New PCM Contractual Charge Signs

AoD

So after helping a few dozen neighbours easily beat PCM at POPLA on no GPEOL and no grace period, we are now facing their all-new, all-improved IPC "contractual charge" signs and "tickets"!

This was for a "ticket" issued this week to a visitor of a neighbour for parking in a visitor bay without a visitor scratch card permit. Visitor scratch cards are supplied free to residents but only a limited quantity are supplied each month (to stop residents using visitor bays each day!).

Whilst we wait for the NtK to arrive, is there anything on the sign or "ticket" that would help a future appeal to the IPC / IAS? It would be good to get some discussions points at this stage so I can highlight them on our local forum.

I'm also interested in views if someone is "ticketed" completely outside of any marked bay, say on a pavement (this is all unadopted land). Clearly that is not "permitted" according to the sign, so doesn't the contractual charge bit completely fall down in those circumstances?

http://i61.tinypic.com/1z58002.jpg

http://i57.tinypic.com/ab5jb9.jpg

Thanks!

salmosalaris

There can be no valid contract , how can there be a genuine offer of something you are not permitted to do ? It's nonsense .
Of course it is an attempt to avoid the use of the words breach , terms and conditions and hence the necessity for a charge to be a gpeol.
Think pigs and lipstick. The charge is clearly liquidated damages for a reach of a purported contract thinly and poorly disguised as a contractual sum as consideration for the provision of parking . It therefore must represent a genuine pre estimate of loss .

You may wish to ask the PPC , if they feel their charge is a contractual sum for the provision of parking for a valid Vat invoice.

ColliesCarer

I would say they have failed - this is a disguised breach
The ticket clearly says - "Photographic evidence relating to this breach"

The wording on the sign says
"By parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above ...."
is actually therefore saying
"By parking or remaining at this site 'in breach' of the above...."

At the top it says "Parking is Permitted for:" and then states the what is permitted, therefore everything else is not permitted.

There can be no contract to do something that is not permitted
A contractually agreed sum is a fee specified within the terms of a contract i.e. the price to be paid for x amount of parking.

PCM are attempting to say the charge is a contractually agreed sum but they fail - it isn't.
In order for there to be a contract there must be an offer, acceptance and an exchange of ‘consideration’ between the parties (i.e. each party must receive something of value from the other). If only one party receives the ‘consideration’ there can be no contract.

So it can’t be a contractually agreed fee if what you are being asked to pay for is something that is NOT allowed because, clearly that’s a nonsense and, it fails to establish the essential requirements of a contract because there is no exchange of consideration when you are being asked to pay but get nothing in return.

Because permission to park can not be granted when parking isn't allowed the parking charge cannot be a contractual price. Instead, the charge is still a sum sought as damages, and therefore must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of the loss which may be caused by the parking breach.

Coupon-mad

You could point out unfair terms = disguised penalty:

In the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:-

''5.(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.''

Also the OFT ‘Unfair Contract Terms Guidance’:
Group 18(a): Allowing the supplier to impose unfair financial burdens
‘'18.1.3 ...transparency is not necessarily enough on its own to make a term fair. Fairness requires that the substance of contract terms, not just their form and the way they are used, shows due regard for the legitimate interests of consumers. Therefore a term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.’’