PPCN don't have to reflect actual loss, they are just enforcement of contract?

nigelbb

To squash this nonsense of alleged acceptance of a contract with unfair terms just leave a notice on display in your car that you have not entered into any contract but are in fact trespassing. Then it's only the landowner who can sue you not the PPC & only for compensatory damages i.e. actual loss.

Philter

nigelbb wrote: »

To squash this nonsense of alleged acceptance of a contract with unfair terms just leave a notice on display in your car that you have not entered into any contract but are in fact trespassing. Then it's only the landowner who can sue you not the PPC & only for compensatory damages i.e. actual loss.

haha...yes

Dave_TH

Ho w would a PPC proceed if the driver is genuine dyslexic or unable to read long signage?

bizzles

So where do Parking Control Management ltd sit in the litigation stakes? I understand they have outstanding CCJs against them - do they do court? What about the other companies who have a dodgy track record?

Guys_Dad

nigelbb wrote: »

To squash this nonsense of alleged acceptance of a contract with unfair terms just leave a notice on display in your car that you have not entered into any contract but are in fact trespassing. Then it's only the landowner who can sue you not the PPC & only for compensatory damages i.e. actual loss.

I like that, Nigel. It may have been not 100% serious, but there was a legal wizz on here called polyplastic who may have been able to answer it, but regrettably missing. You may be on to something here. Wording might need tweaking to avoid frying pan/fire situation, but yes. Big enough writing, of course, for it to show up when you photograph car in position with PPN attached.

Could you float it on pepipoo and see if one of their legal guys could answer it? :beer:

nigelbb

I have floated the argument over on PePiPoo but haven't had any of the big guns pick up on it yet.

I wasn't 100% serious when I first thought of it but as I develop the argument I think that it has some force.

You can't be deemed to have accepted a contract just by virtue of reading it. Perhaps a sign indicating that you have not accepted the contract offered is sufficient? Then the inference is that if you haven't accepted the offer then you are trespassing which may be better than actually admitting to trespass. It may be that a notice would need to be specific for each time you park denying your acceptance of any contract for parking with a specific company rather than a blanket statement. It could be that your sign suggest that because of the one-sided nature of the proposed contract with unwarranted penalties that you consider it contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

There is a lot to discuss here & I am only a barrack-room lawyer:)