Car Park Barriers

OhReally_2

RENEGADE wrote: »

Who exactly is the PPC and which is the car park in question?

jonest10 wrote: »

Where is this car park and barrier, please

In the OP's inaugural post on this site just over 4 weeks ago, he said he was "due to travel abroad soon to visit relatives for 6 weeks" and one that he would "depart on imminently".

I guess this car park barrier is not in this country then :cool:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

peter_the_piper

In that case reference to BPA would be a waste of time, unless you call Wales abroad.:j

Sirdan

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

I doubt that this is a real case but am happy for the OP to come back and prove me wrong. Reads like a hypothetical "what if" scenario to me. In reality if such a system was implemented then drivers who refuse to pay would just jam up the car park, tempers would fray, the car park would descend into chaos and the operator who thought up this super new system would be out on their ear. And I can't see the barrier lasting very long either.

Yes I was thinking that .
However it is worth noting that Clause 55 of the POFA extends Council/Police powers to remove vehicles that are " illegally, obstructively or dangerously parked, " to include other land i.e. land other than "roads".

So theoretically if you block the barrier you could be towed and then the PPC/landowner could seek to recover any costs associated with this towing.
Also theoretically if the Police were involved in the towing then remaining in the vehicle to prevent towing could be seen by a constable as obstruction ...

In reality if this scheme is in place I expect the car park to be getting some very very bad press very soon and people simply will not park there ..so the PPC will have scored a tremendous own goal !!:rotfl:

Sirdan

taffy056 wrote: »

It's a penalty so it's not legal, no matter how you dress it up with the barrier exception it's a penalty, so it is illegal and as there is no appeal in the circumstances of this it's an unfair contract, I would think parking the vehicle across the entrance or exit of the car park would be sufficient self help that they cannot do anything about.

Clamping was a penalty and yet it still happened for years .
It is not illegal ,it is unenforceable not quite the same thing.
No appeal = unfair contract ..where on earth did you get that from ..how do I appeal my shopping bill,my gas bill,or any other contract ??? Why is a parking contract different ?
As for parking across the barrier read Clause 55 of the POFA..

RENEGADE_2

Sirdan wrote: »

Clamping was a penalty and yet it still happened for years ...

Correct.

Sirdan wrote: »

It is not illegal ,it is unenforceable not quite the same thing.

If it were not illegal, then it must be legal, there are no half-measures. Clamping by a private company is the unsanctioned seizure of one's possession for non-payemt of an impossible to register claim. Nobody in history was ever ordered by the authorities to a single penny to the clampers where he freed his vehicle, and all these stories you may have heard about police siding with clampers and introducing fake charges such as "obstructing a wheel clamper in his duty" could not possibly have stood up before magistrates if the victim knew his rights.

Sirdan

RENEGADE wrote: »

Correct.





If it were not illegal, then it must be legal, there are no half-measures. Clamping by a private company is the unsanctioned seizure of one's possession for non-payemt of an impossible to register claim. Nobody in history was ever ordered by the authorities to a single penny to the clampers where he freed his vehicle, and all these stories you may have heard about police siding with clampers and introducing fake charges such as "obstructing a wheel clamper in his duty" could not possibly have stood up before magistrates if the victim knew his rights.

Issuing an unenforceable invoice is not illegal even though the penalty it seeks to impose may well be unlawful..so there are half measures as you like to put it . That was my point ..nothing to do with clamping.
If retention of another's goods pending payment of an invoice was indeed totally illegal then ask yourself how garages can and do do it for their sometimes extortionate invoices.

I agree that the PPC are on very shaky grounds but if the notice is clear they can and will fall back on the "volenti non fit injuria" defence which supported clamping for all those years. THAT is what the barrier exemption has done because it is so badly written i.e. barriers can be lowered unconditionally and maybe it follows left down unconditionally ??

RENEGADE_2

You have one point, I really question whether garages can hold onto your motor. I had an incident a couple of years ago when the youngsters at this garage service poured far more bottles of brake fluid than I asked for - I gave them two which I provided and told them, "if it needs more, TELL ME". It needed about a dozen more, and of course, these idiots used their own - which they claimed were five times the price of mine. I didn't tell them to fill the container, I just asked them to consult me for further instruction - I would have bought the cheaper bottles and provided more. Either way, I wasn't prepared, I told them on the Saturday, "I'll pay you Monday". Their reply, "that's fine but we hold onto the car". Oh no you don't sir, I have a spare key! I didn't tell them but I drove off. No police banged on my door, nothing. I went back Monday, paid and the owner handed me the key which I didn't worry too much about because the car was essential.

I've made mistakes as such in the past, thankfully we learn, now no private company screws with me!

Aretnap

Sirdan wrote: »

I don't see plod being interersted in the "aggressive commercial practice " angle at all. They will say that if the sign clearly says PCN for the following reasons which MUST be paid before the barrier will raise then that is a civil contract matter ..or in other words more fool you for parking there.

Plod wouldn't be interested - it's not their job to enforce CUPTR for a start - but maybe one of the more enlightened Trading Standards departments could be persuaded to take an interest...

The other obvious offence they might be committing is blackmail, but they would probably have a defence to that. Problem is you have a defence to blackmail if you believed that you had reasonable grounds for making the demand and that you were entitled to do the things you did to enforce the demand - even if that belief was incorrect. That's why while a few clampits did get convicted of blackmail, their behaviour usually had to be particularly egregious, even by the usual standards of clampers. In this case, given that penalties of up to £100 are apparently the government's preferred solution to infractions in minor car parks (they're in bed with the BPA after all) and that parliament specifically excluded blocking in with a barrier from the clamping ban, I suspect the operators would have little difficulty in claiming that they believed their actions were acceptable.

I agree that the new legislation leaves blocking in with a barrier in essentially the same position as clamping was prior to the ban - and the bottom line is that that was legal,* in some circumstances at least, however much we might have wished that it wasn't.

*Unless the theory about CUPTR is correct - and that was never tested in court.

Sirdan

"A possessory lien is the right of the creditor to retain possession of his debtor's property until his debt has been satisfied.

For example a car put in for repair allows the garage to claim a lien over the car until the bill is paid."

Having said that if you have a spare key it is unclear if you are breaking any law by removing the vehicle as the lien is only valid whilst the debtor has possession of the goods , so provided you don't break any laws in freeing your vehicle then they are stuffed ..I have done this myself ..the garage threatened to call the police so I kindly supplied them with the relevant number of the local nick and told them to carry on ...you can guess the outcome ..:-)


In the car park barrier case if is highly debateable whether the PPC has any lien over the vehicle as they don't IMO have possession of it ..it is merely in their care ..the driver retains possession by virtue of still having the keys IMO.

Aretnap

RENEGADE wrote: »

Clamping by a private company is the unsanctioned seizure of one's possession for non-payemt of an impossible to register claim.

No it isn't.

Clamping (as was ruled legal by the Court of Appeal, at least) has nothing to do with non-payment of debts. It was what you could expect to happen if you parked on someone else's land, knowing that clamping was in operation, and that prevented you from suing the clamper for the otherwise unlawful interference with your goods (a most ingenious extension of the principle of volenti non fit injuria). It did not create any obligation on your part to pay any money to the clamper... but the clamper was entitled to charge a reasonable fee for the "service" of removing the clamp, so if you didn't want to pay him for that service and you couldn't get the clamp off yourself you'd be a bit stuffed next time you wanted to use the car.