Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Timothea
    • By Timothea 19th Jun 17, 5:12 PM
    • 142Posts
    • 273Thanks
    Timothea
    Consumer Rights Act Guidance
    • #1
    • 19th Jun 17, 5:12 PM
    Consumer Rights Act Guidance 19th Jun 17 at 5:12 PM
    The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) came into force on 1 October 2015. The CRA replaced both the relevant parts of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) and the entirety of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs).

    [N.B. Although these Acts and Regulations were each implementations of EU Directives, Parliament extended consumer rights in the CRA beyond the minimum requirements of the EU, and the CRA is expected to survive Brexit unchanged.]

    The main fairness and transparency requirements are unchanged; only their scope has changed; this also means that case-law relating to the UCTA and the UTCCRs are applicable to the CRA. A term or notice is unfair ‘if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.’

    As well as consolidating all consumer rights found in the UCTA and the UTCCRs, the CRA also extended consumer rights in a number of significant ways, namely:
    1. The CRA applies to all contracts between a trader and a consumer (other than employment or apprenticeship) including negotiated contracts, service contracts and secondary contracts (which were previously excluded)
    2. The definition of ‘consumer’ has been widened to include individuals acting mainly outside their trade, business, craft or profession; and the burden of proof that an individual is not a consumer is borne by the trader
    3. As well as written contracts, the CRA also applies to both contractual and non-contractual consumer notices (defined as any communication which is intended to be seen or heard by the consumer) such as those found in private car parks
    4. As well as the usual transparency requirements, written terms and notices must be legible
    5. The main subject matter and the price payable are excluded from the fairness requirement if they are transparent (as before) but also prominent (defined as being brought to the consumer’s attention in such a way that the average consumer would be aware of it)
    6. Courts must assess the fairness of consumer contract terms, even when not expressly asked to do so by the parties involved

    So, what does this mean in practice?

    The good faith requirement embodies ‘an overall evaluation of the different interests involved’ and includes the following general principles:
    • Fair and open dealing – this relates to how contracts are drafted and presented, as well as the way in which they are negotiated and carried out. It requires, in particular, that contracts be drawn up in a way that respects consumers’ legitimate interests.
    • Openness – this requires that terms and notices should be ‘expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously’ to the consumer.
    • Fair dealing – this requires that, in drafting and using contract terms, traders ‘should not, whether deliberately or unconsciously, take advantage’ of consumers' circumstances to their detriment.

    This means that traders must, in formulating their contract terms, not simply resist the temptation to take advantage of consumers, but actively take the legitimate interests of consumers into account. Traders should take particular care in communicating key terms to consumers who may have greater difficulty than others in collecting, processing and acting upon information. The Equality Act 2010 (EA) can also relevant when considering fairness and transparency.

    Some terms and notices are always deemed to be unfair, and these are referred to as blacklisted terms and notices. There is one blacklisted item that may be applicable to private parking contracts:
    • Terms or notices seeking to exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence

    Otherwise, the CRA illustrates the meaning of unfairness by including a long, non-exhaustive and illustrative list of terms that may be unfair. This is called the Grey List because it includes terms that are likely to be unfair, depending on the particular circumstances in each case. The following Grey List terms may be applicable to private parking contracts:
    1. Exclusion and limitation clauses in general
    2. Disproportionate financial sanctions
    3. Binding consumers to hidden terms
    4. Restricting consumers’ remedies

    The second of these is worth considering in more detail. Part 1 of Schedule 2 states that the following may be unfair:
    (6) A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation
    It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the trader is one kind of sanction that is likely to be considered disproportionate. Such a requirement may be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law. However, a term may still be considered unfair independently of the common law, if it has a penal purpose or effect. In particular, a disproportionate financial sanction involving a requirement to pay a fixed or minimum sum in all circumstances will be open to challenge if the sum could be too high in some cases.

