Another one of these "no one to blame, just suck it up" stories (?).
At what point would it have been reasonable for Mr. Lucas to have begun serious legal proceedings to recover his property ?
And more importantly, what twist of precedent is the organisation
responsible using to avoid paying damages to him ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qw74djvnjo
The owners of a small family-run business say they have been left £40,000 out of pocket after their van became trapped in a mechanical stacked car
park in central London more than two years ago.
On 2025-04-08, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Another one of these "no one to blame, just suck it up" stories (?).
At what point would it have been reasonable for Mr. Lucas to have begun
serious legal proceedings to recover his property ?
They could have sent an LBA after a day or two I would think.
And then sued two weeks or so later.
And more importantly, what twist of precedent is the organisation
responsible using to avoid paying damages to him ?
It sounds like the van owner has simply not sued. They presumably could,
for the tort of conversion.
On 08/04/2025 11:49, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-08, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Another one of these "no one to blame, just suck it up" stories (?).
At what point would it have been reasonable for Mr. Lucas to have begun
serious legal proceedings to recover his property ?
They could have sent an LBA after a day or two I would think.
And then sued two weeks or so later.
And more importantly, what twist of precedent is the organisation
responsible using to avoid paying damages to him ?
It sounds like the van owner has simply not sued. They presumably could,
for the tort of conversion.
Purely speculating:
1. It looks as though the car park owners are doing all they can. The
machine required to retrieve the van has broken down, and the van is
going to stay where it is until the machinery is fixed. No amount of
suing will make much difference to that.
2. This may not be commercial parking. The van owners are cabinet
makers, and they may have been doing work on the premises for one of the occupiers. They may have been told they could use the occupier's parking space, without anyone consulting the car park operator.
3. There may be information missing from that article. Vans,
particularly if loaded with tools, may be too heavy for the car park machinery. In other words, the van owners may have broken the car park,
so they are in no position to complain!
On the other hand there ought to be some weight gauges to stop this happening. So, there's probably much more to this than we have heard.
So, the machinery may have been fixed, but the car park operators are reluctant to break the machinery again retrieving the van.
There seems to be an argument about who is responsible. It must be
pretty complicated, or someone would by now have paid for a new van, and
left the old one to rot.
Just speculating, as I said.
On 08/04/2025 11:49, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-08, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Another one of these "no one to blame, just suck it up" stories (?).
At what point would it have been reasonable for Mr. Lucas to have begun
serious legal proceedings to recover his property ?
They could have sent an LBA after a day or two I would think.
And then sued two weeks or so later.
And more importantly, what twist of precedent is the organisation
responsible using to avoid paying damages to him ?
It sounds like the van owner has simply not sued. They presumably could,
for the tort of conversion.
Purely speculating:
1. It looks as though the car park owners are doing all they can. The
machine required to retrieve the van has broken down, and the van is
going to stay where it is until the machinery is fixed. No amount of
suing will make much difference to that.
2. This may not be commercial parking. The van owners are cabinet
makers, and they may have been doing work on the premises for one of the occupiers. They may have been told they could use the occupier's parking space, without anyone consulting the car park operator.
3. There may be information missing from that article. Vans,
particularly if loaded with tools, may be too heavy for the car park machinery. In other words, the van owners may have broken the car park,
so they are in no position to complain!
On the other hand there ought to be some weight gauges to stop this happening. So, there's probably much more to this than we have heard.
So, the machinery may have been fixed, but the car park operators are reluctant to break the machinery again retrieving the van.
There seems to be an argument about who is responsible. It must be
pretty complicated, or someone would by now have paid for a new van, and
left the old one to rot.
Just speculating, as I said.
Another one of these "no one to blame, just suck it up" stories (?).
At what point would it have been reasonable for Mr. Lucas to have begun >>>serious legal proceedings to recover his property ?
They could have sent an LBA after a day or two I would think.
And then sued two weeks or so later.
And more importantly, what twist of precedent is the organisation >>>responsible using to avoid paying damages to him ?
It sounds like the van owner has simply not sued. They presumably could, >>for the tort of conversion.
Purely speculating:
1. It looks as though the car park owners are doing all they can. The
machine required to retrieve the van has broken down, and the van is going
to stay where it is until the machinery is fixed. No amount of suing will >make much difference to that.
On 2025-04-08, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Another one of these "no one to blame, just suck it up" stories (?).
At what point would it have been reasonable for Mr. Lucas to have
begun serious legal proceedings to recover his property ?
They could have sent an LBA after a day or two I would think.
And then sued two weeks or so later.
And more importantly, what twist of precedent is the organisation
responsible using to avoid paying damages to him ?
It sounds like the van owner has simply not sued. They presumably
could, for the tort of conversion.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qw74djvnjo
On 08/04/2025 in message <vt3k5j$2lgvs$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
Another one of these "no one to blame, just suck it up" stories (?).
At what point would it have been reasonable for Mr. Lucas to have begun >>>>serious legal proceedings to recover his property ?
They could have sent an LBA after a day or two I would think.
And then sued two weeks or so later.
And more importantly, what twist of precedent is the organisation >>>>responsible using to avoid paying damages to him ?
It sounds like the van owner has simply not sued. They presumably could, >>>for the tort of conversion.
Purely speculating:
1. It looks as though the car park owners are doing all they can. The >>machine required to retrieve the van has broken down, and the van is going >>to stay where it is until the machinery is fixed. No amount of suing will >>make much difference to that.
I wonder if he is the only person affected, seems unlikely?
Another one of these "no one to blame, just suck it up" stories (?).
At what point would it have been reasonable for Mr. Lucas to have begun
serious legal proceedings to recover his property ?
They could have sent an LBA after a day or two I would think.
And then sued two weeks or so later.
And more importantly, what twist of precedent is the organisation
responsible using to avoid paying damages to him ?
It sounds like the van owner has simply not sued. They presumably
could, for the tort of conversion.
Purely speculating:
1. It looks as though the car park owners are doing all they can. The
machine required to retrieve the van has broken down, and the van is
going to stay where it is until the machinery is fixed. No amount of
suing will make much difference to that.
On 08/04/2025 11:49, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-08, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Another one of these "no one to blame, just suck it up" stories (?).
At what point would it have been reasonable for Mr. Lucas to have
begun serious legal proceedings to recover his property ?
They could have sent an LBA after a day or two I would think. And
then sued two weeks or so later.
And more importantly, what twist of precedent is the organisation
responsible using to avoid paying damages to him ?
It sounds like the van owner has simply not sued. They presumably
could, for the tort of conversion.
Purely speculating:
1. It looks as though the car park owners are doing all they can. The
machine required to retrieve the van has broken down, and the van is
going to stay where it is until the machinery is fixed. No amount of
suing will make much difference to that.
2. This may not be commercial parking. The van owners are cabinet
makers, and they may have been doing work on the premises for one of
the occupiers. They may have been told they could use the occupier's
parking space, without anyone consulting the car park operator.
3. There may be information missing from that article. Vans,
particularly if loaded with tools, may be too heavy for the car park machinery. In other words, the van owners may have broken the car
park, so they are in no position to complain!
On the other hand there ought to be some weight gauges to stop this happening. So, there's probably much more to this than we have heard.
So, the machinery may have been fixed, but the car park operators are reluctant to break the machinery again retrieving the van.
There seems to be an argument about who is responsible. It must be
pretty complicated, or someone would by now have paid for a new van,
and left the old one to rot.
Just speculating, as I said.
On 2025-04-08, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 08/04/2025 in message <vt3k5j$2lgvs$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote: >>>>>Another one of these "no one to blame, just suck it up" stories (?).
At what point would it have been reasonable for Mr. Lucas to have >>>>>begun serious legal proceedings to recover his property ?
They could have sent an LBA after a day or two I would think.
And then sued two weeks or so later.
