for Sunday best.
 
The lack of common sense in situations like this is worrying. Given he bought tickets for both of the spaces, who cares what is parked in them.

I hope he wins his appeal.
 
since he had 2 tickets i can't really fault the guy. If parking spaces in general were large enough this wouldn't be an issue in the first place - seems everywhere is making spaces as small as possible to cram more in and make more money off them, my car car barely fit into some of them.
 
I'd be annoyed if he'd taken up the last 2 spaces with his car, but legally I'm not sure he's done anything wrong as he bought two tickets. Even if he pays the fine, it's still cheaper than a scratch or dent from a door though.
 
The not parked within bay argument will fail.
The rule is there to stop spaces being fully monetised due to poor usage.
Paying for 2 spaces negates this issue.
He was effectively renting the spaces for the paid length of time so was not causing any inconvenience or reducing income for the car park.
Any charge would have to be reasonable and reflecting of actual costs for admin and lost revenue. If there is no lost revenue (as in this situation) then any charge would be for admin costs only for issuing the charge itself.
A situation that would, at worst mean a nominal charge for the time of the issue of the notice alone, or more sensibly being thrown out. As a charge issued for recouping losses that did not occur is untenable.
In my layman's opinion.
 
I seem to recall driving down to the beach years ago, and one of the car parks there had a sign that practically said if you park over the line you'd get charged for two tickets. Seems OK for a car park to threaten you with being charged twice, but when some poor sod does preemptively pay twice, he then gets further fined.

I also wonder for the sake of the £90 fine, which is normally what... £45 if paid in the first 14 days? He could have paid anywhere between £6 and £18 i guess for his parking tickets. Would almost have been better off to just not bother with a ticket, and wait for the fine.
 
What if the carpark was full, and him taking 2 spaces prevented another (pregnant, OAP etc) from finding a space? It sets a precedent that taken to a logical conclusion would not be in the interest of the many. Can a HGV park across 20 spaces using the same logic? Is that appropriate?

I have a car I like to keep in good shape - and always find a defensive place to park but would never consume 2 spaces, I'd just park elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom