Parking ticket in Asda car park - Is this legal, can they take me to court?

RichyRich

Indeed.

If these fines were lawful why would the clamping companies go to so much effort making their "tickets" (invoices) look like official documentation from the police and/or local authority?

uktim29

RichyRich wrote: »

You mean like a penalty?

May I refer you to the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v. New Garage and Motor Company for details of the law on penalties in private contracts?

I'm not talking about whats enforceable by law and what isn't, I'm just talking about what it actually is.

Fines are fines. Although not enforceable you can't call one extortion and another not just because it's somewhere else. Thats just a legal thing. They're exactly the same thing in terms of what they actually are.

sarahg1969

RichyRich wrote: »

Indeed.

If these fines were lawful why would the clamping companies go to so much effort making their "tickets" (invoices) look like official documentation from the police and/or local authority?

And giving themselves names like CPS and The Parking Enforcement Agency and Inland Recovery, and using portcullis or fake police badge logos?

uktim29

No I think you miss understand me. I'm saying the concept is the same. They both have a charge/fine for people parking where/when they shouldn't. Why is one extortion and the other not? I know you don't have to pay PCN's but thats not what my point is. My point is some people are saying one is extortion.

They both are suppose to do the same thing, so theres no way you can turn round and say one is extortion and the other isn't. It's the same conecpt with both systems.

parkerparker wrote: »

make them squirm..........:D

Squirm at what? They haven't done anything illegal, you just don't have to pay it.

uktyler

RichyRich wrote: »

And what's so morally right about someone coming along with a clamp and refusing to remove it until such time as the vehicle owner pays an extortionate amount of money to have it removed, without any trial or tribunal to establish that he is guilty of nothing more than trespass, itself only a tort (and not a crime) the only legal remedy to which is liquidated damages equivalent to the actual loss incurred by the landowner as a result of the trespass?

The land belongs to the supermarket, if you don't like the rules, don't park there, its that simple.

Disabled and Parent and Child spaces are there for a reason. These people are customers who wouls take thier business elsewhere if they could not get out of the car or get their kids out of the car.

You don't park on double yellow lines because it will lead to an enforcable fine, yet in a supermarket you will park in spaces reserved for people who need them just because you can get away with it?

Thats the morality of it, you think the supermarkets have no rights over their property, you can park in spaces reserved for people who need them, just because you don't want to walk to the shop.

stugib

uktim29 wrote: »

No I think you miss understand me. I'm saying the concept is the same. They both have a charge/fine for people parking where/when they shouldn't. Why is one extortion and the other not? I know you don't have to pay PCN's but thats not what my point is. My point is some people are saying one is extortion.

Because when the police/council do it, we, as a democracy have put those enforcement powers in place for the greater good. Private companies don't, and shouldn't have that power. So, regardless of the 'moral' cause, it's extortion because they don't have the legal basis to demand money and are using techniques to try and trick/intimidate people into paying, what at the end of the day, is profit. They could have the law behind them if they create an enforcable contract, but they don't do that, they just pretend.

Tim_Deegan

So all those high and mighty people who think that they have the right to deprive someone who really needs a disabled or a P&C parking place, so they they don't have to walk across the car park (only for the reason that it is below them), I have a couple of questions for you:

If you owned some land and you decided to rent spaces out for parking, how would you feel if someone just parked there each day because they knew you couldn't do anything about it?

And if you had decided to open the car park so that people could park close to a disabled centre next door, but people were using it to park their cars to go shopping, and took up all the spaces for the disabled people next door that the car park was opened for, because they couldn't be bothered to walk a few hundred yards. How would you feel then??

RichyRich

TimDeegan, your post implies that the respondent accepts property as a concept.

There are numerous schools of thought, English Law being one of them, that believe land cannot be "owned".

Tim_Deegan

RichyRich wrote: »

TimDeegan, your post implies that the respondent accepts property as a concept.

There are numerous schools of thought, English Law being one of them, that believe land cannot be "owned".

I wasn't talking about complex laws. I was asking how the person would feel.

uktim29

RichyRich wrote: »

TimDeegan, your post implies that the respondent accepts property as a concept.

There are numerous schools of thought, English Law being one of them, that believe land cannot be "owned".

Oh good I'll come and build something in your garden!