And more importantly, what twist of precedent is the organisation >>>>>responsible using to avoid paying damages to him ?
It sounds like the van owner has simply not sued. They presumably >>>>could,
for the tort of conversion.
Purely speculating:
1. It looks as though the car park owners are doing all they can. The >>>machine required to retrieve the van has broken down, and the van is >>>going to stay where it is until the machinery is fixed. No amount of >>>suing will make much difference to that.
I wonder if he is the only person affected, seems unlikely?
So I was there tonight and no, he's not the only person affected.
There are also £200k Ferraris involved apparently.
I'm not sure why the BBC article didn't mention this.
On 2025-04-08, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 08/04/2025 in message <vt3k5j$2lgvs$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
Another one of these "no one to blame, just suck it up" stories (?). >>>>>
At what point would it have been reasonable for Mr. Lucas to have begun >>>>> serious legal proceedings to recover his property ?
They could have sent an LBA after a day or two I would think.
And then sued two weeks or so later.
And more importantly, what twist of precedent is the organisation
responsible using to avoid paying damages to him ?
It sounds like the van owner has simply not sued. They presumably could, >>>> for the tort of conversion.
Purely speculating:
1. It looks as though the car park owners are doing all they can. The
machine required to retrieve the van has broken down, and the van is going >>> to stay where it is until the machinery is fixed. No amount of suing will >>> make much difference to that.
I wonder if he is the only person affected, seems unlikely?
So I was there tonight and no, he's not the only person affected.
There are also £200k Ferraris involved apparently.
I'm not sure why the BBC article didn't mention this.
On 2025-04-08, Jeff Gains <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 08/04/2025 in message <vt3k5j$2lgvs$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote: >>>>>Another one of these "no one to blame, just suck it up" stories (?).
At what point would it have been reasonable for Mr. Lucas to have begun >>>>>serious legal proceedings to recover his property ?
They could have sent an LAB after a day or two I would think.
And then sued two weeks or so later.
And more importantly, what twist of precedent is the organisation >>>>>responsible using to avoid paying damages to him ?
It sounds like the van owner has simply not sued. They presumably could, >>>>for the tort of conversion.
Purely speculating:
1. It looks as though the car park owners are doing all they can. The >>>machine required to retrieve the van has broken down, and the van is going >>>to stay where it is until the machinery is fixed. No amount of suing will >>>make much difference to that.
I wonder if he is the only person affected, seems unlikely?
So I was there tonight and no, he's not the only person affected.
There are also 200k Ferraris involved apparently.
I'm not sure why the BBC article didn't mention this.
Purely speculating:
1. It looks as though the car park owners are doing all they can. The
machine required to retrieve the van has broken down, and the van is
going to stay where it is until the machinery is fixed. No amount of
suing will make much difference to that.
2. This may not be commercial parking. The van owners are cabinet
makers, and they may have been doing work on the premises for one of the occupiers. They may have been told they could use the occupier's parking space, without anyone consulting the car park operator.
3. There may be information missing from that article. Vans,
particularly if loaded with tools, may be too heavy for the car park machinery. In other words, the van owners may have broken the car park,
so they are in no position to complain!
On the other hand there ought to be some weight gauges to stop this happening. So, there's probably much more to this than we have heard.
So, the machinery may have been fixed, but the car park operators are reluctant to break the machinery again retrieving the van.
There seems to be an argument about who is responsible. It must be
pretty complicated, or someone would by now have paid for a new van, and
left the old one to rot.
Just speculating, as I said.
I am very surprised there isn't some gadget which cold be deployed to do
an 'emergency' manual extraction of a vehicle.
ps How many other vehicles are trapped, or is there just the one?
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:van-stuck-car-park-two-years/
Purely speculating:
1. It looks as though the car park owners are doing all they can. The
machine required to retrieve the van has broken down, and the van is
going to stay where it is until the machinery is fixed. No amount of
suing will make much difference to that.
