Supermarket carpark fines

arcon5

So it's well understood on the motoring board that you can do as you like when parking on private property and there is pretty much nothing they can do about it.

These firms for example that charge you £60 for overstaying ect are always under scrutiny and from what I understand are unenforcable as they do not have the power to fine consumers.


So if these companies placed a huge sign at the entrance of the carpark stating:

'This carpark is free for the first 2 hours for any persons shopping with us (fee refunded at checkout), after this time we will charge you for the service at the same rates as below. We also welcome non-shoppers to use our facilities. Our prices are below:

2 hours is £40
4 hours is £60

If you are unhappy with the fees for this service, please follow the exit signs and you will not be charged'


So it's not a fine, it's a service. Is this enforcable if the visitor refuses to pay but yet parks their car? If not, why not? At the end of the day a contract does not have to be in writing, so surely by parking in their facilities you are agreeing to these terms and thus entering into a contract for a service..........

bris

If you don't pay you get a fine, which you ignore, is there a difference.

somethingcorporate

Interesting point and I can see how it differs to a financial penalty under a contract (which car parking 'fines' are).

You might be onto a money spinner there arcon5!

The_Pedant

Quick! Delete this thread before NCP & co read it!

I had always wondered along similar lines, due to the fact that in many such car parks the first you see of such terms is a board with tiny print on, at the other side of the car park. Hardly suitable opportunity to formally read their terms and accept them.

wealdroam

OP, yes they could do that, but how would they collect the money?

At the moment, the process of so many of these car park companies is to use the reg no to get the name of the registered keeper from DVLA and send him/her a bill. There is no obligation for the RK to divulge the name of the driver at that time, and there certainly was no contract formed with the RK if he wasn't driving.

In other words, the parking company has no way of knowing who they have formed a contract with unless they stop the driver at the time.

Therefore, the current process is flawed irrespective of whether the word 'fine' or 'penalty' is used.

For that same reason, your proposal is also flawed, unless they stop the driver at the time and ask for their money there and then.

sarahg1969

bris wrote: »

If you don't pay you get a fine, which you ignore, is there a difference.

You don't get a fine. They have no authority to fine. Only a court of law can issue a fine.

arcon5

bris wrote: »

If you don't pay you get a fine, which you ignore, is there a difference.

If you don't pay and you receive an invoice in the post, it's not you being fined, it would be you being chased for an unpaid invoice.

The_Pedant wrote: »

I had always wondered along similar lines, due to the fact that in many such car parks the first you see of such terms is a board with tiny print on, at the other side of the car park. Hardly suitable opportunity to formally read their terms and accept them.

I agree somewhat -- at the moment it's usually obvious where the car park is not free, then you head towards the machine to pay your dues and see the terms. This would be the opportunity to reject them and leave.

But having a large sign in the entrance with the fees on would be sufficient IMO. If you don't read them it's not because you wasn't given the opportunity but because you chose not to.

arcon5

wealdroam wrote: »

OP, yes they could do that, but how would they collect the money?

At the moment, the process of so many of these car park companies is to use the reg no to get the name of the registered keeper from DVLA and send him/her a bill. There is no obligation for the RK to divulge the name of the driver at that time, and there certainly was no contract formed with the RK if he wasn't driving.

In other words, the parking company has no way of knowing who they have formed a contract with unless they stop the driver at the time.

Therefore, the current process is flawed irrespective of whether the word 'fine' or 'penalty' is used.

For that same reason, your proposal is also flawed, unless they stop the driver at the time and ask for their money there and then.

I agree there are some flaws to the idea of offering a parking service rather than issuing a "fine" for not abiding by terms, but considering the current systen is so controversial and consumers are becomming more aware of the fact they are unenforcable, at some point these firms which manage private car parks need to change tactics.

A couple of options come to mind:

- barrier system like in many pay & display car parks. You get a ticket when you go in, you pay at a machine before you leave and the ticket lifts the barrier at exit. Although with the volume of traffic in a supermarket i'm not sure how viable this would be.

- the second option is probably a little controversial... send the invoice to the registered keeper as they currently are, enclosing a copy of CCTV footage of driver. At this point they will either dispute it in which case they may as well write it off or see you have evidence and thus not want it to go to court.


At the moment in many supermarkets (or atleast the ones i've visited in different cities) they have a dedicated person managing the car park (probably don't work for the supermarket themselve mind), maybe this person could be utilised to implement a new system.


It seems to me that too many people abuse land owners (whether supermarkets & shopping centers through to offices) by not honouring their terms (e.g. max stay, parking there as a non-customer to save a few quid) then attempt to justify it by saying 'but these enforcement companies issue illegal fines then pressure people into paying them'. Well surely prevention is better than the cure? I'm betting onlyy a small percentage of these issues are for ridiculous reasons suchas your wheels are slightly over the white line. In many cases it seems to be people failing to show respect for the purpose the car park was intended for!

**eagerly awaits the motoring boards wrath**

wealdroam

Should this thread be on The Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board?

Squeaky?

halibut2209

arcon doesn't get on well there. That's probably why he's coming here to get inaccurate opinions, rather than ones from those who actually know what they are talking about*

*that's a general statement, not talking about anyone here in particular

arcon5

halibut2209 wrote: »

arcon doesn't get on well there. That's probably why he's coming here to get inaccurate opinions, rather than ones from those who actually know what they are talking about*

*that's a general statement, not talking about anyone here in particular

Thats because people are unable to comprehend the fact that the underlying problem is infact motorists not respecting the rules the landowners setout and seem to think the blame wholely lies with the enforcement company, who are infact (in the majority of cases) only acting because the motorist has not adhered to the rules.

Id say this relates more so to contract law and feel this board would be more appropriate. There are members that visit this board that seem to have a fair knowledge of contract law and would be able to add value to the question.

So do you care to share any thoughts you may have on the topic? Or even justify your sweeping statement that the opinions are inaccurate?