Parked in Staff Bay in error

Mistral001

So it is fradulant but not illegal. The car park owners know about it but when they take the companies to court they find that they cannot get out of their contracts which are contracts for basically defrauding people.

Half_way

Mistral001 wrote: »

So it is fradulant but not illegal. The car park owners know about it but when they take the companies to court they find that they cannot get out of their contracts which are contracts for basically defrauding people.

That almost sums it up, if I was a major retailer lumbered with a PPC, or in a situation where a PPc was opperating on my car park I would go down the route of non co-operation, signage under the PPC suigns stating that payment to the parking company is entirly voluntary, if you do not wish to pay the parking charge notice then you can ignore all correspondance from the parking company.

backed up with some leflets at the custmer service desk, and pepipoo flyers

Mistral001

This whole subject seems to be littered with conspiracy theories etc. so it looks like I continue to comment at my own risk.

I think there are a lot of urban myths around penalties and fines in general. In fact in contracts they do cannot exist. Yes you hear people talking about tem all the time. For example in building contracts some people mention "penalty clauses" for late completion. In fact they are actually liquidated damages clauses where the contractor pays damages to the client for the costs the client has suffered as a result of overruns. The client cannot arrive at an arbitrary figure that is above this as that would be deemed a penalty and thus unreasonable.

Well it looks like here that the car park owners and/or the companies issuing the notices/invoices/ etc have been able to justify this as a cost for damages or at least nobody has been able prove that it is not a cost.

ManxRed

There's been quite a few cases where the judge deemed that these charges WERE penalties. OBS v Thirlow and VCS v Ibbotsen spring immediately to mind.

ILW

Would the same rules apply to a cinema?
If I can sneak in and watch the film without paying, would the owners have no legal way of enforcing the entry fee?

ManxRed

Anyone can pursue the proper fees via small claims if necessary. We're talking about 'penalties' not the actual fees for the service.

jacobcrespo

Oh yes it could be taken to court

Fergie76

ILW wrote: »

Would the same rules apply to a cinema?
If I can sneak in and watch the film without paying, would the owners have no legal way of enforcing the entry fee?

It's like when you go for a meal, if you feel it's not worth the money as long as you leave your name and address, you don't have to pay or just pay what you feel it was worth and if the restaurant wants the rest they will have to take you to small claims court.

Mistral001

ManxRed wrote: »

There's been quite a few cases where the judge deemed that these charges WERE penalties. OBS v Thirlow and VCS v Ibbotsen spring immediately to mind.

OBSERVICES v THURLOW

Now we are talking. The judge found that "the £100 is not a genuine pre estimate of loss" also he said

“On the basis that the effect of the notice is effectively to seek to impose a penalty clause. It is unenforceable. No loss or damage is asserted or proved. In these circumstances the claimant has no claim and the appeal is allowed”

Relevant parts:

"Pre-estimate of loss". loss to carpark caused as a result of parking etc in in wrong places worked out and displayed in the terms and conditions.

"Penalty clause" not enforceable in contracts (it is and urban myth that they can). If there is no loss to the car park then it is a penalty clause and not enforceable.

However that is not to say that there is never a loss to the car park as a result of people parking in the wrong place and that this loss cannot be pre-estimated in terms of £'s and put into the terms and conditions.

Coupon-mad

Mistral001 wrote: »

However that is not to say that there is never a loss to the car park as a result of people parking in the wrong place and that this loss cannot be pre-estimated in terms of £'s and put into the terms and conditions.

Yep we know - but in fact there's no loss to the PPC who are just an on site agent. A loss could only be claimed re damages for the tort of trespass anyway - and that could only be claimed by the owner/legal occupier in possession. Not by a PPC with limited access rights to perform their obligations under the contract with the owner/occupier.

This has been discussed on here a lot and you should read VCS -v- HMRC (which was actually a tax case but in the Upper Chamber - higher Court than small claims). It talks about the PPC not having rights of occupation/possession so they could not even offer parking spaces as consideration as the basis for any alleged contract, let alone have made a loss and try to allege trespass. It found that VCS could NOT make a contract with a motorist - even their signs don't help them if they do not have possessory rights of occupation.

And VCS -v- Ibbotson makes an hilarious read!