PPC Letter Chains & Court Papers (discussion & comments)

The_Slithy_Tove

island2 wrote: »

The Protection of Freedoms Act says it can reflect a contractually agreed parking charge. And OFT vs Abbey National & Ors suggests that an amount cannot be assessed as a penalty if it is the main cost of the services, as long as the term is expressed in clear and intelligible language.

But the main cost of the service is surely the £1/hour or whatever is charged for parking - often ZERO. There is no way that the "service" of parking your car in someone's car park suddenly increased to £80 or whatever after 3 hours. While not case law, the VCS v Ibbotson case is an example of how a PPC cannot load their running costs into their exhorbitant Parking Charges.

island2

I resent the bad faith in which my posts are being taken; if this is how irregular posters (I am not new) are generally treated it is a disgrace.

The consideration for a contract for services can be whatever the contracting parties decide it to be and need not bear any resemblance to the cost to the provider of the service. A driver is free to agree to pay £100 a minute for parking if he chooses. Equally, a landowner or his agent is free to invite motorists to park for up to three hours at no charge or for a day for £80, and the motorists are free to decline the invitation and park somewhere else. This is not new.

Private parking charges arise by way of a contract between the driver and the landowner, in the same way as buying clothes on credit from Very.

We agree that the only change the PoFA brings is that the landowner or his agent can bring a claim in contract or otherwise against the RK rather than the driver if the RK fails to identify the driver.

The introduction of red herrings such as "the landowner can claim only genuine damages" (wrong, the landowner's claim is in contract, not in tort) or "the motorist/RK has no contract with the PPC" (technically true, but he may well have a contract with the landowner, and the PPC is acting as his agent) does this forum no credit.

Finally for now, I am not under any illusion that this is crystal clear, nor do I expect it to be for some time after the law is brought into force as it could be a long time before we get a binding precedent. Current case law is not especially meaningful as newer law will overrule it. I do not deny that there is an arguable case against my point of view. I ask that you acknowledge that mine is at least arguable as well.

Half_way

Take the negatives with a pickh of salt, Private parking compnay employees have regurlarly posted on here with the sole aim to apread mis information and worry people.

We agree that the only change the PoFA brings is that the landowner or his agent can bring a claim in contract or otherwise against the RK rather than the driver if the RK fails to identify the driver.

The introduction of red herrings such as "the landowner can claim only genuine damages" (wrong, the landowner's claim is in contract, not in tort) or "the motorist/RK has no contract with the PPC" (technically true, but he may well have a contract with the landowner, and the PPC is acting as his agent) does this forum no credit.

But how can the contract be valid if it has an unjust charge/penalty clause? as well as the land owner can only sue for a genuine pre-estimate of any losses caused by the trespasser ( these costs can not include on going buisness fees such as employees uniforms, pencils, tea bags etc)
also with regards to the only the land owner can sue, how does that tally with the HMRC vs VCS case?

The_Slithy_Tove

island2 wrote: »

Current case law is not especially meaningful as newer law will overrule it.

What new law? The Freedom Act does not bring in new law as it relates to the supposed "contracts" entered into. It only talks about liability (and this is something yet to be tested against the long established principle of privity).

LincolnshireYokel

island2 wrote: »

Private parking charges arise by way of a contract between the driver and the landowner, in the same way as buying clothes on credit from Very..

Except it doesnt. Its well proven case law that the signs do not constitute or form a contract, since the law states the elements of a contract must be individually negotiable, which they are not, and merely sticking up a 4 foot square sign covered in densely printed legal nonsense does not make it so.

No contract is formed just because you park there. This is case law. Its perfectly valid to point out you declined to contract and parked there as a trespasser, in which case only demonstrably actual damages can be claimed by the landowner.

Your attempts to obfuscate the issue will not succeed. There are thousands of cases on this forum, not to mention many court cases, where our POV has prevailed.

island2

Half_way wrote: »

Take the negatives with a pickh of salt, Private parking compnay employees have regurlarly posted on here with the sole aim to apread mis information and worry people.



But how can the contract be valid if it has an unjust charge/penalty clause? as well as the land owner can only sue for a genuine pre-estimate of any losses caused by the trespasser ( these costs can not include on going buisness fees such as employees uniforms, pencils, tea bags etc)
also with regards to the only the land owner can sue, how does that tally with the HMRC vs VCS case?

Per OFT vs Abbey, a clause of a contract relating to price cannot be assessed for fairness.

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

Except it doesnt. Its well proven case law that the signs do not constitute or form a contract, since the law states the elements of a contract must be individually negotiable, which they are not, and merely sticking up a 4 foot square sign covered in densely printed legal nonsense does not make it so.

Would you be kind enough to cite a couple of cases as I am not as conversant with them as I like? Particularly your assertion that "the elements of a contract must be individually negotiable", which if it were the case would mean people would be clamouring to have their loan, mobile phone, gas, electricity, Sky, etc. contracts voided on this ground. Some of your post appears well-founded but a lot more seems to be generalised throwaway comments similar to those of which you accuse me.

peter_the_piper

Island 2
""We agree that the only change the PoFA brings is that the landowner or his agent can bring a claim in contract or otherwise against the RK rather than the driver if the RK fails to identify the driver.""

This falls down when you have the situation we have at home.
MIL has car, Bil, OH ,DD and moi are entitled to drive it.
We go to car park and infringe somehow (wrong colour car maybe)
MIL identifies that it could be Moi, DD, OH or BIL driving thereby fulfilling her obligation to identify a driver. We all say we are not sure who was driving at time. RK can't be pursued nor can we.

island2

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Island 2
""We agree that the only change the PoFA brings is that the landowner or his agent can bring a claim in contract or otherwise against the RK rather than the driver if the RK fails to identify the driver.""

This falls down when you have the situation we have at home.
MIL has car, Bil, OH ,DD and moi are entitled to drive it.
We go to car park and infringe somehow (wrong colour car maybe)
MIL identifies that it could be Moi, DD, OH or BIL driving thereby fulfilling her obligation to identify a driver. We all say we are not sure who was driving at time. RK can't be pursued nor can we.

The RK can be pursued in those circumstances, as the RK is only relieved of liability if the creditor knows the name and address of the driver, not if the creditor knows a list of people who might have been the driver (sched 4 para 5 (1) (b) PoFA).

Stephen_Leak

We ought to advise everyone to pay up, then.

bazster

peter_the_piper wrote: »

MIL identifies that it could be Moi, DD, OH or BIL driving thereby fulfilling her obligation to identify a driver. We all say we are not sure who was driving at time. RK can't be pursued nor can we.

The act doesn't say that the RK has an obligation to identify the driver, all it says is that the "creditor" can pursue the RK if they don't know who was driving. So if you all deny driving then the "creditor" still doesn't know who the driver was and so can still pursue the RK.

Except I'd expect the whole thing to collapse completely in the face of the first serious legal challenge.