Don't pay unfair private parking tickets - a con?

Nodding_Donkey

anotheruser wrote: »

Yes, but if the supermarket owns the land....

This is the point people seem to gloss over every time, in most threads.
If the company owns the land and says there is a £60 charge for anything over 2 hours, why is that not enforceable?

I deciphered the Newbies thread full of CAPITAL LETTERS, ITALIC AND BOLD and different sizes of text all over the place, but the majority of it is fighting an "invoice" not why they can't issue the invoice if they own the land?.

As I said, the signs in the car park I am referring to are clear, visible and not un-fair in their time limit.
I'd prefer someone who isn't "THEY ARE ALL EVIL" to reply rather than people simply stating "read the newbie thread".

Are you saying that unless the supermarket can prove it has lost out, they can't issue me with a fine/invoice/whatever else you want to be pedantic about?
Surely the supermarket has lost out because I have taken the space of a potential customer?

---

Another example is the place I work at.
There is a time limit of 20 mins, it's on private land, signs are clear and not un-fair terms, we issue tickets, people pay.
The terms of parking in that area are that you don't spend longer than 20 mins there. If someone spends an hour, why should they not pay?

You are assuming the supermarket owns the land, if they do and someone overstays of course they have grounds for compensation. Compensation that puts them back in the same position they were in before the trespass occurred. If you do a bit of research on this forum, and elsewhere, you'll find loads of discussion on the true cost of an overstay.

Even the British Parking Association Ltd have admitted that the charges are designed as a punishment not compensation.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Blog/monday-musing-victory-what-victory-/646

Do you want to send me a cheque, or bank transfer?

spikyone

anotheruser wrote: »

Yes, but if the supermarket owns the land....

This is the point people seem to gloss over every time, in most threads.
If the company owns the land and says there is a £60 charge for anything over 2 hours, why is that not enforceable?

I deciphered the Newbies thread full of CAPITAL LETTERS, ITALIC AND BOLD and different sizes of text all over the place, but the majority of it is fighting an "invoice" not why they can't issue the invoice if they own the land?.

As I said, the signs in the car park I am referring to are clear, visible and not un-fair in their time limit.
I'd prefer someone who isn't "THEY ARE ALL EVIL" to reply rather than people simply stating "read the newbie thread".

Are you saying that unless the supermarket can prove it has lost out, they can't issue me with a fine/invoice/whatever else you want to be pedantic about?
Surely the supermarket has lost out because I have taken the space of a potential customer?

---

Another example is the place I work at.
There is a time limit of 20 mins, it's on private land, signs are clear and not un-fair terms, we issue tickets, people pay.
The terms of parking in that area are that you don't spend longer than 20 mins there. If someone spends an hour, why should they not pay?

1. It's not the supermarket issuing invoices, it's a third party company with no interest in the land, who have suffered no loss, and who - in many cases - only make money through their charges for 'misuse' (and I use that word loosely) of the car park

2. The supermarket only loses money through customers turning away if the car park is completely full. Firstly, have you ever seen that happen? Secondly, how do you know the customer that couldn't park didn't just park in a nearby street and shop there anyway? Thirdly, in many town centre supermarkets such as Aldi, they must offer parking for non-customers as a condition of their planning permission. In which case how do you prove the driver who turned away would've spent money in store.

3. Avoiding calling it a fine isn't pedantic. If it's issued by a private company, IT ISN'T A FINE.


It's fairly simple. PPCs operate a "breach of terms and conditions" business model, in which case they are only entitled to claim their losses as per ND's post. Alternatively, they operate a "contractual charge" business model, where the driver supposedly agrees to pay a sum for the privilege of parking in a 'non-standard' way. It is highly dubious that a contract actually exists in this case, because the "offer" effectively entails allowing the driver to park as they please, whether that is across a fire escape, blocking the entry/exit, or in a disabled bay - you can see this is not a genuine offer, as no right-minded company would make such an offer.

The_Deep

If the company owns the land and says there is a £60 charge for anything over 2 hours, why is that not enforceable?

It probably is, if the supermarket and the parker sit down at a table with their lawyers and each sign the contract. There can be no doubt then that the parker is fully aware of what they are signing up to, but even then UTCCCR may still apply.

But supermarkets do not do that, they farm the job out to PPCs who make up daft T&Cs, often in nonsensical English, (I parked yesterday in a Homebase car park run by a PPC where, according to the sign, the only people permitted to park were BB holders). If that is what Homebase wanted, they would quickly go bust.

PPCs seek to rely on The Law of Contract, but it is an old law, and is very precise, and PPCs try to interpret in a way which it is not intended.

It all boils down to what the law allows, not what you think it should. A PPC is perfectly entitled to seek damages if a parker overstays for even a few minutes, but only for that amount which his trespass has cost them, which in a free car park, is nothing

nobbysn*ts

The_Deep wrote: »

<i>.............. but only for that amount which his trespass has cost them, which in a free car park, is nothing

And on your car park, nothing, certainly not £10, which was my post.

The_Deep

And on your car park, nothing, certainly not £10, which was my post.

Did you not bother to read my post nobby?

If someone parks in my space it could cost me about a fiver to get the RK information from DVLA, more for parking in the multi-storey, court fees, attendance at court, travel, writing and posting letters, and perhaps damages for insult.

None of this enriches me, it just puts in the position which I was before the trespass took place

nobbysn*ts

The_Deep wrote: »

And on your car park, nothing, certainly not £10, which was my post.

Did you not bother to read my post nobby?

If someone parks in my space it could cost me about a fiver to get the RK information from DVLA, more for parking in the multi-storey, court fees, attendance at court, travel, writing and posting letters, and perhaps damages for insult.

None of this enriches me, it just puts in the position which I was before the trespass took place

The car will be gone before you need to do this, so mitigate your losses, and let it go. More so if it's a different car every day. Exactly the same as a ticket for an overstay. Chasing money after the event.

The_Deep

The car will be gone before you need to do this, so mitigate your losses, and let it go. More so if it's a different car every day. Exactly the same as a ticket for an overstay. Chasing money after the event.

And how do I mitigate my losses? Park a mile away in a cheaper car park, try to negotiate a discount with DVLA?

I would not be chasing chasing money, I would be trying to extract a penalty from a trespasser on my land. This, AFAIAA, is not only perfectly legal, but also, perfectly ethical.

nobbysn*ts

'I would be trying to extract a penalty from a trespasser on my land.' My point exactly. You can't penalise people. Only the courts can do that.

The_Deep

At last we agree on something, even if it is only the bleedin obvious.