2. This may not be commercial parking. The van owners are cabinet
makers, and they may have been doing work on the premises for one of
the occupiers. They may have been told they could use the occupier's
parking space, without anyone consulting the car park operator.
3. There may be information missing from that article. Vans,
particularly if loaded with tools, may be too heavy for the car park
machinery. In other words, the van owners may have broken the car park,
so they are in no position to complain!
On the other hand there ought to be some weight gauges to stop this
happening. So, there's probably much more to this than we have heard.
So, the machinery may have been fixed, but the car park operators are
reluctant to break the machinery again retrieving the van.
There seems to be an argument about who is responsible. It must be
pretty complicated, or someone would by now have paid for a new van,
and left the old one to rot.
Just speculating, as I said.
The Telegraph article has a bit more context:
"A furniture designer claims he is £43,000 out of pocket because his van
has been trapped in a car park for more than two years.
Mark Lucas, 48, parked his Vauxhall Vivaro in a mechanical stacked car
park on Rathbones Square in London in December 2022 as he kitted out a
nearby house.
Later that evening he was unable to retrieve his car as the stacker had “malfunctioned”.
Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Lucas said: “When we got there it was
about 8.30 in the morning.
“The head of the concierge invited us to use the underground car
stacking system and so we pulled up the doors of this stacker, unloaded
all our tools to fit the furniture, and put the van into what looked
like a garage but was a stacker.
“We went up to the concierge, gave them the keys, and worked all day.
But at about 6pm we went back to the concierge, and asked them to bring
the van up to the surface.”
Mr Lucas was initially told he would be able to collect the van after
the weekend, but claims he has been unable to retrieve it for over two
years after he was told there were technical problems.
The van, which had only been used for nine months, cost £39,000, and Mr Lucas claims that the whole ordeal has cost him £43,000.
Mr Lucas claims he waited all weekend to find out when he could retrieve
his van but it never came, and was instead mailed to say that the issue
would be resolved shortly.
On January 31 2023 he was told via email that the van was stuck due to
the lifting platform, and that it would take 40 weeks to fit and repair.
He temporarily hired a van which cost him about £800 a month.
A year later, Mr Lucas was told the repairs were unlikely to take place before May 2024 but that any losses would be recoverable from the party
found to bear overall responsibility.
“Every time we thought we would get close to the date when we thought we could get the van back they pushed it back,” he said.
He claims that the whole process has cost him £43,000 “when you take
into account the solicitors fees, van depreciation and all the hire of
the van”.
Mr Lucas says that his company has suffered as a result of the financial stress, and that he has been dealing with “a great amount of frustration.”
“I’ve had a great amount of frustration over it and a great amount of anxiety over it, we haven’t been able to grow our business because we literally cannot afford to put any more money into the business.”
He added: “I would like to be reimbursed for the money it has cost me,
and for this whole debacle to be history for us and to be able to move
on. It’s been very difficult to move on without the van.”
Double Parking Systems, who maintain and repair the car park said: “Unfortunately, the main causes of delay in resolving the issue were prolonged procurement approval processes and delays in receiving
specialised parts from overseas suppliers – factors entirely outside of
our control.
“While we regret how long it took to restore access, we acted in good
faith at every stage and proceeded with repairs as soon as we were
authorised and equipped to do so.
“Vehicle access was fully restored on 15 March 2025. We remain fully committed to supporting the reliability, safety, and performance of the parking system moving forward.”
Rathbone Square, who run the car park, have been approached for
comment."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/08/driver-left-43k-bill-after-
I wonder what the 'prolonged procurement approval processes' were?
On 9 Apr 2025 at 17:38:00 BST, "Theo" <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Purely speculating:
1. It looks as though the car park owners are doing all they can. The
machine required to retrieve the van has broken down, and the van is
going to stay where it is until the machinery is fixed. No amount of
suing will make much difference to that.
2. This may not be commercial parking. The van owners are cabinet
makers, and they may have been doing work on the premises for one of the >>> occupiers. They may have been told they could use the occupier's parking >>> space, without anyone consulting the car park operator.
