IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Parking Eye lose
Options
Comments
-
Because that's what it says. Statute overrides common law.
(Welcome to the world of New Labour, New Conservatives. Remember IR35? Exactly the same - tax liabilities imposed for exactly that kind of contract between third parties. The Courts enforced that one, why shouldn't they enforce this one too?)
Fortunately however there is no provision to override the rest of contract law. So presumably the keeper will be responsible only for the undischarged value of the contract.
Hmm..it gets worse ...I don't like this bit at all.."The reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of
damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of
vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land)."
That seems to suggest that if a claim is brought for trespass the damages can be whatever figure the PPC chooses to put on it's signs warning of a charge being payable if you trespass. :eek:
Also look at this"“parking charge”—
(a) in the case of a relevant obligation arising under the terms of
a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee or
charge, and
(b) in the case of a relevant obligation arising as a result of a
trespass or other tort, means a sum in the nature of damages,
however the sum in question is described;
Sneaky gits that opens the door for the parking charge to be described as a "penalty" does it not ?0 -
Yes of course you're right, politicians always tell the truth. Feel free to point that out to the judge, but just once, after that the joke gets old fast.But the issue is that there are no new statute based powers being granted in the Bill.
So long as a provision appears clear and unambiguous to a Court, the Court must and will enforce it.and sometimes i just sits0 -
Can anyone explain how a keeper who is not the driver is supposed to get a fair right of appeal ..impossible to appeal against a contractual arrangement where you don't even know the term & conditions and did not enter into it yourself..like to see what view the courts take on that ???
Ironic that we discuss keeper liability in a thread where Parking Eyes claim was basically rubbished even though the defendant admitted to being the driver all along ..!0 -
No need. There is no such thing as appeal, except from a decision of the Court.Can anyone explain how a keeper who is not the driver is supposed to get a fair right of appeal ..impossible to appeal against a contractual arrangement where you don't even know the term & conditions and did not enter into it yourself..like to see what view the courts take on that ???
The Courts have already taken views upholding similar legislation.and sometimes i just sits0 -
No need. There is no such thing as appeal, except from a decision of the Court.
The Courts have already taken views upholding similar legislation.
1) There is supposed to be an "independent " appeal body in place before this is commenced.
2) So a keeper is on a loser automatically because they have insufficient facts to properly defend the claim ...surely not ?0 -
"“parking charge”—
(a) in the case of a relevant obligation arising under the terms of
a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee or
charge, and
(b) in the case of a relevant obligation arising as a result of a
trespass or other tort, means a sum in the nature of damages,
however the sum in question is described;
No, to me it just defines what we already know - that the charge either:
(a) arises from the terms of a contract (in which case is it a charge for abreach of that contract, and if so, is it a contractual penalty?)
or;
(b) is a result of damages from trespass (in which case what are those damages and is the charge a genuine pre-estimate of loss)?The reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of
damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of
vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land).
Well it wouldn't be damages in most cases. And 'adequate notice' just means there has to be clear signage.however the sum in question is described;
Sneaky gits that opens the door for the parking charge to be described as a "penalty" does it not ?
Well they could call it a penalty, but whether they call it that or 'Keith', it would be either (a) or (b) in the definition above. There's another part of the bill which states it is irrelevant whether the car was permitted to be on the land or not, which does appear to undermine the breach of contract aspect. But then damages wouldn't be applicable either, so what is the point of the definition?
Do you see how appallingly written the legislation is?Yes of course you're right, politicians always tell the truth. Feel free to point that out to the judge, but just once, after that the joke gets old fast.
So long as a provision appears clear and unambiguous to a Court, the Court must and will enforce it.
Read the Bill in full, along with the impact assessment. Then tell me which parts are unambiguous.0 -
Oops, sorry. I'll shut up then. I have no knowledge of that.1) There is supposed to be an "independent " appeal body in place before this is commenced.
2) So a keeper is on a loser automatically because they have insufficient facts to properly defend the claim ...surely not ?and sometimes i just sits0 -
No, I've learned my lesson. I was referring to the original point at issue.Read the Bill in full, along with the impact assessment. Then tell me which parts are unambiguous.
"5 (1) The first condition is that the creditor—
(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the
requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b) is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver."
So it'll be fun. The only way to stop these chaps will be private remedy.and sometimes i just sits0 -
There's going to be some fun, imho, with the definition of "Parking Charge", is this the amount requested for parking or is a charge/fine/penalty for infringing so called rules. Unless it is defined there could be problems ahead.I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.0
-
peter_the_piper wrote: »There's going to be some fun, imho, with the definition of "Parking Charge", is this the amount requested for parking or is a charge/fine/penalty for infringing so called rules. Unless it is defined there could be problems ahead.
er it IS defined as thus in the bill""“parking charge”—
(a) in the case of a relevant obligation arising under the terms of
a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee or
charge, and
(b) in the case of a relevant obligation arising as a result of a
trespass or other tort, means a sum in the nature of damages,
however the sum in question is described;"
With regard to (a) provided the contract is acceptable to the court then that reads to me as including the £xx charges for breaking any of the rules as described in the terms of said contract.
e.g. "Free for two hours -charge after two hours £60" is by definition a "parking charge".
Except, that the intention of said charge is to deter or penalize said behaviour, it is not a genuine contractual offer.
The OFT guidance on UTCCR 1999 clearly states that where the intention or effect of a term is to act as a penalty then the term can not be regarded as a core term of the contract and as such is unenforceable.
Lets hope that following on from Smithy's victory on that point other courts can be thus persuaded.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.3K Life & Family
- 248.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards