MSE news: The £95 parking ticket for taking too long to spend

Coblcris

The contact will still bind the landowner in some way. Experience shows that in most cases the contract does NOT impart sufficient proprietary rights to the Private Parking Company to make an offer of parking at all and so they have no cause of action.

magyar

smellslikemarmite wrote: »

I'm not sure. The most common deal that I've heard of being offered is that the shop/company is contacted by the parking company, who offer to install the cameras that capture you entering and leaving the car park for free, and they gain all the money for it.

All it gives us is more spaces for customers.

Thanks for the answer. If the contract is between the store and the parking company (no matter who approached whom) it is disingenuous of stores to claim that this is 'nothing to do with them'.

A reputable store would want to have a clause in the contract which allowed them to have discretion to step in under certain circumstances, but the most obvious of which is when the parking company was acting unreasonably.

However, if the relationship is with the landlord and the parking company, then I can see that the store may have no more control over this than they do over council parking charges etc.

Coblcris

The contract is supplied by the Private Parking Company and gets signed 'as is'. Although some Parking companies do have multiple type of contract of course.
These contracts often do allow a cancellation, mostly within a short period typically 14 days.
But that is a matter between the two parties to the contract not to the driver of the vehicle who has no part in the written contract..

magyar

Coblcris wrote: »

The contract is supplied by the Private Parking Company and gets signed 'as is'.

Out of interest how do you know this? I very much doubt most stores are empowered to sign contracts without referring it to their legal department, and I equally doubt they'd just let them sign them 'as is'.

Minemapper

Add me to the list...

Just got a notice this morning from 'CP Plus Limited', demanding £80 (£50 if paid by Aug 11th) for parking 1hr 3mins 12 secs longer than the '2 free hours' permitted at the MOTO Toddington Services last Tuesday.

Never thought I'd manage to sleep over 2hrs on the hard floor in the back of the van, but I did, obviously. 90 minutes sleep the previous night and 8hrs on the road caught up with me. Now it seems that MOTO would prefer that I hadn't spent £12 on food and coffee, and £50 on diesel after I woke up, but rather had just hightailed it out of there.

Now I know that there are signs plastered all over the car parks of every motorway services, and reading through Martin's guide, it seems I don't really have a leg to stand on if I want to fight this. Reading this thread though, it appears that just ignoring the notice does the trick? I debated writing to MOTO with the reciepts, but is it even worth it? Doesn't seem to be....

(wishing my first post was more positive.....)

-Matt

Coblcris

magyar wrote: »

Out of interest how do you know this? I very much doubt most stores are empowered to sign contracts without referring it to their legal department, and I equally doubt they'd just let them sign them 'as is'.

I made no comment that stores signed them. On what basis do you make this assumption ?

Also I have say that a store couldn't sign anything anyway only a person can. Please note that I am not being facetious, the difference between a person and a legal fiction (a corporation) is enormous.

As for how do I know ? I have seen quite a few of these contracts.

magyar

Coblcris wrote: »

I made no comment that stores signed them. On what basis do you make this assumption ?

Also I have say that a store couldn't sign anything anyway only a person can. Please note that I am not being facetious, the difference between a person and a legal fiction (a corporation) is enormous.

As for how do I know ? I have seen quite a few of these contracts.

I'm getting a little confused here! If you're not saying the stores signed these contracts then what are you saying?

I'll be clear about what I mean, which might help.

I am not questioning the validity of the parking 'fines', or claiming that there is any contract between the person parking their car and either the store or the parking company. And the 'contract' I am talking about is the provision of services by the parking company, presumably to either the store or its landlord.

I was simply referring to the fact that many people are talking about boycotting stores etc., and I was trying to find out who the parties to the contracts are. If the store is not a party to the contract, it may not be fair to target them. However if they're a party to the contract, then it absolutely is!

Coblcris

The boycott would be of the location; that is the car parking facility. This is regardless of there being one retailer or twenty. Regardless of there being twenty contracts with twenty retailers or one contract with one retailer or one contract with a landlord or managing agent that covers twenty retail outlets or just one outlet.

It is completely fair, not only that it is every consumers right to go elsewhere.
Vote with your feet.

After enough boycotting of a site the retailers will soon make good efforts to get the Private Parking Company banished. In commerce financial incentives work quite well.

Just make it known that the site is being boycotted because of the Parking Company.
Can retailers afford this in these trouble times ?

Interestingly it is often a condition of the planning permission for a retail park that they must provide free parking. There is an avenue to pursue there. Also if revenue is being generated for the car park it should be set a business rate above that for free car parking. There is another interesting avenue there, one in which the local council may show an interest.

Consumer boycotts can be very powerful.

magyar

Do you know, it would help if I could read...

"Homebase eventually agreed to waive the charge after MSE intervened. It says that, in future, anyone who receives a ticket under similar circumstances should contact the store manager."

so clearly they do have authority to waive the charges.

Strikes me that all bets are now off... boycott away!

trisontana

If people just refused to pay this unenforceable charge then there would be nothing to "waive."