3. There may be information missing from that article. Vans,
particularly if loaded with tools, may be too heavy for the car park
machinery. In other words, the van owners may have broken the car park,
so they are in no position to complain!
On the other hand there ought to be some weight gauges to stop this
happening. So, there's probably much more to this than we have heard.
So, the machinery may have been fixed, but the car park operators are
reluctant to break the machinery again retrieving the van.
There seems to be an argument about who is responsible. It must be
pretty complicated, or someone would by now have paid for a new van, and >>> left the old one to rot.
Just speculating, as I said.
The Telegraph article has a bit more context:
"A furniture designer claims he is £43,000 out of pocket because his van has
been trapped in a car park for more than two years.
Mark Lucas, 48, parked his Vauxhall Vivaro in a mechanical stacked car park >> on Rathbones Square in London in December 2022 as he kitted out a nearby
house.
Later that evening he was unable to retrieve his car as the stacker had
“malfunctioned”.
Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Lucas said: “When we got there it was about >> 8.30 in the morning.
“The head of the concierge invited us to use the underground car stacking >> system and so we pulled up the doors of this stacker, unloaded all our tools >> to fit the furniture, and put the van into what looked like a garage but was >> a stacker.
“We went up to the concierge, gave them the keys, and worked all day. But >> at about 6pm we went back to the concierge, and asked them to bring the van >> up to the surface.”
Mr Lucas was initially told he would be able to collect the van after the
weekend, but claims he has been unable to retrieve it for over two years
after he was told there were technical problems.
The van, which had only been used for nine months, cost £39,000, and Mr
Lucas claims that the whole ordeal has cost him £43,000.
Mr Lucas claims he waited all weekend to find out when he could retrieve his >> van but it never came, and was instead mailed to say that the issue would be >> resolved shortly.
On January 31 2023 he was told via email that the van was stuck due to the >> lifting platform, and that it would take 40 weeks to fit and repair.
He temporarily hired a van which cost him about £800 a month.
A year later, Mr Lucas was told the repairs were unlikely to take place
before May 2024 but that any losses would be recoverable from the party
found to bear overall responsibility.
“Every time we thought we would get close to the date when we thought we >> could get the van back they pushed it back,” he said.
He claims that the whole process has cost him £43,000 “when you take into >> account the solicitors fees, van depreciation and all the hire of the van”.
Mr Lucas says that his company has suffered as a result of the financial
stress, and that he has been dealing with “a great amount of frustration.”
“I’ve had a great amount of frustration over it and a great amount of
anxiety over it, we haven’t been able to grow our business because we
literally cannot afford to put any more money into the business.”
He added: “I would like to be reimbursed for the money it has cost me, and >> for this whole debacle to be history for us and to be able to move on. It’s
been very difficult to move on without the van.”
Double Parking Systems, who maintain and repair the car park said:
“Unfortunately, the main causes of delay in resolving the issue were
prolonged procurement approval processes and delays in receiving specialised >> parts from overseas suppliers – factors entirely outside of our control. >>
“While we regret how long it took to restore access, we acted in good faith
at every stage and proceeded with repairs as soon as we were authorised and >> equipped to do so.
“Vehicle access was fully restored on 15 March 2025. We remain fully
committed to supporting the reliability, safety, and performance of the
parking system moving forward.”
Rathbone Square, who run the car park, have been approached for comment."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/08/driver-left-43k-bill-after-van-stuck-car-park-two-years/
I wonder what the 'prolonged procurement approval processes' were?
The "prolonged procurement approval process" was probably finding the
money to do it.
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Purely speculating:
1. It looks as though the car park owners are doing all they can. The
machine required to retrieve the van has broken down, and the van is
going to stay where it is until the machinery is fixed. No amount of
suing will make much difference to that.
2. This may not be commercial parking. The van owners are cabinet
makers, and they may have been doing work on the premises for one of the
occupiers. They may have been told they could use the occupier's parking
space, without anyone consulting the car park operator.