    Enforcement

    The CRA can be enforced by individual consumers in the civil courts, of course, but there are a number of regulators with significant enforcement powers. These include:
    • The Competition & Markets Authority (CMA)
    • The Consumers’ Association (Which?)
    • Local weights and measures authorities (Trading Standards) in Great Britain
    • The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) in Northern Ireland
    • The Office of Rail Regulation, since renamed the Office of Rail and Road (ORR)
    • and several other consumer market sector regulators unrelated to parking

    I would encourage everyone to complain to any or all of these regulators about the unfair practices of the private parking industry. They only look into something once they have received a large volume of complaints. There is a particular unfairness with the IAS that should be brought to the attention of CMA and the Consumers’ Association frequently. This is from the Grey List:
    (20) A term which has the object or effect of excluding or hindering the consumer's right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, in particular by –
    a) (not relevant), or
    b) unduly restricting the evidence available to the consumer, or
    c) imposing on the consumer a burden of proof which, according to applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract.
    Guidance, legislation and case-law

    1. CMA (2015) Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37)
    2. OFT (2008), Unfair Contract Terms Guidance: Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (OFT311) adopted by the CMA without amendment in 2014
    3. The Office of Fair Trading v Foxtons Ltd [2009] EWHC 1681
    4. Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations – traders (OFT1008)
    5. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013
    6. The Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc [2001] UKHL 52
    7. Aziz v Caixa D’Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa CJEU C-415/11
    8. Spreadex Ltd v Cochrane [2012] EWHC 1290
    9. Consumer Contracts (OFT1312) February 2011
    10. The Office of Fair Trading v Ashbourne Management Services Ltd and others [2011] EWHC 1237
    11. Deutsche Bank (Suisse) SA v Khan and others [2013] EWHC 482
    12. Harrison and others v Shepherd Homes Ltd and others [2011] EWHC 1811
    13. RWE Vertrieb AG v Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V. CJEU C-92/11
    14. Bogdan Matei and Ioana Ofelia Matei v SC Volksbank România SA CJEU C-143/13
    15. Jean-Claude Van Hove v CNP Assurances SA CJEU C-96/14
    16. El Corte Ingl!s v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) [2004] ECR II-965, Joined Cases T-183/02 and T184/02
    17. The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc and others [2009] UKSC 6
    18. Munkenbeck and another v Harold [2005] EWHC 356
    19. Nemzeti Fogyasztovedelmi Hatosag v Invitel Tavkozlesi ZrtCJEU C-472/10
    20. The Financial Services Authority v Asset LI.Inc (trading as Asset Land Investment Inc) and Others [2013] EWHC 178
    Last edited by Timothea; 27-06-2017 at 9:47 PM.
Page 1
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 19th Jun 17, 5:16 PM
    • 6,696 Posts
    • 5,695 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #2
    • 19th Jun 17, 5:16 PM
    • #2
    • 19th Jun 17, 5:16 PM
    Some people on here seem to think that Beavis has driven a coach and horses through the CRA. Nearly all so-called contracts between PPCs and their customers are unfair imo.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Timothea
    • By Timothea 19th Jun 17, 5:52 PM
    • 142 Posts
    • 273 Thanks
    Timothea
    • #3
    • 19th Jun 17, 5:52 PM
    • #3
    • 19th Jun 17, 5:52 PM
    Beavis pre-dates both the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) and the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (CCRs).

    The CRA extends consumer rights to virtually all consumer contracts, Previously, service contracts and consumer notices were largely out of scope. All but one of the Supreme Court judges in Beavis decided that the old legislation did not apply, but the CRA and CCRs clearly do apply.

    The sanction for breaching the CRA is that the unfair terms are unenforceable. However, the sanction for breaching the CCRs is that the whole contract is unenforceable, which is much more powerful. We really should be promoting these defences more often.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Jun 17, 5:55 PM
    • 48,261 Posts
    • 61,746 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 19th Jun 17, 5:55 PM
    • #4
    • 19th Jun 17, 5:55 PM
    Beavis pre-dates both the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) and the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (CCRs).

    The CRA extends consumer rights to virtually all consumer contracts, Previously, service contracts and consumer notices were largely out of scope. All but one of the Supreme Court judges in Beavis decided that the old legislation did not apply, but the CRA and CCRs clearly do apply.

    The sanction for breaching the CRA is that the unfair terms are unenforceable. However, the sanction for breaching the CCRs is that the whole contract is unenforceable, which is much more powerful. We really should be promoting these defences more often.
    Originally posted by Timothea
    Good points.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 19th Jun 17, 6:01 PM
    • 1,363 Posts
    • 2,549 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #5
    • 19th Jun 17, 6:01 PM
    • #5
    • 19th Jun 17, 6:01 PM
    The CRA 2015 did not introduce any new legislation as it incorporated existing Acts. Beavis dealt specifically with UTCCR ("the 1999 Regulations") so read paras 105 onwards.

    IMHO you are barking up the wrong tree but rather than exchange opinions about it, why not take a couple of cases and argue those points and see how far it gets in front of a judge. You can even argue the points yourself as there will be people who will happily have you as a Lay Rep.

