Freedom Bill (again)

TrickyWicky

I had to stop and think what you were having a go at me for there.. then I realised you've taken the parking comments above seriously. That certainly wasn't supposed to be an insult towards you (ok i'll admit you do talk in riddles a bit but the following comments were not aimed at you in any way). So far you seem to be one of the few straight people around here.

FYI, I have no problem.. apart from the !!!! this mob in westminster keep dishing out to everyone.

[Deleted User]

Oh ok no probs, im outside London if that helps!.

Shevchenko01

trisontana wrote: »

Also, on top of the "parking charge", what about the silly amounts of money demanded by PPCs for breaking their silly rules. This includes having your wheel touch a white line, parking in disabled or P&C spaces or parking on yellow lines. They are not payments you pay to park, they are "penalties" for breaking their made-up rules.

As much as you may hate them and often with reason, if you accept their T&C (not to touch the white line, etc) then you cannot really complain if you are penalised...unless you have a good reason. You do have the choice to park somewhere else...I hope!

As for parking in disabled slots, if a non-disabled person does that then they deserve everything they get!

TrickyWicky

Shevchenko01 wrote: »

As much as you may hate them and often with reason, if you accept their T&C (not to touch the white line, etc) then you cannot really complain if you are penalised...unless you have a good reason. You do have the choice to park somewhere else...I hope!

As for parking in disabled slots, if a non-disabled person does that then they deserve everything they get!

If you accepted their T&Cs you'd have a fully blown legal document with a lot of small print. The fact that no PPC ever gives this out but just says "full terms and conditions available on request" on their signs doesn't mean there is any agreement to any contract.

Coupon-mad

The Freedom Bill is on the list again for debate in the Lords on Tuesday.

Sirdan

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The Freedom Bill is on the list again for debate in the Lords on Tuesday.

Well Committee stage, so strictly speaking not a debate in the Lords...more a debate on amendments by some Lords i.e. committee members.

Oopsadaisy

Keep up the good work people.

Shevchenko01

TrickyWicky wrote: »

If you accepted their T&Cs you'd have a fully blown legal document with a lot of small print. The fact that no PPC ever gives this out but just says "full terms and conditions available on request" on their signs doesn't mean there is any agreement to any contract.

I can't believe I'm going to defend these companies, but...

Surely knowing that there are T&Cs to parking there gives you an opportunity to access them before making your decision to use their parking spaces? No one (I hope) is forcing you to park there; although I appreciate sometimes it's difficult to make alternative arrangements with little notice.

I do agree that they could often make it easier to obtain the T&C but I don't believe there's any requirement to have it on paper - look at on-line transactions - you agree by clicking on the "Agree to the T&C" checkbox.

I think that anyone that decides to ignore or not seek out the T&Cs first does so at their own risk. As they say, ignorance of the law is no defence.

AlexisV

You're falling into the trap of thinking that T&C's can say, do or demand anything. "You could have gone elsewhere" is often a fairly weak PPC argument.

When full T&C's ARE published on signage, they are inaccessibly small. Signage design is often criticised in court cases.

This is the flaw in the PPC business model. By relying on signage to offer contracts and having no clue who even read them in the first place, they are on the back foot when it comes to court claims. They never even know if they've sued the right person most of the time.

There is also the issue that fair and enforceable contracts are in direct conflict with making maximum cash in situations like this. Contract law is mostly designed to make sure the former takes precedence over the latter.

HO87

Shevchenko01 wrote: »

I can't believe I'm going to defend these companies, but...

Surely knowing that there are T&Cs to parking there gives you an opportunity to access them before making your decision to use their parking spaces? No one (I hope) is forcing you to park there; although I appreciate sometimes it's difficult to make alternative arrangements with little notice.

I do agree that they could often make it easier to obtain the T&C but I don't believe there's any requirement to have it on paper - look at on-line transactions - you agree by clicking on the "Agree to the T&C" checkbox.

I think that anyone that decides to ignore or not seek out the T&Cs first does so at their own risk. As they say, ignorance of the law is no defence.

Firstly, I recommend that you conduct a little research before you hold forth on the subject.

Secondly, ignorance of the law is indeed no excuse. By the same token, the law makes it plain that it is not lawful to levy a contractual penalty but it doesn't stop these companies from doing so despite the repeated knock-back at court. That is less ignorance than sheer disregard.

Attempting to force people to act lawfully by following t's and c's that are rarely publicised in total and then attempting to impose an unlawful penalty themselves doesn't smack to me of businesses that truly wish to see that the law upheld.