Login Register

Westgate Island car park fine victory for Gloucester shopper

By The Citizen  |  Posted: December 12, 2013

Westgate Island

Westgate Island

Comments (64)

THE owner of a prime city centre car park will rip up a customer’s penalty ticket, even though he overstayed.

David Whittle was furious when he was given a £90 penalty notice for staying longer than the two hours permitted at the Westgate Island car park in Gloucester.

But after the intervention of the Gloucester Citizen, owner Richard Dorman said he would withdraw the charge.

Mr Whittle, 63, from Abbeydale spent around an hour being fitted for a suit in Tuxedo Junction on the island, which is in the middle of the junction where the Over Causeway and Westgate Street meet.

Then he wandered up Westgate Street for a coffee and to meet his daughter Rhianne, before heading back to Westgate Island, where he shopped at the Jollyes pet food store. The whole visit took two hours and 38 minutes.

Then a week later he received a £90 charge in the post because he had exceeded the two-hour limit.

He paid £50, as a discount is offered for paying within 14 days.

“So much for trying to shop in my hometown,” he said. “I won’t feel guilty about shopping in Cheltenham or Bath in future and needless to say, I won’t be doing business in Westgate Street again.”

Mr Dorman, who bought and improved the site in 2003 when DIY retailer Homebase left, said enforcement is not there for customers like Mr Whittle.

“We have 238 car parking spaces and if there was no enforcement, we would probably have 238 people who work in the middle of Gloucester parking there all day, free-of-charge, while shoppers couldn’t get a space,” he said.

“The managers of the shops know that if someone is about to overrun and they are genuinely shopping here, they can arrange for them to be able to stay longer without getting a charge notice.

“It’s not about penalising shoppers – we just want to make sure there is space for them.”

Mr Whittle paid the £50 charge after his visit on November 23.

The car park is at the western gateway to the city and only a short walk from the city centre where there is paid-for on-street and off-street car parking.

Mr Dorman brought in clampers to deal with the problem around 10 years ago but brought in new regulations in time for the opening of the Dunelm store in 2005.

Mr Whittle was moved to contact the Gloucester Citizen after the city council’s Labour group pledged to campaign for free-of-charge parking in the council’s car parks after 3pm.

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters


  • honslknjklyt  |  December 18 2013, 12:27AM

    These scub free parking lot have been kicked to the kerb with their laces tied together. Well done GlosAnarchy, keep up the good work bro! They have certainly met their match with you.

    Rate 0
  • GlosAnarchy  |  December 17 2013, 5:31PM

    supernova1 not guilty?

    Rate 0
  • supernova1  |  December 17 2013, 4:45PM

    TheProf obviously agrees with guilty pleas in Court, when EVERYONE knows they are guilty. So if his wife or daughter are attacked, but it was witnessed, is on half a dozen CCTV cameras, it's still ok to plead guilty and put the family through a high profile Court case. Jeeeeeeez............this guy just oozes classsssssss.........NOT! T****r!

    Rate   1
  • GlosAnarchy  |  December 17 2013, 10:31AM

    I also take it David Whittle wears his glasses when he is driving as to have missed the signs his vision must be extremely poor and I would suggest that maybe the DVLA aught to be informed, they will take his license from him until he can give medical proof that his eye sight is sufficient to drive legally!

    Rate   1
  • GlosAnarchy  |  December 17 2013, 10:21AM

    honslknjklyt - It doesn't matter to them that they are morally wrong and go against the spirit of the law! theprofessor could not even be bothered to address the issue of carpark barriers as they are LEGAL and he knows that. Blocking the exit of a carpark with a car is a criminal offense under the same legislation that he is trying to use incorrectly, you may only block a carpark with a permanent barrier. The police also have powers to remove (by towing or other means) the vehicle and charge for that service probably £150 plus £20 per day or part of storage so the £50 is starting to sound quite reasonable. Oh and the land owners can also legally move the vehicle is causing an obstruction but bay not move it INTO an area that is barrier controlled if it is not already, they are unlikely to do this as the risk of false claims of damage to the vehicle are too great so will rely on the police to press criminal charges. Any driver caught behind the person at the barrier would also be able to make a claim under the same legislation against the driver of the vehicle for damages and any costs! Any problems with that prof?

    Rate   1
  • honslknjklyt  |  December 16 2013, 11:37PM

    Ha ha ha ha ha The scub free parking campaigners have got forums that are their little scam businesses. They even advertise businesses they are apparently against, such as Wonga and so on. So much for standards, these scubbers don't care where they get money from.

    Rate   2
  • TheProfessor  |  December 16 2013, 11:31PM

    Hahahaha! So you have finally done a little bit of digging and found POFA 2012 and reckon you understand it, good luck with that. On the MSe and pepipoo forums we've read that law from when it was still a Bill going through the Commons! It doesn't make fake PCNs any more 'enforceable' than they ever were! And then you show links to ancient cases which were pre-POFA 2012, and not only that, cases which were by Combined Parking Solutions - whose signs DO NOT allege 'breach of terms' and are known to be a firm who don't follow the same 'contract breached' issues as in this car park at all! Would you like to see some cases since POFA 2012, from typical PPCs whose signage is similar to that at this car park in question? http://tinyurl.com/nudtkv2 Hilarious, this page does keep me entertained. Keep 'em coming!

    Rate   -3
  • GlosAnarchy  |  December 16 2013, 11:09PM

    TheProfessor maybe you aught to wake up and smell the coffee Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 - http://tinyurl.com/cthma6n Protection of Property from Disproportionate Enforcement Action - https://http://tinyurl.com/pwund5k People do get taken to court and they lose! http://tinyurl.com/nnzapu http://tinyurl.com/qegnao3

    Rate   1
  • honslknjklyt  |  December 16 2013, 11:07PM

    The landowners give want them there, that is why they are there. Scub means to scav, to scrounge something for free or to take it by any means necessary, just like you do, just like this old man does as well. You haven't a clue. You only think you do.

    Rate   3
  • TheProfessor  |  December 16 2013, 9:25PM

    ''...free parking on land that is not yours and not this old man's...'' ...and not the PPC's either. And yet they keep the money if idiots pay them; the landowner gets nothing and there was never any loss anyway. You haven't a clue about the whole con - or you know too much perhaps. ''Scub'' what exactly do your words mean anyway?

    Rate   -3