    There will be unfairness in some cases but it will depend on the individual circumstances of each case.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 19th Jun 17, 6:11 PM
    • 1,981 Posts
    • 5,607 Thanks
    bargepole
    • #6
    • 19th Jun 17, 6:11 PM
    • #6
    • 19th Jun 17, 6:11 PM
    ... However, the sanction for breaching the CCRs is that the whole contract is unenforceable, which is much more powerful. We really should be promoting these defences more often.
    Originally posted by Timothea
    I've run this argument in half a dozen cases now, and have yet to find a Judge who goes along with it.

    They either dismiss the case for other reasons, or else find that it is not a distance contract within the meaning of CCR 2013.

    I'm afraid this one now goes into the Irrelevant Defences bin as far as I'm concerned.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 25. Lost 7.
    • Timothea
    • By Timothea 20th Jun 17, 8:07 PM
    • 142 Posts
    • 273 Thanks
    Timothea
    • #7
    • 20th Jun 17, 8:07 PM
    • #7
    • 20th Jun 17, 8:07 PM
    The CRA 2015 did not introduce any new legislation as it incorporated existing Acts. Beavis dealt specifically with UTCCR ("the 1999 Regulations") so read paras 105 onwards.

    IMHO you are barking up the wrong tree but rather than exchange opinions about it, why not take a couple of cases and argue those points and see how far it gets in front of a judge. You can even argue the points yourself as there will be people who will happily have you as a Lay Rep.

    There will be unfairness in some cases but it will depend on the individual circumstances of each case.
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu
    I understand the problem of District Judges not wanting to create rulings for new laws and regulations; they are much happier relying on familiar topics and relevant case-law. The CCRs have been around for several years now but I am unaware of any case-law. IMHO, the solution is to create some case-law rather than just giving up; the prize is worth the chase.

    I would be very happy to argue the CCRs in front of any judge as a lay rep. I currently work full time in Central London, so my availability is limited (Clerkenwell would be ideal). I expect I would need some support to prepare the defence from those with more court experience or legal knowledge.

    The CRA is a different problem. I believe the best tactic is to complain to the regulators (CMA, CA and Trading Standards) as frequently as possible. The CRA has some applicability in court proceedings, but this is mainly when terms and notices are open to more than one interpretation. There is case-law to support this.
    • unforeseen
    • By unforeseen 20th Jun 17, 8:36 PM
    • 1,558 Posts
    • 1,993 Thanks
    unforeseen
    • #8
    • 20th Jun 17, 8:36 PM
    • #8
    • 20th Jun 17, 8:36 PM
    I understand the problem of District Judges not wanting to create rulings for new laws and regulations;
    Originally posted by Timothea
    You do realise that their judgement in parking cases are not capable of the above?

    Unless you lose and want to go further up the court system by appealing
    • hoohoo
    • By hoohoo 20th Jun 17, 8:46 PM
    • 1,671 Posts
    • 3,091 Thanks
    hoohoo
    • #9
    • 20th Jun 17, 8:46 PM
    • #9
    • 20th Jun 17, 8:46 PM
    I've run this argument in half a dozen cases now, and have yet to find a Judge who goes along with it.

    They either dismiss the case for other reasons, or else find that it is not a distance contract within the meaning of CCR 2013.

    I'm afraid this one now goes into the Irrelevant Defences bin as far as I'm concerned.
    Originally posted by bargepole
    I think this is because judges do not understand the act. I still think this is worth a shot, especially in cases where the ticket is purchased by phone.
    Dedicated to driving up standards in parking
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Jun 17, 9:47 PM
    • 48,261 Posts
    • 61,746 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You do realise that their judgement in parking cases are not capable of the above?

    Unless you lose and want to go further up the court system by appealing
    Originally posted by unforeseen
    Timothea does realise that it doesn't create case law, but it's worth trying to get a ruling.

    I think this is because judges do not understand the act. I still think this is worth a shot, especially in cases where the ticket is purchased by phone.
    I agree.

    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Timothea
    • By Timothea 3rd Jul 17, 1:12 PM
    • 142 Posts
    • 273 Thanks
    Timothea
    I recently experienced the full distance contract process when I hired a car over the phone, supported by email and a website that explained all the important terms and conditions and obtained my informed consent. This made me realise that most private parking contracts clearly fail the transparency requirements of the CRA and the information requirements of the CCRs.

    This is not surprising because most PPC notices are designed to mislead the consumer by imitating council car park terms and parking tickets. Very few signs make a clear contract offer or even mention a "contract" at all. So much for openness and fair dealing, which are fundamental requirements of the CRA.

    There are many reasons why PPCs don't mention contracts. I believe one of the main reasons is so they can claim that parking charges are damages, rather than contractual payments, to avoid VAT. They only time they claim that a parking charge is contractual is in front of a judge. This wheeze allows some PPCs to defraud the Exchequer to the tune of millions of pounds. PPCs must have friends in high places because, although the Supreme Court ruled that an £85 parking charge was contractual and not damages, they continue to evade paying VAT on these charges.

    The illegality of this industry is astounding. I believe that a generic defence to virtually all private parking charges could be constructed based on lack of transparency (CRA or UCCTRs) and illegality (ex turpi causa non oritur actio). I would be very happy to work with others to develop and test such a defence. Please reply if you would like to help.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Jul 17, 6:25 PM
    • 48,261 Posts
    • 61,746 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Always wanting to help with defences but I think that would struggle, because the Beavis case threw out the UTCCRs, despite the Consumers Association's well-explained protests, and the charge was not found to be illegal.

    The Supreme Court's decision was WOEFUL and anti-consumer, and I don't mind voicing that opinion, or who reads this. It was utterly diabolical to move the 'penalty' goalposts the way they did and the decision has actually helped cause the race to court by all the bottom-feeders, falling over themselves to suck money from (and worse, 'credit clamp') ordinary people who were just going about their daily lives (shoppers and staff and visitors to Hospital, etc, not rogue parkers).

    How the Judges didn't realise what they were handing to a motley crew of ex-clampers, just shows they were out of touch.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 03-07-2017 at 6:29 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 3rd Jul 17, 8:39 PM
    • 5,525 Posts
    • 7,105 Thanks
    beamerguy
    The Supreme Court held no respect for consumers and failed
    to understand how a scamming industry operates

    What the Supreme Court did achieve and very well, is that
    the lowest courts in the land, the county courts, have been
    bombarded with scams and fake claims and a flood of timewasters
    using the court as a money collector

    That's what the Supreme Court achieved. Everything goes around
    in circles. Doubt the law lords ever dreamed of this
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Timothea
    • By Timothea 3rd Jul 17, 10:12 PM
    • 142 Posts
    • 273 Thanks
    Timothea
    Always wanting to help with defences but I think that would struggle, because the Beavis case threw out the UTCCRs, despite the Consumers Association's well-explained protests, and the charge was not found to be illegal.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of the Beavis appeal before the Supreme Court was to decide whether the parking charge was a penalty. It was already common ground that a contract existed, that Barry Beavis had seen and understood the signage, and that he had significantly overstayed his free parking time. The Supreme Court ruled that the parking charge was not a penalty in common law and that the parking charge was not an unfair consumer contract term in the UTCCRs.

    As far as I am aware, the Supreme Court did not rule on whether the contract as a whole was transparent, only that the parking charge scheme was transparent (para. 198). My argument is different: PPC signage is often not transparent for a number of reasons, including:
    • There is no explicit offer of a contract with the driver
    • There is no explanation of how the driver accepts the contract
    • The driver is not informed of important contract terms (e.g. the grace period)
    • The signage mimics council car park signage
    • The PCNs and NTKs mimic council parking tickets
    • The term "PCN" is the same term used by councils
    • Other terms are used that suggest statutory authority (e.g. "contravention")
    • The term "contract" does not appear in the signage, PCNs or NTKs
    • The driver is not informed how ANPR data will be used
    • The driver is not informed how the parking duration is calculated
    • The driver is not informed how the contract terms will be enforced
    • The driver is not informed what will happen if any contract terms are broken
    (A clear explanation of the transparency requirements can be found in post #1 of this thread.)

    The second point of attack is to expose the rampant illegality of most PPCs. The VAT regulations are clear: contractual charges for services are subject to VAT. No question. The Supreme Court ruled that parking charges are contractual. No question. All that is needed is to ask the PPC for a VAT invoice, which must be provided if an invoice is subject to VAT. When this is not provided, use this fact to support an assertion that the PPC is defrauding the Exchequer by not accounting for VAT on its parking charges and claim that ex turpi causa non oritur actio applies. I can't see any PPC wanting this argument tested in court.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 3rd Jul 17, 10:37 PM
    • 5,525 Posts
    • 7,105 Thanks
    beamerguy

    The second point of attack is to expose the rampant illegality of most PPCs. The VAT regulations are clear: contractual charges for services are subject to VAT. No question. The Supreme Court ruled that parking charges are contractual. No question. All that is needed is to ask the PPC for a VAT invoice, which must be provided if an invoice is subject to VAT. When this is not provided, use this fact to support an assertion that the PPC is defrauding the Exchequer by not accounting for VAT on its parking charges and claim that ex turpi causa non oritur actio applies. I can't see any PPC wanting this argument tested in court.
    Originally posted by Timothea
    This has been said many times especially by The Deep.
    It has been suggested that a VAT invoice is requested but we
    have not heard of anyone who has received one.

