The "no reply" stance

Random_User_Name

Before I get shot down as a stooge, I should point out I am merely curious. I had to have a read of the forum after hearing Martin on BBC Radio Two the other day. I've never been in the situation of requiring advice in this area, so I knew nothing about it. I've spent a little "escapism" work time this afternoon having a read of old threads, and I have a couple of generic questions.


Firstly, Martin said on the radio that he advises that people reply to mail in relation to a private parking "fine" only when they receive a letter at home, and then only to say that they regard it as an alleged contract, which they are disputing. Yet, time and time again posters on here advise not to reply at all. Why is this? Is there something wrong with replying in the way Martin said? A liability issue? Martin seemed to say (when a parking guy called up and they debated a bit) that no-reply may have a negative impact should the issue go to court.


Secondly, I saw that people talk about the cost of the "fine" should be relative to the loss (I'm no legal expert, so I don't get it). However, I thought from what Martin said, and from some threads, that it is actually a contractual charge, relating to the so called "implied agreed" contract when you parked on the private land. Something akin to the confusion around shops pricing being an offer to sell, and not a sale price (or however it works). So couldn't a private land owner charge what-ever he liked? After all, isn't the argument that if you broke the terms, you agreed to the charge? And, I do understand the concept of "reasonable" clauses, but how would you define a "reasonable" "penalty" charge for breaking a contract? If it was a phone or gym, it seems legal to be up to the low hundreds of pounds, so why would this be different?


Finally, one more thing for the more "hard-core" militant posters (if they wish to indulge my curiosity) - if land is owned privately, and people disagree with the current system, how is do people feel parking on private spaces should be handled. I mean, it is human nature for someone to always be selfish. And, without rules, how can this be controlled?


Just curious, as it seems quite interesting.

Coblcris

It may well be a contract claim, it could be trespass - a tort.
And a contract could actually be a tort claim depending upon conditions.

There is no such thing as reasonable penalty charge in a contract.

It needs to be controlled by whatever legal and lawful means the landowner chooses to use. Such methods would preclude Private Parking Companies.

May I politely suggest some more reading of the issues would be beneficial..

Random_User_Name

Coblcris wrote: »

It may well be a contract claim, it could be trespass - a tort.
And a contract could actually be a tort claim depending upon conditions.

There is no such thing as reasonable penalty charge in a contract.

It needs to be controlled by whatever legal and lawful means the landowner chooses to use. Such methods would preclude Private Parking Companies.

May I politely suggest some more reading of the issues would be beneficial..

You may.

However, if I kept my reading to here (or most other parking advice sites I see about), I'd have conflicting opinions in my head in a few moments. The legal niceties seem fiendishly involved.

Now, not wanting to sound stupid, but if we had an agreement to do certain things, and we agree in advance that if other variations are performed, a fee is to be charged, what is that called?

I can understand how it being tort would impact on the situation, but if the parking is well signposted and has adequate management procedures (inc t&c in place) then wouldn't that make it more likely to be contractual?

bargepole

Random_User_Name wrote: »

...Now, not wanting to sound stupid, but if we had an agreement to do certain things, and we agree in advance that if other variations are performed, a fee is to be charged, what is that called?

I can understand how it being tort would impact on the situation, but if the parking is well signposted and has adequate management procedures (inc t&c in place) then wouldn't that make it more likely to be contractual?

Regarding private land, ie where there is no invitation to park, then any sign which says something like "No Parking. £80 penalty" is not an offer capable of being accepted.
The PPC contends that this is an offer for parking services in return for money but at the same time states ‘no parking at any time’. The offer withdraws the very services it claims to provide. No valid contract can be construed from such an alleged offer.

jkdd77

The advice used to be to reply, but it soon became obvious that no reply made any difference whatsoever to the template 'appeal rejected' letters sent out by the PPCs. That being the case, why waste the cost of a stamp, particularly as you might inadvertently divulge information that could be used against you in court?

Random_User_Name wrote: »

Before I get shot down as a stooge, I should point out I am merely curious. I had to have a read of the forum after hearing Martin on BBC Radio Two the other day. I've never been in the situation of requiring advice in this area, so I knew nothing about it. I've spent a little "escapism" work time this afternoon having a read of old threads, and I have a couple of generic questions.


Firstly, Martin said on the radio that he advises that people reply to mail in relation to a private parking "fine" only when they receive a letter at home, and then only to say that they regard it as an alleged contract, which they are disputing. Yet, time and time again posters on here advise not to reply at all. Why is this? Is there something wrong with replying in the way Martin said? A liability issue? Martin seemed to say (when a parking guy called up and they debated a bit) that no-reply may have a negative impact should the issue go to court.


Secondly, I saw that people talk about the cost of the "fine" should be relative to the loss (I'm no legal expert, so I don't get it). However, I thought from what Martin said, and from some threads, that it is actually a contractual charge, relating to the so called "implied agreed" contract when you parked on the private land. Something akin to the confusion around shops pricing being an offer to sell, and not a sale price (or however it works). So couldn't a private land owner charge what-ever he liked? After all, isn't the argument that if you broke the terms, you agreed to the charge? And, I do understand the concept of "reasonable" clauses, but how would you define a "reasonable" "penalty" charge for breaking a contract? If it was a phone or gym, it seems legal to be up to the low hundreds of pounds, so why would this be different?


