Parking Eye v Somerfield Judgment

minion101

I think the point m0786uk might be missing is that if the landowners, eg supermarkets, want to sue people parking incorrectly on their land then they contract has to be formed with them.

This means all the parking signs have to have the supermarket's name on and they become liable for the legality of those signs. Any parking charges have to be paid to the supermarket and then passed onto the 'agent/ ppc / lawyers' whatever you call them.

This would mean their staff could no longer pass off irrate customers to the third party agent as the contract would be in their (the supermarket's) name. this could lead to all sorts of unpleasantness and added hassles or costs for the supermarket which, frankly, they are not interested in.

The benefits from using the PPCs, or so they thought, was that they were getting a service for free and thought they could simply palm off any complaining customers with 'Its not our fault talk to the PPC'.

Of course, as we all now know, and some of the supermarkets are coming to realise as well, this approach has turned around and bitten them in the !!!! big style.

mo786uk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Firms are not suddenly going to start suing people now they cannot clamp cars - which was always ridiculous anyway. In the example of the funeral company you gave, how on earth would clamping a car have possibly got rid of a rogue parker? The opposite would be true, car stuck in the way for hours! And in addition, a clamped car = an irate person, right outside a firm that needs to maintain a quiet and dignified premises entrance. Whoever contracted clampers outside a funeral service must have been mad!

They clamped them and towed them - they obviously didn't care as they were in the emdia a lot. Their problem was that if they didnt have enforcement then their spaces were taken up - so they have a fairly simple choice.

I daresay large supermarkets and chains do not make up the majority of places that use PPCs so we may well see the law develop because of smaller landowner taking cases to court.

As for whether a supermarket will sue, they are less likely to do it for reputational reasons but I wouldn't rule it out.

taffy056

No large retailer allowed clamping or towing on their land at all that I'm aware of, and any landowner taking people to court still has to prove their losses here, some arbitrary figure plucked from the bpa twisted world will not do. They have to show the figure claimed is a pre-estimate of loss.

trisontana

I think the majority of PPC work does takes place in supermarkets and retail parks. That seems to be the picture here. Most complaints about PPC's emanate from those establishments.

Most Sainsbury's Tesco, Asda , Morrisons and Co-Ops have them. That must be thousands of places compared to the odd pub or fitness gym car park

Coupon-mad

I think you are deluded and your posts are getting boring, mo786uk.

Why don't you come back on the forum in about six months and we will see whether the banning of clamping has caused the sorts of issues you seem to be so frantic to post about. You are quick to judge the general public but I don't share your view about most people's parking.

My money is on the outcome on here after 6 months being that nothing will have changed - except I confidently predict that some of the PPCs will have jumped ship from the BPA and created their own ATA.

An ATA which we will do our best to discredit of course as the PPCs couldn't organise a p~ss up in a brewery, let alone 'do the pre-Court leg work' that you seem to think they have the expertise for!

mo786uk

Makes no diference to me - I am not biased either side, just interested in the legal arguments.

I have had plenty of parking tickets from councils but none from a PPC yet

What these cases quite clearly demonstrate is that if certain things are complied with it is perfectly possible to pursue someone in court for £37 and possibly even £75. Which conflicts with the arguments put up by some.

What is clear though is that there would be a large checklist for the PPC to comply with before having a proper case to pursue.

Aside from large supermarkets there are lots of smaller car parks that use PPCs and IMO many of them will continue using PPCs.

The future may well be in barriers.

With regard to the expertise and all that - it will develop over time. Behind most questionnable businesses are smart lawyers - unfortunatley I have dealt with many. They will find ways to make PPCs compliant or if not compliant with the law then in a position that is blurry enough.

esmerobbo

The problem with your argument is the making of a contract.

For an instance if I download something from Microsoft they give me an "Accept the terms and conditions" box to tick, to say we read them how many of us do? However if we misused that software they would have a case because we agreed,we made a contract.
If the agreement was not required we could just download it and that would be all we need do.

The judge in this case was not deciding on whether the contracts were formed only the way they were dealt with after the fact.

No one is saying that a contract can not be formed by entering and parking in a car park. However to guarantee that one was, every bay would probably need its own sign, or every second bay. Every sign would need to be easy too see and understand.

In the Excel V Martin Cutts case the Judge decided that although there were ample signs they were difficult too understand. She even visited the site too see for herself.

If a supermarket needs to protect its land there is and always has been a course of action for them. Most have fallen for the PPC method for ease. However before the recent Euro case involving a Sainsbury's car park I had never seen a supermarket case go too court.

What we have seen is some send banning orders to persistent "offenders" but again non except the recent case has gone any further.

Apart from the problem it may cause in bad publicity, I think most would realise it would be bad business. Its a toss up who would win, it would cost them much more then they could recover. Any claim made by a PPC is purely for propaganda!

taffy056

mo786uk wrote: »

Makes no diference to me - I am not biased either side, just interested in the legal arguments.

I have had plenty of parking tickets from councils but none from a PPC yet

What these cases quite clearly demonstrate is that if certain things are complied with it is perfectly possible to pursue someone in court for £37 and possibly even £75. Which conflicts with the arguments put up by some.

What is clear though is that there would be a large checklist for the PPC to comply with before having a proper case to pursue.

Aside from large supermarkets there are lots of smaller car parks that use PPCs and IMO many of them will continue using PPCs.

The future may well be in barriers.

With regard to the expertise and all that - it will develop over time. Behind most questionnable businesses are smart lawyers - unfortunatley I have dealt with many. They will find ways to make PPCs compliant or if not compliant with the law then in a position that is blurry enough.

The case of hmrc v vcs would disagree with you, and that took place after the original hearing of this. So as it actually dealt with the penalty issued as it was vat on a ticket , it was deemed that yes it was a penalty and yes vat was due . And no supermarket will take customers to court because it would be commercial suicide for them to do so. Even somerfield her could see that it was better to get rid of the ppc than let them continue with their aggressive behaviour towards their own customers.

The past was barriers and an employee checking receipts, something that shouldn't have replaced IMO

ManxRed

mo786uk wrote: »

...I am not biased either side, just interested in the legal arguments.

I put it to you that you are not in the slightest bit interested in the legal arguments. You've had them explained to you on here over and over and over again, but chosen to selectively extract certain parts of certain cases that fit with your agenda, and conveniently ignored all the other stuff which doesn't fit with your agenda.

And for that reason, as Duncan Bannatyne would say, "Ahm 'oot."

mo786uk

taffy056 wrote: »

The case of hmrc v vcs would disagree with you, and that took place after the original hearing of this. So as it actually dealt with the penalty issued as it was vat on a ticket , it was deemed that yes it was a penalty and yes vat was due . And no supermarket will take customers to court because it would be commercial suicide for them to do so. Even somerfield her could see that it was better to get rid of the ppc than let them continue with their aggressive behaviour towards their own customers.

VCS contended that the charges were penalities or damages. I don't think the tribunal made a judgement either way. They said there was no contract between VCS and the motorist so it was irrelevant really.

Whereas in the Somerfield case the judge said a cotract had been formed at £37 was not a penalty.