Other services with unenforceable charges???

Whatdoiknow

Whatdoiknow wrote: »

Shame it needed more than one.

The words "off you" were the middle words of my response to the "windscreen cleaner", words one and four made by boys ears !!!!! up.:eek:

Oops, cant even use a word that sounds like brick but begins with a p even in its proper context.:rotfl:

Oopsadaisy

esmerobbo wrote: »

It would need to be judged as unfair by a county court.

It cant be set in concrete as it depends on the service offered. If you had your garden done by a gardener and never paid him and you used a solicitor for something and never paid them.
They both done 3 hours work. A judge would probably limit the gardener to £10 per hour but the solicitor to £80 per hour.

A county court is a court of arbitration the Judge would have to decide if a claim was fair or unfair.

No, no, no.

A fair rate is whatever is agreed by way of contract between two parties. It's not a judge's role to decide if someone was stupid in agreeing to pay £60/hr for parking; it's their role to decide if there was a valid contract between the two parties.

It's not illegal to charge £60/hr for parking [or even gardening] and as long as a valid contract exists the judge can't just say £60 is 'too much'.

Oopsadaisy

Ezmondino wrote: »

Haven't read the whole thread, but I was wondering myself the other day about missed dentist's appointment "fines"? I wondered then whether they can "fine" you. Surely if it's private (or NHS?) they can't?

It's a charge and it's usually a nominal amount. The dentist loses money if you don't show [fixed costs and salaries] so they are allowed to charge you.

It's also most often used as a way of getting rid of 'waster patients'.

esmerobbo

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

No, no, no.

A fair rate is whatever is agreed by way of contract between two parties.

We are discussing a fair charge if a contract was not formed! Not by what is written on a sign. A contract has to be offered and accepted.

If a contract was offered by one and accepted by another then yes any agreed fee would be claimable.

The gardener and the solicitor was used to show that a loss to one person, is not the same as a loss to another.

Oopsadaisy

esmerobbo wrote: »

We are discussing a fair charge if a contract was not formed! Not by what is written on a sign. A contract has to be offered and accepted.

If a contract was offered by one and accepted by another then yes any agreed fee would be claimable.

The gardener and the solicitor was used to show that a loss to one person, is not the same as a loss to another.

If a contract wasn't formed then there's NO CHARGE APPLICABLE [fair rate or not].

So the landowner offers parking at £500/hr via clear signage, driver accepts by parking; so £500/hr applies...otherwise it's £0/hr.

monkey_alan

Have to agree with Oopsadaisy here. The parking fee is no more or less lawful than the additional sums PPCs try to claim. It seems to me that either all the fees on the tariff board should be enforceable, or that none should be enforceable. I don't understand the difference between what trisontana calls the fee you pay to park and the penalties demanded by the PPC, bearing in mind that the fee could be equally stupid and unrealistic.

So the way forward is to say that every single charge on the tariff board is unenforceable because there's nothing in writing to say a contract was formed and it's hard to prove the identity of the person who entered into that contract.

By accepting that their "fees" are legitimate but their other charges are not, are we not in danger of giving credence to everything on the tariff board and accepting that a contract exists?

trisontana

Most of this argument is academic, as the vast majority of PPCs only operate in supermarket and retail parks where there is free parking. So anything demanded for breaking their "rules" would be deemed an unfair penalty because the land-owner has not suffered any material loss.

Coupon-mad

trisontana wrote: »

Most of this argument is academic, as the vast majority of PPCs only operate in supermarket and retail parks where there is free parking. So anything demanded for breaking their "rules" would be deemed an unfair penalty because the land-owner has not suffered any material loss.

This is true, almost every case we hear about is in a free car park. My fake PCN was in a Supermarket car park and I would not park anywhere where the parking charge for the service was more than a couple of quid.

Oopsadaisy

trisontana wrote: »

Most of this argument is academic...

It may be academic at the moment but with the demise of clamping in the next 12 months or so you can be certain it won't be academic then.

trisontana

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

It may be academic at the moment but with the demise of clamping in the next 12 months or so you can be certain it won't be academic then.

Clampers don't operate in supermarket or retail-park car parks, so I can't see the logic of your argument.