Finally, one more thing for the more "hard-core" militant posters (if they wish to indulge my curiosity) - if land is owned privately, and people disagree with the current system, how is do people feel parking on private spaces should be handled. I mean, it is human nature for someone to always be selfish. And, without rules, how can this be controlled?


Just curious, as it seems quite interesting.

Coblcris

Bargepole is correct. Each case depends upon the facts just as it always does.
Wording is one factor but there other factors.

It is easier to approach this from the other end - how many pieces of legislation is the Private Parking Company violating in pursuit of an alleged debt. It is normally around six, some of them can be quite serious offences,

Random_User_Name

It's all very interesting.

What I've learnt so far is that if there is poor signage, no signage, or illegal "offers" (like the "no parking" comment above) then the issue is trespass, and the applicable legal area is tort. Thus, unless your car happens to block say an important delivery resulting in lossage, there is little the owner can achieve in regards to money.

What I'm curious about is the other end of the scale. For example, I travel alot. One council run carpark I use at times has a ticked system. When you put your money in, it asks "Do you agree to the terms & conditions of this carpark". If you answer "no" it does not issue a ticket. Now, in this case, if it was a private carpark, wouldn't this be pretty firm evidence of an accepted contract? In regards to the T&C that is. So, if I didn't say park in a bay, as defined on the T&C, what would the legal result be?

I understand the middle ground between these two positions would, as you say, depend upon the situation. And I see there is further complications in actually trying to make people pay too!

By the way, why is it the driver who is responsible? Why is it not the owner of the vehicle? I assume this is something to do with the whole "contract" thing? Is the owner responsible where the incident occurs on public rather than private land?

bargepole

Random_User_Name wrote: »

... By the way, why is it the driver who is responsible? Why is it not the owner of the vehicle? I assume this is something to do with the whole "contract" thing? Is the owner responsible where the incident occurs on public rather than private land?

Most public car parks (Council run) are subject to decriminalised parking legislation, which makes the owner responsible for parking tickets regardless of who was driving.

Private car parks aren't covered by this, so the only way they can try to enforce their charges is by pursuing a claim for debt through a civil court. Only the driver could be considered to have been party to an implied contract, so they must sue the driver if they know who it was.

The registered keeper is under no legal obligation to disclose the driver's identity (despite the porkies the PPCs write in their threatening letters), so by ignoring their letters, the PPC is left groping in the dark.

BFG_2

Random_User_Name wrote: »

It's all very interesting.
By the way, why is it the driver who is responsible? Why is it not the owner of the vehicle? I assume this is something to do with the whole "contract" thing? Is the owner responsible where the incident occurs on public rather than private land?

The gov was well aware of the 'driver' vs 'registered keeper' issue........[note it's not the 'owner' - otherwise a lot of leasing co's would be very unhappy].

The reason the gov goes for the 'reg keeper' is it's a lot easier than them having to prove who the driver was [ask aPPC how difficult it is!!!]

So basically in order to collect stealth taxes your Human Rights are taken away [innocent until proven guilty, right to a fair trial, proper process, reasonable and fair punishment, blah, blah, blah].

usignuolo

I have my car repaired by a small local garage who rented his premises from a larger company who owned an office block with parking (his premises were in one corner). He had an arrangement with the building manager that he could park repaired cars awaiting collection in a couple of designated bays near his garage. Next thing we get a letter from some property company saying we have parked illegally and threatening us with legal proceedings. Turns out that two weeks earlier, the owners of the office block, which was empty, had sold it to a developer. My garage owner had just returned from holiday and knew nothing of this until I got the parking letter. I phoned them and explained it was in the garage at the time, which was still on the site. Turned out the plot with the garage being repaired at the time.

However they said that this still meant my car was illegally parked because it was clearly marked as a private car park (it was) and as I was the legal owner of the car I was trespassing and therefore liable. I referred it back to the garage owner who did a deal with the bus garage instead to park his overflow there and I think he paid a basic fine to get the building owners off his back. But it did raise the issue of what happens if your car is parked on private land without permission by a garage while it is in for repair.

oldone_2

usignuolo wrote: »

I have my car repaired by a small local garage who rented his premises from a larger company who owned an office block with parking (his premises were in one corner). He had an arrangement with the building manager that he could park repaired cars awaiting collection in a couple of designated bays near his garage. Next thing we get a letter from some property company saying we have parked illegally and threatening us with legal proceedings. Turns out that two weeks earlier, the owners of the office block, which was empty, had sold it to a developer. My garage owner had just returned from holiday and knew nothing of this until I got the parking letter. I phoned them and explained it was in the garage at the time, which was still on the site. Turned out the plot with the garage being repaired at the time.

However they said that this still meant my car was illegally parked because it was clearly marked as a private car park (it was) and as I was the legal owner of the car I was trespassing and therefore liable. I referred it back to the garage owner who did a deal with the bus garage instead to park his overflow there and I think he paid a basic fine to get the building owners off his back. But it did raise the issue of what happens if your car is parked on private land without permission by a garage while it is in for repair.

The responsibilty is always with the driver, and never the registered keeper, so the property company were wrong in saying you were responsible.

Think about it. Your car is stolen and abandoned in a private car park. Would you find it acceptable if a PPC wrote to you saying as the registered keeper you are responsible for any charges they make.