Parking Question - Contractual Charge vs fine for overstay etc???

Richard_T_

Daft question time, but one thats been bugging me since i first clapped eyes on this sub forum...

if a car park sign says something like:

Contractual Agreement:
(list of terms and conditions)
If you break any of the above terms you are contractually agreeing to pay a parking charge of £100
( and so on)

Does this make it enforceable under contract law/legislation, as opposed to the plain old Parking charge will be levied??

nigelbb

Richard_T_ wrote: »

Daft question time, but one thats been bugging me since i first clapped eyes on this sub forum...

if a car park sign says something like:

Contractual Agreement:
(list of terms and conditions)
If you break any of the above terms you are contractually agreeing to pay a parking charge of £100
( and so on)

Does this make it enforceable under contract law/legislation, as opposed to the plain old Parking charge will be levied??

With acknowledgements to Gan on PPP for this definition:-

If you think £100 is quite expensive but worth it to stay a bit longer, it's an agreed charge

If you think £100 is outrageous but your only option, it's an unfair contract that they can't enforce in court

If you think that you'd better leave before two hours is up, it's a penalty charge.

Coupon-mad

Richard_T_ wrote: »

Daft question time, but one thats been bugging me since i first clapped eyes on this sub forum...

if a car park sign says something like:

Contractual Agreement:
(list of terms and conditions)
If you break any of the above terms you are contractually agreeing to pay a parking charge of £100
( and so on)

Does this make it enforceable under contract law/legislation, as opposed to the plain old Parking charge will be levied??

Nope, because the bit in bold makes it a 'breach of contract' allegation - which can only result in money being claimed if there has been damage or loss.

If you get rid of the bit in bold and write a sign as a clear agreement to pay £100 to park, then maybe it could be construed as an agreed amount. But then who would agree to that and what Supermarket would want that on their signs, driving away business?! And how is it not a penalty under the UTCCR 1999? There are still arguments against it because a contract can still be unfair (and therefore, unenforceable).

stone7

Here's another question that has puzzled me for some time.

The PPC charges, we are told, are to cover their losses. They, however, have an obligation to mitigate any losses.

Surely, the most effective way to reduce any losses the PPC has incurred is to do nothing, resulting in a loss of zero. The very fact that they pursue drivers, thus incurring costs, flies in the face of mitigating any losses.

nigelbb

Their whole claim for losses is !!!! about face as their business model depends on motorists committing parking 'crimes' & their parking management being ineffective. If their ANPR cameras & signs did the job then nobody would infringe their arbitrary rules & their income would be zero.

Custard_Pie

stone7 wrote: »

Here's another question that has puzzled me for some time.

The PPC charges, we are told, are to cover their losses. They, however, have an obligation to mitigate any losses.

Surely, the most effective way to reduce any losses the PPC has incurred is to do nothing, resulting in a loss of zero. The very fact that they pursue drivers, thus incurring costs, flies in the face of mitigating any losses.

They are claiming losses under the civil tort of trespass.
This would be for example:

1) Occupying a parking space and not spending money in a store on the same land, thus denying another customer the space and causing loss.
2) Causing damage to the landowners property by trespassing on the land, say by damaging the road or knocking over a road sign.

These are examples of genuine loss.

What PPC are claiming for are operating costs. Operating costs will be the same regardless of whether they issue a charge, apart from say a few letters and postage. They will still be paying for someone to patrol a car park, someone to sit in an office, etc.

So, if they use this as a claim and cannot prove genuine pre-estimate of loss, then it becomes a penalty.

PPC don't like the word penalty, as they have to charge VAT. If they charge VAT then they have to issue an official invoice and pay HMRC VAT.

Of course, they don't pay HMRC VAT on the money they take from parking and they prefer to design and word their invoices as if they are genuine parking tickets as issued by The Police and Councils as more people pay up that way.

Custard_Pie

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Nope, because the bit in bold makes it a 'breach of contract' allegation - which can only result in money being claimed if there has been damage or loss.

If you get rid of the bit in bold and write a sign as a clear agreement to pay £100 to park, then maybe it could be construed as an agreed amount. But then who would agree to that and what Supermarket would want that on their signs, driving away business?! And how is it not a penalty under the UTCCR 1999? There are still arguments against it because a contract can still be unfair (and therefore, unenforceable).

I disagree. It's an invitation to treat that you agree to park for £100 by viewing this terms and conditions. If you view the T&C and then park you have accepted the contract and agreed to pay £100. What this isn't though is absolute liability. Absolute liability is agreeing to something just by being there.

Compare this to walking in a supermarket. You walk past hundreds of items before stopping and selecting one on a shelf. You look at the item and see the price on the product or shelf. This is the ITT. The contract is only completed when you pay the money at the till and the item becomes yours.

Just be walking into the store, you don't become liable to purchase every item in there. PPC are trying to claim that in their store there is only one item and by walking in the door you have agreed to purchase the product. They claim the grace period, where you have the ability to walk out of the store again, but what if you don't see the item?

That is the crux of signage as it makes for the meeting of minds to form a contract.

nigelbb

Custard_Pie wrote: »

PPC don't like the word penalty, as they have to charge VAT. If they charge VAT then they have to issue an official invoice and pay HMRC VAT.

Of course, they don't pay HMRC VAT on the money they take from parking and they prefer to design and word their invoices as if they are genuine parking tickets as issued by The Police and Councils as more people pay up that way.

It's quite the opposite in fact. A parking 'fine' is outside the scope of VAT whereas a fee for parking is liable to VAT at standard rate e.g. a regular car park charging so much per hour for parking.

They don't use the word 'penalty' because they aren't penalties & to use such words is a misrepresentation of authority & contrary to the BPA Ltd CoP but more importantly illegal under CPUTR 2008 & other legislation.