Parked in Staff Bay in error

Half_way

Dont forget to factor in the cost of the PA uniform when talking about losses ( Ibotson vs VCS)

Coupon-mad

Half_way wrote: »

Dont forget to factor in the cost of the PA uniform when talking about losses ( Ibotson vs VCS)

Of course, and his shoe leather...

ILW

Fergie76 wrote: »

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.

Thats what confuses me, keep getting told that the parking companies have no legal redress and the invoice is purely voluntary. Why is that any different to going to the cinema or climbing over the fence into an event on private land?

Sir_Roger_deLodger

ILW wrote: »

Thats what confuses me, keep getting told that the parking companies have no legal redress and the invoice is purely voluntary. Why is that any different to going to the cinema or climbing over the fence into an event on private land?

If you sneaked into a cinema the cinema owner could sue you for their losses, ie the entry fee.

If you park without paying the landowner could sue you for their losses, ie the parking fee.

What neither can do is impose a penalty.

Mistral001

The fact that there are in fact three parties involved here is perhaps confusing the issue. There can be only two parties to a contract.

Thus there seems to be in fact two contracts.

1. A contract between the firm issuing the tickets and the carpark owner, which will presumeably be confidential between themselves.

2. A contract between the car park user and presumably the car park owner. This is not confidential and will be displayed somewhere for the user of the car park to read.

The second contract seems to be what we are discussing here and that will be the one the judge will have to make a judgement on when hearing a case where someone refuses to pay.

Does anybody know of a case where an owner has taken a car park ticket issuing firm to court for breach of their contract. I am sure there have been a few?

ILW

Sir_Roger_deLodger wrote: »

If you sneaked into a cinema the cinema owner could sue you for their losses, ie the entry fee.

If you park without paying the landowner could sue you for their losses, ie the parking fee.

What neither can do is impose a penalty.

So if the penalty is described as a fee it would be enforceable?
For example if the tariff said "To park in a bay 1 hour £2.00, 2 hours £100.00" why would that be a problem for the parking company to pursue?

trisontana

ILW wrote: »

So if the penalty is described as a fee it would be enforceable?
For example if the tariff said "To park in a bay 1 hour £2.00, 2 hours £100.00" why would that be a problem for the parking company to pursue?

Only if there is a machine or other mechanism on site that allows you to pay that £100 up front or when you leave. That's how a lot of pay-on-exit machines work in such places as airport car parks. Nobody has any problems with that.

Stroma

ILW wrote: »

So if the penalty is described as a fee it would be enforceable?
For example if the tariff said "To park in a bay 1 hour £2.00, 2 hours £100.00" why would that be a problem for the parking company to pursue?

That's what combined parking try and do I believe, they still don't on the most part do court, probably as stated there is no facility to pay the £100, and the contract they put up is still not enforceable unless they do court and win.

Mistral001

ILW wrote: »

So if the penalty is described as a fee it would be enforceable?
For example if the tariff said "To park in a bay 1 hour £2.00, 2 hours £100.00" why would that be a problem for the parking company to pursue?

It is not a matter of wording. Even if it is described as a fee or a charge etc if it does not represent the amount lost by the owner of the car park it is seen as a penalty. You cannot have a penalty in a contract. But a charge for losses is valid if it can be shown to be a loss.

ILW

Mistral001 wrote: »

It is not a matter of wording. Even if it is described as a fee or a charge etc if it does not represent the amount lost by the owner of the car park it is seen as a penalty. You cannot have a penalty in a contract. But a charge for losses is valid if it can be shown to be a loss.

Lost me again, if someone quotes a price for a service and a user uses that service willingly (such as £100 for 2 hours parking), why has the cost to the supplier have to taken into account? Seems to go against any form of trade I have known.