    We are still unsure why UKPC were threatened with a winding up order by HMRC

    Anyone can ask for a VAT invoice regardless if they are VAT registered or not. If denied or ignored you have the right to complain to customs and excise.
    Maybe this would spark an investigation into the PPC's
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Jul 17, 10:57 PM
    • 48,261 Posts
    • 61,746 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Never seen it work (VAT arguments) and I wouldn't try those points on their own in a defence, but you know me, the more the merrier in terms of appeal or defence points that might have legs.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Timothea
    • By Timothea 3rd Jul 17, 11:44 PM
    • 142 Posts
    • 273 Thanks
    Timothea
    This has been said many times especially by The Deep.
    It has been suggested that a VAT invoice is requested but we have not heard of anyone who has received one.
    Anyone can ask for a VAT invoice regardless if they are VAT registered or not. If denied or ignored you have the right to complain to customs and excise.
    Maybe this would spark an investigation into the PPC's
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    I agree with The Deep and you on this.

    Maybe we could recommend the following procedure in the NEWBIES sticky for all disputed PCNs:
    1. Request a VAT invoice from the PPC "so that, as a taxable person, I may account for the VAT"
    2. When, after a short time, the PPC has not complied with your request, cite Regulation 13 of The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, as amended, and demand a VAT invoice
    3. When, after another short time, the PPC has not provided a VAT invoice, or the document provided is not a valid VAT invoice, report the PPC to HMRC for suspected VAT fraud: https://www.gov.uk/report-vat-fraud
    4. Give the PPC's full company name and trading address, and explain that you requested a VAT invoice for a contractual charge but the PPC did not provide it
    5. Also explain that you suspect that the PPC is evading VAT on multiple contractual charges, and that you think this has been going on for several years
    (You can report this anonymously, which is recommended if you are not actually a taxable person.)

    The more people that report this, the more likely it is that HMRC will investigate.
    Last edited by Timothea; 03-07-2017 at 11:51 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Jul 17, 11:59 PM
    • 48,261 Posts
    • 61,746 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    report the PPC to HMRC for suspected VAT fraud: https://www.gov.uk/report-vat-fraud
    I like that idea!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Ruurb
    • By Ruurb 4th Jul 17, 12:13 AM
    • 31 Posts
    • 49 Thanks
    Ruurb
    Interesting thread, I would like to throw my two pence into the ring on this if that's okay.

    1. CRA argument - the biggest change in the CRA to previous legislation is that important terms must be prominent. So I am inclined to agree that for some parking signs let's say, some of the terms are so small that you struggle to read them when your standing right in front of it, so I am inclined to agree there may be an argument for that but the real question would be how that affects the contract, or does that mean uncertainty and so no contract can be formed?

    2. What relevance is the UTCCs these days?

    3. The CCRs - My personal view is that you don't particularly have a leg to stand on unless you have a sympathetic judge and I would think the judgment on appeal would likely be overturned. Assuming you reference the CCRs where payment is made by telephone using the Ringo service and assuming you have already parked up on site, this in my view is an on-premises contract not a distance sale. Specifically, an on-premises is where the sale is concluded on the premises and just because you've made the call on the premises would not make it a distance sale in its own right as the sale is still concluded on the premises. Theoretically if you were able to take a note of the car park information then call Ringo at your home and pre arrange a time for parking then yes I would agree that would then among by to a distance sale and the CCRs would apply. However, the PPC could argue that is merely an abuse of process as the service is not designed for distance sale but actually pay on arrival and so the true purpose is actually an on-sale contract.

    Apologies if I'm way off mark here
    • Ruurb
    • By Ruurb 4th Jul 17, 12:15 AM
    • 31 Posts
    • 49 Thanks
    Ruurb
    P.s as for the VAT argument, you are only legally required as a business to provide a VAT invoice if it's a business to business transaction, again car parking is presumably geared towards consumer contracts so I'm not seeing how this would apply. If they are a consumer there's no obligation to supply a VAT invoice (as far as I'm aware) just like there's no legal obligation t supply a sales receipt.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

249Posts Today

1,392Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin