Is it acceptable to give time left on parking to someone else?

[ubermaus]

I didn't claim to be quoting you. But you said this

 

 

 

So you think it's justified.

 

You then say

 

 

 

You don't think that "all theft is wrong" is correct. So you find some theft to be not wrong, also known as morally acceptable.

 

 

That's you agreeing that it's acceptable to steal from large companies.

 

You couldn't paint a much more clear picture.

 

The last quote isnt mine and it was a reply to the ten commandments post.

Saying you can see justification in others for feeling the need to steal is far away from condoning theft

Yet again youve failed to backup your claims.

[mjw47]

 

---------- Post added 20-01-2015 at 12:54 ----------

 

 

The license to use that parking space for a given length of time for YOUR vehicle.

 

Quite clearly.

 

---------- Post added 20-01-2015 at 12:58 ----------

 

 

Breaking the terms is not a criminal offence.

 

Using a ticket that you didn't purchase though is "obtaining services or goods by deception" which is a criminal offence.

I doubt anyone would ever be prosecuted for it though.

 

How can it be classed as deception?

 

The ticket was purchased and the allocated time paid for. The ticket was then given as a small act of kindness by the original purchaser.

 

In what way has any offence been committed?

 

I've just looked at a parking ticket that was still in my car.

 

Issued by Sheffield City Council in tiny writing across the bottom it does say ' not transferable between vehicles and parking spaces'. This was the first time that I've noticed it, like most people I'd imagine I simply check that the date and time are correct.

 

Two points.

 

Firstly, in order to be held accountable for 'Terms and Conditions' some confirmation is required that the terms have been both read and accepted.

 

Which is why you have to tick the box if you're online or sign if you're there in person.

 

Secondly any loss suffered by the Council would only amount to a pound or two in any individual case.

 

Therefore it's a meaningless and small minded petty regulation.

 

The council would be foolish to take it to court, the judgement could go against them and they would then have to alter their procedures and reprint all tickets.

[Bottletop]

I would happily pass my ticket on if there was time left, or accept one from another kindly person.

 

I fear this thread has degraded into petty squabbling and lacks a certain amount of Common Sense! - Cyclone...

[roosterboost]

 

The license to use that parking space for a given length of time for YOUR vehicle.

 

 

There isn't such a license.

[adam19]

Always,at least you can get your money's worth that way.

[ubermaus]

I would happily pass my ticket on if there was time left, or accept one from another kindly person.

 

I fear this thread has degraded into petty squabbling and lacks a certain amount of Common Sense! - Cyclone...

 

Happens on every thread, then when he gets asked for proof he goes missing

[barleycorn]

Legally, yes, if the ticket is non transferable, you can gift them the bit of paper, but not the right to park for another hour.

And if the ticket has the number plate then they could still get a PCN for not displaying a valid ticket.

On the assumption that there is no mechanism for refunds of part used tickets then I guess that if you leave your space before the allotted time has run out and the space is then occupied by another paying vehicle then the car park owners are in breach of the UTCC regs.

 

Specifically Schedule two, examples of unfair terms 1d

permitting the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract;

and 1f

authorising the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract;

 

jb

Edited January 20, 2015 by barleycorn

[woodmally]

I didn't claim to be quoting you. But you said this

 

 

 

So you think it's justified.

 

You then say

 

 

 

You don't think that "all theft is wrong" is correct. So you find some theft to be not wrong, also known as morally acceptable.

 

 

That's you agreeing that it's acceptable to steal from large companies.

 

You couldn't paint a much more clear picture.

 

I don't see how this is the same as stealing from big compaines. Firstly it's not stealing at all the product in this case a parking space has been paid for. It's mearly being given away by the temporary owner. No loss of revenue to the company. Where as stealing does incure loses and costs.

[ronthenekred]

There isn't such a license.

 

 

A license:

 

A permit from an authority to own or use something.

 

---------- Post added 20-01-2015 at 17:56 ----------

 

I don't see how this is the same as stealing from big compaines. Firstly it's not stealing at all the product in this case a parking space has been paid for. It's mearly being given away by the temporary owner. No loss of revenue to the company. Where as stealing does incure loses and costs.

 

I don't think he said it was. He was agreeing with a particular mindset. If you condone theft you most likely condone any other form of illegal activity. Well, that's how I read it, but I'm sure cyclone will be along to put things right.

[Cyclone]

There isn't such a license.

 

Err, right, what do you think the ticket gives you then?

 

---------- Post added 21-01-2015 at 08:17 ----------

 

The last quote isnt mine and it was a reply to the ten commandments post.

Saying you can see justification in others for feeling the need to steal is far away from condoning theft

Yet again youve failed to backup your claims.

 

They look conclusively backed up to me, and to everyone else. You pretend their not if you like.

 

---------- Post added 21-01-2015 at 08:21 ----------

 

How can it be classed as deception?

 

The ticket was purchased and the allocated time paid for. The ticket was then given as a small act of kindness by the original purchaser.

 

In what way has any offence been committed?

The T&C's do not allow the license to park to be transferred.

The ticket receiver has not paid for a space and does not have a valid ticket, they are displaying a ticket they are not entitled to use in an attempt to avoid paying for a valid license.

Deception.

 

I've just looked at a parking ticket that was still in my car.

 

Issued by Sheffield City Council in tiny writing across the bottom it does say ' not transferable between vehicles and parking spaces'. This was the first time that I've noticed it, like most people I'd imagine I simply check that the date and time are correct.

 

Two points.

 

Firstly, in order to be held accountable for 'Terms and Conditions' some confirmation is required that the terms have been both read and accepted.

Signing or agreeing to a contract without reading it, doesn't somehow exempt you from the terms you've signed up to, otherwise no contract would be enforceable, everyone would just claim "oh, I didn't read that bit".

 

Which is why you have to tick the box if you're online or sign if you're there in person.

 

Secondly any loss suffered by the Council would only amount to a pound or two in any individual case.

Yes, but we aren't talking about a civil case for loss (not that a council would use that procedure, they can and will issue a real PCN.

 

Therefore it's a meaningless and small minded petty regulation.

 

The council would be foolish to take it to court, the judgement could go against them and they would then have to alter their procedures and reprint all tickets.

It's very unlikely that anyone would be charged. But it's a criminal offence, not a civil one, you appear to be trying to equate it to civil charges for parking invoices.

 

---------- Post added 21-01-2015 at 08:23 ----------

 

I would happily pass my ticket on if there was time left, or accept one from another kindly person.

 

I fear this thread has degraded into petty squabbling and lacks a certain amount of Common Sense! - Cyclone...

 

I also pass on my ticket.

 

I even said several times that the law is unlikely to result in any charges.

 

Doesn't alter that it is the law does it.

 

I think the thread lacks a little bit of people actually reading what has been written, as is often the case.

Why argue that a law doesn't exist or apply when it clearly does? If you want to argue that it won't be applied, then I'll agree with that.

 

---------- Post added 21-01-2015 at 08:23 ----------

 

Happens on every thread, then when he gets asked for proof he goes missing

 

Yeah. I'm well known for simply leaving threads.

 

---------- Post added 21-01-2015 at 08:24 ----------

 

On the assumption that there is no mechanism for refunds of part used tickets then I guess that if you leave your space before the allotted time has run out and the space is then occupied by another paying vehicle then the car park owners are in breach of the UTCC regs.

 

Specifically Schedule two, examples of unfair terms 1d

 

and 1f

 

 

jb

 

Where the latter is party to cancelling the contract...

So it doesn't apply.

The contract is a) not cancelled, and b) if it were the parking provider is not party to the cancellation.

 

---------- Post added 21-01-2015 at 08:25 ----------

 

I don't see how this is the same as stealing from big compaines. Firstly it's not stealing at all the product in this case a parking space has been paid for. It's mearly being given away by the temporary owner. No loss of revenue to the company. Where as stealing does incure loses and costs.

 

I never said that it was.