3. There may be information missing from that article. Vans,
particularly if loaded with tools, may be too heavy for the car park
machinery. In other words, the van owners may have broken the car park,
so they are in no position to complain!
On the other hand there ought to be some weight gauges to stop this
happening. So, there's probably much more to this than we have heard.
So, the machinery may have been fixed, but the car park operators are
reluctant to break the machinery again retrieving the van.
There seems to be an argument about who is responsible. It must be
pretty complicated, or someone would by now have paid for a new van, and
left the old one to rot.
Just speculating, as I said.
The Telegraph article has a bit more context:
"A furniture designer claims he is £43,000 out of pocket because his van has been trapped in a car park for more than two years.
Mark Lucas, 48, parked his Vauxhall Vivaro in a mechanical stacked car park on Rathbones Square in London in December 2022 as he kitted out a nearby house.
Later that evening he was unable to retrieve his car as the stacker had “malfunctioned”.
Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Lucas said: “When we got there it was about 8.30 in the morning.
“The head of the concierge invited us to use the underground car stacking system and so we pulled up the doors of this stacker, unloaded all our tools to fit the furniture, and put the van into what looked like a garage but was a stacker.
“We went up to the concierge, gave them the keys, and worked all day. But at about 6pm we went back to the concierge, and asked them to bring the van up to the surface.”
Mr Lucas was initially told he would be able to collect the van after the weekend, but claims he has been unable to retrieve it for over two years after he was told there were technical problems.
The van, which had only been used for nine months, cost £39,000, and Mr Lucas claims that the whole ordeal has cost him £43,000.
Mr Lucas claims he waited all weekend to find out when he could retrieve his van but it never came, and was instead mailed to say that the issue would be resolved shortly.
On January 31 2023 he was told via email that the van was stuck due to the lifting platform, and that it would take 40 weeks to fit and repair.
He temporarily hired a van which cost him about £800 a month.
A year later, Mr Lucas was told the repairs were unlikely to take place before May 2024 but that any losses would be recoverable from the party
found to bear overall responsibility.
“Every time we thought we would get close to the date when we thought we could get the van back they pushed it back,” he said.
He claims that the whole process has cost him £43,000 “when you take into account the solicitors fees, van depreciation and all the hire of the van”.
Mr Lucas says that his company has suffered as a result of the financial stress, and that he has been dealing with “a great amount of frustration.”
“I’ve had a great amount of frustration over it and a great amount of anxiety over it, we haven’t been able to grow our business because we literally cannot afford to put any more money into the business.”
He added: “I would like to be reimbursed for the money it has cost me, and for this whole debacle to be history for us and to be able to move on. It’s
been very difficult to move on without the van.”
Double Parking Systems, who maintain and repair the car park said: “Unfortunately, the main causes of delay in resolving the issue were prolonged procurement approval processes and delays in receiving specialised parts from overseas suppliers – factors entirely outside of our control.
“While we regret how long it took to restore access, we acted in good faith at every stage and proceeded with repairs as soon as we were authorised and equipped to do so.
“Vehicle access was fully restored on 15 March 2025. We remain fully committed to supporting the reliability, safety, and performance of the parking system moving forward.”
Rathbone Square, who run the car park, have been approached for comment."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/08/driver-left-43k-bill-after-van-stuck-car-park-two-years/
I wonder what the 'prolonged procurement approval processes' were?
Pamela wrote:Depending on which van model, an eVivaro could exceed the length, width
There seems to be a lot more to this story that isn't being told.
Is his electric Vauxhall van larger/heavier than a "small transport
Sprinter class"?
<https://www.multiparking.com.au/project/london-rathbone-square>
There seems to be a lot more to this story that isn't being told.
On 9 Apr 2025 at 17:38:00 BST, "Theo" <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
“Vehicle access was fully restored on 15 March 2025. We remain fully
committed to supporting the reliability, safety, and performance of the
parking system moving forward.”
