Parked in Staff Bay in error

trisontana

A PPC which states on its signs "if you stay more than one hour you agree to pay £100" without providing a means to pay would have to prove to a judge that it's a proper parking fee and not a deterrent. If the latter, then that £100 would be deemed a penalty.

Going back to the airport car park comparison. Those places have signs which say "if you stay more than one hour then the parking fee is £10 a day, payable on exit. Note the underlining. PPCs don't state how much parking time you get for that £100. Do that mean that once you have paid that fee you can park on that land forever? If not, how long for?

ILW

trisontana wrote: »

A PPC which states on its signs "if you stay more than one hour you agree to pay £100" without providing a means to pay would have to prove to a judge that it's a proper parking fee and not a deterrent. If the latter, then that £100 would be deemed a penalty.

Going back to the airport car park comparison. Those places have signs which say "if you stay more than one hour then the parking fee is £10 a day, payable on exit. Note the underlining. PPCs don't state how much parking time you get for that £100. Do that mean that once you have paid that fee you can park on that land forever? If not, how long for?

So could the PPCs make their charges enforceable by adding the words "per day" and providing immediate payment facilities (such as telepayment)?

trisontana

ILW wrote: »

So could the PPCs make their charges enforceable by adding the words "per day" and providing immediate payment facilities (such as telepayment)?

Yes, then they turn it into a "proper" P&D car park. But that's not the intention of most PPC's They are using that £100 payment to stop people parking there in the first place. So a deterrent and so a penalty.

Also, most PPC's try to charge that £100 for breaking other "rules", such as having a wheel touching a line, or parking in the "wrong" sort of bay. Then it's definitely a penalty and not a parking fee.

tom9980

by god i think slowly even ILW is "getting it"

dont think anybody has brought up this https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4317481

Another NCP case at a station car park where the guy was given 30 tickets or so and was towed and he won in court. Worth pointing out that i dont think NCP will be going to court for just one ticket.

ManxRed

There's another aspect to this:

If the car park is free (normally) and the PPC suddenly says, you can park here for more than X hours if you pay us £100, then the car park is no longer free.

The user of the car park - arguably the PPC, not the retailer - would become liable to pay business rates for the car park based on the income.

A massive can of worms that some posters on PePiPoo are keen to open, and are looking into now. I'm sure the PPCs will be thrilled if this turns out to be the case.

Stroma

The inland revenue and local authorities would be ecstatic on an extra revenue stream so I hope the guys over on pepipoo figure it out too they can be awarded for doing their civic duties then lol

Mistral001

ILW wrote: »

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.

I am referring to the case in this thread. There was a charge for the service ie. providing a car parking space for a certain amount of time. I am not talking about that. But there was presumeably a clause in the terms and condition of the use of the car park which states that a £35 charge is made for anyone parking in staff bays who are not staff members. It is this charge that I am talking about. The so-called "penalty" This will be on top of their parking charge for using the car park. It will not be referred to as a "penalty" in the terms and conditions but a charge or some other term. Penalty clauses in contracts are urban myths.

However, if the owner of the car park estimates that he will suffer a loss as the result of someone parking in that bay can put that loss in as part of a terms and conditions of the contract. I am not a car park owner or an expert in car park management but it would not take long for people who are experts in these matters to work out such costs based on disruption to staff members who lose their their parking space temporarily etc, admin, etc. If the charge cannot be justified as a genuine loss then it is deemed a penalty that the owner is imposing which is not valid in a contract.

It is a bit to do with wording I must admit. The general public believe in correctly that contracts can contain charges which have no other purpose but to penalise one party to the contract.

Going back to the example of a building contract. A client who is getting a building buit can put a clause for damages as a result of overrun of the contract. But if the cost of the overrun to the cleint is actually say £1000 a week in terms of rent etc he cannot put a cost of say £5000 a week just to make the builder work a bit harder to avoid an overrun. £4000 of that figure will be seen as a pure penalty and thus not valid.

Coupon-mad

ILW wrote: »

So could the PPCs make their charges enforceable by adding the words "per day" and providing immediate payment facilities (such as telepayment)?

Nope because they still don't have the necessary rights of occupation/possession.

As per VCS -v- HMRC there is no contract made between a third party PPC agent (with no possessory title or possessory rights of occupation) and a driver, 'and their signs don't help them' the Upper Chamber judges said.

The reason some PPCs have won the odd case in Small Claims before that judgment (2012) is purely because the ownership thing was not used as a defence before. Always is now when we see the odd case on pepipoo forums. And the PPCs have folded before Court.

Coupon-mad

Mistral001 wrote: »

Going back to the example of a building contract. A client who is getting a building built can put a clause for damages as a result of overrun of the contract. But if the cost of the overrun to the client is actually say £1000 a week in terms of rent etc he cannot put a cost of say £5000 a week just to make the builder work a bit harder to avoid an overrun. £4000 of that figure will be seen as a pure penalty and thus not valid.

And in that example, only the person who owns the house/contracted with the builder can claim that 'loss'. Not his live-in nanny or any other third party who happens to be around at the address - even if live-in nanny puts signs up and prints off an invoice!

spacey2012

If the parking charge is the rate you agree to pay to park.
Where do you pay it ?