Parking in a Disabled Bay

mikey72

bazster wrote: »

What rot, of course an employee has the right to ask trespassers to leave his employer's land. Even a PPC would have that right if they were the landowner's agent.

First time I've ever seen anyone on here state the PPC has a right to disallow or alternatively to authorise parking as an agent of the landowner. I don't think many will agree with you.
Although Coupon-mad did thank you, so I guess she thinks you are correct in that they have the landowners authority to control parking?

Coupon-mad

mikey72 wrote: »

First time I've ever seen anyone on here state the PPC has a right to disallow or alternatively to authorise parking as an agent of the landowner. I don't think many will agree with you.
Although Coupon-mad did thank you, so I guess she thinks you are correct in that they have the landowners authority to control parking?

They do, of course. PPCs spin some old spiel about 'controlling the parking problems for free' and the retailer agrees to the contract. So yes, the agent then 'has authority to control the parking'. No-one on here will disagree with that I suspect, we never have said on this forum that PPCs were usually unauthorised, just that the fake PCNs themselves are unenforceable.

But acting as an agent doesn't mean that breaches of the Equality Act should be ignored. Just because a retailer has asked an agent to do something doesn't mean they are not liable for the agent's unlawful actions.

And it still doesn't mean that a PPC should be paid by a motorist, as there is no contract with the motorist (as per recent VCS cases).

And nor does it mean the PPC have sufficient rights to take a Motorist to Court and win (again, as per recent VCS cases).

mikey72

Coupon-mad wrote: »

They do, of course. PPCs spin some old spiel about 'controlling the parking problems for free' and the retailer agrees to the contract. So yes, the agent then 'has authority to control the parking'. No-one on here will disagree with that I suspect, we never have said on this forum that PPCs were usually unauthorised, just that the fake PCNs themselves are unenforceable.

But acting as an agent doesn't mean that breaches of the Equality Act should be ignored. Just because a retailer has asked an agent to do something doesn't mean they are not liable for the agent's unlawful actions.

And it still doesn't mean that a PPC should be paid by a motorist, as there is no contract with the motorist (as per recent VCS cases).

And nor does it mean the PPC have sufficient rights to take a Motorist to Court and win (again, as per recent VCS cases).

So you are saying the PPC can decide who parks, and who doesn't, in spite of the ruling saying they have no authority to offer any parking rights at all?
Only the landowner can do that?
Or do you believe a PPC can in the end offer the right ot park?

Coupon-mad

They are doing so as the AGENT for the retailer, the consideration is given by the retailer to the motorist and the PPC is a useless middle-man.

Doesn't mean they can suddenly claim a contract with the motorist any more than the printers who produce the big bill-boards in a Tesco car park can claim they are part of the purchase contract when a customer reads the billboard advert, goes into the store and buys the advertised product.

In simple terms, as I see it, here's an analogy:

1. A product is offered by Tesco, advertised by the billboard posters who won the tender for that specific job, offer is then accepted and product purchased by the customer.

The contract remains only between Tesco and the customer.

Similarly:

2. Parking is offered by Tesco, advertised (apparently!) by the PPC who won the tender for that specific job, the offer of parking is then accepted by the customer.

The contract remains only between Tesco and the customer.




I am only an 'armchair lawyer' but where is that example wrong?

mikey72

Coupon-mad wrote: »

They are doing so as the AGENT for the retailer, the consideration is given by the retailer to the motorist and the PPC is a useless middle-man.

Doesn't mean they can suddenly claim a contract with the motorist any more than the printers who produce the big bill-boards in a Tesco car park can claim they are part of the purchase contract when a customer reads the billboard advert, goes into the store and buys the advertised product.

In simple terms, as I see it, here's an analogy:

1. A product is offered by Tesco, advertised by the billboard posters who won the tender for that specific job, offer is then accepted and product purchased by the customer.

The contract remains only between Tesco and the customer.

Similarly:

2. Parking is offered by Tesco, advertised (apparently!) by the PPC who won the tender for that specific job, the offer of parking is then accepted by the customer.

The contract remains only between Tesco and the customer.




I am only an 'armchair lawyer' but where is that example wrong?

The bit where they can stop you, or decide where you park.
As has been said, the disabled space is merely paint on the floor, and is meaningless.
Also as has been said (many, many times) the PPC had no authority to offer parking. Even the store has to prove it's actually the landowner, even then other constraints may still apply.

Coupon-mad

OK, PPCs are perhaps more like a bouncer in a nightclub then, employed by a security firm and supplied on a contract basis. Authorised to stop/allow certain people but no powers beyond that - and they certainly can't sue someone who sneaks in wearing jeans! Imagine if the bouncer handed you a fake fine!:rotfl:

The only difference is that a club pays the security firm for the bouncer. PPCs are stupid enough to think they can do the same sort of 'job' for free, just fleecing customers forever. The clock is ticking on that little game, as more people realise it's a generic scam based on imitation parking tickets.

PDC

Personally I wouldn't ever if it is only a matter of convenience as are the two examples you've stated.

Recently when calling in to the local garden centre at night, empty car park, I did think I would park be able to park near the store, but the first two rows were disabled and the third for 'family' parking so I ended up parking way back where I normally do. It did strike me as ridiculous but then I'm grateful that walking three rows of cars is no bother to me and like most of us I'm sure I can use the exercise.