Parking Penalty Appeal Information

JEG1965

I'm researching the points raised and will get back a.s.a.p. with a reply with authoritative sources. However the issue is a tricky one and doesn't appear to have been tested. I'll be honest and say I'm not confident I can definitively back my reasoning but I'll try.

JEG1965

Just on the comparison scenario between JEG and MMD:

My suggestion is that we would BOTH have grounds for appeal if we were penalised, particularly if just over the expiry time. This is because I'm placing the contractual analysis at the core of my argument. The speed of inserting coins really isn't at issue it's the fact that your time starts to elapse before you've accepted the standing offer by pressing the accept button i.e. you're being charged when you've still got the option to quit and walk away.

There might be a problem if there is information spelling this fact out on the machine though.

I'll recheck exactly when a contract is formed in these circumstances but I think it is more likely to be when the consumer presses the acceptance button on the pay and display ticket issuing machine rather than when the consumer parks their car.

mpython

JEG1965, I don't think the problem is whether the clock starts with the first or last coin - I think the clock starts when you park, and to use your language, this is when you accept the standing offer. If it didn't start when you park, you (not you personally, but whoever) could park & procrastinate whilst deciding to take up the standing offer - say for 5 or 15 mins - and then drive off, having "consumed" parking time which they should have paid for.

JEG1965

The discussions concerning my argument regarding the propriety of the system of public parking voucher dispensing (and consequent penalty fines)have been very useful.

At times I have been almost convinced that I have indeed adopted an incorrect and/or overly pedantic approach in seeking to identify an appeal against the imposition of certain parking fines. However, with a little further research using the helpful comments received I think I am again quite confident in this method being a useful and successful defence to parking penalties.

I have no difficulty in accepting penalties issued fairly; it is a subtle but important flaw in the machine's operation which I believe leads to an adverse impact on the balance between local authority and consumer which I think is unfair, unacceptable and unlawful.

I have progressed in a few areas:

(i) I have read the instructions on the voucher issuing machines operating in my local authority area. Amongst other things they allow (i) a maximum of 25 coins to be inserted and, (ii) allow over-payment to accrue forward to the next day's parking.

I'd be delighted if anyone could identify the manufacturer of these machines in their area.

(a)(i) Bolsters my argument that the machines should not charge whilst coins are being inserted. However I'm still struggling to think of an analogous situation. My petrol pump analogy doesn't quite capture the problem. Can anyone help with a better one?

(a)(ii) In one traffic appeals tribunal case in London a motorist argued on grounds which were, in some respects similar to, in other important respect different from, my approach. S/he was unsuccessful but the adjudicator made comments which support other approaches. In light of those comments, and with a little more research, I might be able to confirm a concrete defence based on the technical legality of these machines. There is an on-line facility which records cases before the parking adjudicator which is very useful but will take a bit of time trawling through. I'll note the URL if anyone's interested.

I am unlikely to find an appeal on the same grounds so have to look for cases which are similar and use those to calculate my chances of success. No-one seems to have utilised a contract analysis in appeal. This means I am either mad and wrong or have stumbled upon a new angle (probably the former).

(b) Confirmation of my general approach in another appeal will effectively afford substance to my approach. I have another person about to appeal on the same basis so will hopefully have news on that.

(c) My appeal was successful on a 'technical error' in the parking attendant's practice. I am going to submit a request under the Freedom of Information legislation to ascertain what this error was. I will at least be able to publicise this flaw in light of that disclosure. I will also get a better idea as to whether or not this was a genuine reason for appeal or a reason to deny success on the broader and more wide-ranging point which would allow many motorists to appeal on the same grounds provided the machines operate under the same illegality.

(d) I am also awaiting the outcome of the local authority's review of the operation of their machines in light of my appeal. No news as yet. Oddly the local authority are very quick to draw any failings on taxpayer's part to their attention but, when the boot's on the other foot, they're not so forthcoming. Perhaps they're taking it very seriously and investigating the matter rigorously rather than just hoping I'll forget about it.

(e) I am going to check authoritative sources on English and Scots contract law to determine the moment of contract formation which is at the heart of my argument.

(f) I take on board the view that the contract may start from the moment the car is parked but I believe the better view (certainly for my reasons) is that the contract is formed from the moment the consumer presses the button to accept the 'standing offer' given by the machine. It may even be later... you are vulnerable to a fine until you have the voucher displayed on your windscreen.

Any comments and/or suggestions most welcome.

mpython

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=435555&page=2

Have a look at this thread, particularly post #25 from a lawyer. Hopefully you'll find it useful. By the act of parking, you accept the contractual terms.

MarkyMarkD

Thanks, mpython.

I think that the central flaw in JEG's logic is the idea that there is any alternative point that the contract is formed than the obvious one, which is when you park your car.

Once you accept that, the whole of the rest of JEG's case falls down.

JEG1965

I've read the comment and the other posts in the thread. There is a vital distinction in that the scenario discussed arises in a private car park where, if I read the comments correctly, there is no pay and display.

I also noted a number of posts which appear to disagree with the lawyer's opinion; including one which notes that the issue has not been litigated upon. (A point which might indeed suggest that my argument is weak).

However I'm standing my ground on this one. A contract can arise by implication and this could be by the mere act of parking. In the lawyer's post the standing offer is the open parking space and the acceptance is the motorists occupying that available space.

However I've already cited very reputable legal authority that the contract is formed at the vending machine. I don't believe that two contracts are formed in this scenario. Consequently the occupation of a free public parking space does not - in my opinion - constitute an acceptance of any offer by the local authority. That offer arises - at the earliest - at the vending machine.

JEG1965

The Edinburgh Evening News today, Sat. 08 April, notes that the parking attendants are considering strike action against their employer (the company contracted by the council) to increase their annual salary to around from around £12 000 to nearer £15 000.

On a salary like that, well below average earnings, there is a clear inducement to increase wages through any available penalty issuing bonus. As I've noted there is increasing evidence in the public domain that such bonuses exist.

Moreover the local authority apparently earned £7 million in penalties last year. Now I suspect that an organisation earning such a chunk of revenue for the local authority might be able to pay its employees a slightly more generous wage and release them from the pressures to penalise motorists unfairly.

mpython

Dazco could you tell me where anyone has saved any money as a result of JEG1965's posts?

So far, we've had JEG's theory that there may be a way to challenge tickets, however, its not been tested in court and other MSErs do not agree with JEG's arguement. If JEG is wrong, another MSEr could easily follow his advice and lose an awful lot of money in court paying for lawyers, their fine & the other sides costs. If JEG is right, then, of course, it will save people money in the short term. In that scenario I'd expect the law to be quickly changed.

If someone overstays and gets a £30 fine, then to receive advice not to overstay (even by a minute) is good consumer advice.

Horasio

dazco wrote: »

I would like to thank you for trying to help others on this site.

As for the others who believe it is fair to charge people £30 for being 1 minute over and we should just lump it, what on earth are you doing on a consumer forum? You are pedants of the highest grade. And, I would suggest, incredibly tedious and boring.

Rules is rules innit? Prats!!!

It seems that way - we should be challenging the authorities who are fleecing us for very minor offences, not each other!