ParkingEye-v-Beavis Appeal: Date Set

Ok, (without having read other threads,) if it turns into a contractual charge, at what point does the consumer have a chance to read the contract, and what would the cooling off period be? Would there have to be large signs before the entry to the car park with the charges on so the consumer could make the choice over the charges before they entered (or were committed by being unable to turn around)?

It starts to get very messy if parking enforcement was done via the contractual path.

It should also stipulate the full details of the service being provided.

Can you park there forever or just a limited time?
Can you go away and return later?
Can you return in a different car?
Can someone else return in your car?
What rights over the space do you get for your £100?

And so on....

That's irrelevant though. Either of those scenarios could operate on a contractual charge OR a breach.

It depends on how the sign is worded.

Acceptance of the contract is by you not leaving after you've read the signs. Even in a pay car park or one where you register your reg, there is a grace period for you to get back in the car and leave (although PPCs often ignore this as well, but that's by the by).

Zero_Gravitas wrote: »

Where's the discussion on pepipoo, please? It's probably me being incompetent, but I can't seem to find it.

Thanks very much in advance.

ZG.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=18

bazster wrote: »

Yeah, whatever. No point in arguing with someone who either hasn't read the statute (the entire statute) or is incapable of understanding it.

Seems to me that you're the one who doesn't understand the statute.

Leaving aside the perfectly valid issues with such an interpretation that spikyone raises (and which you fail to address) it is unclear whether the cancellation rights would even apply to such a contract.

There is no method of distance communication used for it to come within the remit of the 'distance contract' and looking at the definition of ‘off-premises” contract it all relies on the suggestion that the contract does not take place at the ‘business premises’ of the trader, but it seems highly likely that the car park will come under the definition of 'business premises' within the Act.

However, let’s say for arguments sake that it does fit into one of the categories and you are suggesting this gives consumers the right to cancel the contract. It’s clear from the government guidance (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310044/bis-13-1368-consumer-contracts-information-cancellation-and-additional-payments-regulations-guidance.pdf) that you cannot cancel a contract where the services have been fully performed (see “What types of contracts are exempt from cancellation rights”? pg. 18-19).

If you think any court is going to rule that consumers have the right to refuse payment where a service has been fully provided to them you are beyond deluded.

ManxRed wrote:

It should also stipulate the full details of the service being provided.

Can you park there forever or just a limited time?
Can you go away and return later?
Can you return in a different car?
Can someone else return in your car?
What rights over the space do you get for your £100?

And so on....

I don't see why? To take the first one as an example, is a hairdresser under an obligation to inform customers that their payment doesn't entitle to them to have their hair cut forever? If the contractual offer doesn't state that you can, for example, return in a different car, you can't. Fairly simple concept.