Rathbone Square, who run the car park, have been approached for comment."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/08/driver-left-43k-bill-after-van-stuck-car-park-two-years/
I wonder what the 'prolonged procurement approval processes' were?
The "prolonged procurement approval process" was probably finding the money to
do it.
Andy Burns wrote:
Pamela wrote:
There seems to be a lot more to this story that isn't being told.
Is his electric Vauxhall van larger/heavier than a "small transport
Sprinter class"?
<https://www.multiparking.com.au/project/london-rathbone-square>
Depending on which van model, an eVivaro could exceed the length, width
or weight of the "standard" R3L car park ...
Or legal wrangling about whose fault it was that the thing broke down
and therefore who pays for the repair (eg under warrantee or not).
The Japanese ones in the 90's were fairly reliable if ugly. Tokyo being
one of the other countries where space in the capital is at a premium
(and possessing off street parking a requirement for owning a car).
I find it very odd that a country like Australia with so much land
available should be a major player in this high density 3D city parking technology today.
Also why couldn't the guy affected run it as a claim through his
insurers? But maybe business vehicle insurance doesn't cover it?
If my vehicle was lost inside some broken 3D parking contraption for
weeks, months or years then I would expect someone to pay up for my
costs incurred as a result of *their* systems failure.
I can't see how the carpark owners can evade their liability here apart
from by going bust.
I find it very odd that a country like Australia with so much land
available should be a major player in this high density 3D city parking >technology today.
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
I can't see how the carpark owners can evade their liability here
apart from by going bust.
Is there even a contract here? They were delivering in to the address
(or to a nearby address), the concierge said 'put it in our car park',
they did. At what point was a contract or even a duty of care formed?
'Cars are parked at owners' risk' it no doubt says.
Suppose I park on private land with the owner's permission. Then
somebody comes along and dumps a haystack in front of my car. Can I
sue them for blocking my car in? On what grounds? It's not a case of obstructing the public highway or anything similar.
Theo
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I am very surprised there isn't some gadget which cold be deployed to do
an 'emergency' manual extraction of a vehicle.
ps How many other vehicles are trapped, or is there just the one?
Interesting comment from Australia, where they are common: https://www.reddit.com/r/AusProperty/comments/1ebhve0/frequent_car_stacker_issues_as_a_renter/
"Having been involved in car stacker and automated car park projects the industry is the Wild West.. the installs are sub par of the physical hardware and the control and automation is a joke as well. Both have to be rock solid for them to work and I can guarantee both never are. "
Seems like failures are not uncommon.
Eventually they could have turned into these: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-42789879
(which did have a manual retrieval system)
Theo
On 11:30 10 Apr 2025, Theo said:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
I can't see how the carpark owners can evade their liability here
apart from by going bust.
Is there even a contract here? They were delivering in to the address
(or to a nearby address), the concierge said 'put it in our car park',
they did. At what point was a contract or even a duty of care formed?
'Cars are parked at owners' risk' it no doubt says.
Is such a disclaimer effective to cancel any legal liability?
Suppose I park on private land with the owner's permission. Then
somebody comes along and dumps a haystack in front of my car. Can I
sue them for blocking my car in? On what grounds? It's not a case of
obstructing the public highway or anything similar.
Theo
This seems to be the equivalent of seizing your goods, although I couldn't say what the legal remedy is in this instance.
I had a client, who was the UK agent/franchisee for Sky Park. He sent
me a promotional video, and I gave him an introduction to a big
landowner, but I never heard that he sold any of the systems.
One issue was that the lift system was a bottleneck. So, you'd need a
fairly large car park at ground level, because most of the cars would
turn up in a short space of time, and you'd need staff to place the
cars one at a time on the lift. So, what ought to have been a fully
automated system, in practice needed a lot of manual intervention.
The system would have worked well for long term storage, but those
facilities tend to be in places where land costs are lower, so there's
no need for a complicated system.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 29:49:57 |
| Calls: | 9,797 |
| Calls today: | 16 |
| Files: | 13,749 |
| Messages: | 6,188,690 |