Lost to PE in Court Today: Had to happen sooner or later!

Guys_Dad

bod1467 wrote: »

Contractural is not a valid word, therefore your signage is meaningless.

(Contractual is what you meant)

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

And writing non-compliant in size.

Plates up to Buzby's usual his standard of advice, I see.

bazster

4consumerrights wrote: »

Yep quite happy to argue otherwise given that the option of ignoring the appeals process open with litigious parking companies such as Parking Eye will almost certainly give rise to the motorist receiving a court claim.

Now that is EXACTLY the kind of nonsense that p***es me off about this place. See Andy's post above: a 1:10 chance of getting a court claim is a long, long way from "almost certainly". Anyone could be forgiven for thinking you are making this stuff up in the interest of driving customers to your own business.

Anyone who says that I advise people to go to court is either an idiot or a liar. I don't recall doing so except perhaps in the rare totally-egregious residential parking case where the motorist is clearly the lawful occupier of the land and ought to be threatening the PPC with a claim rather than the other way around.

However, I do advocate giving people all the facts rather than browbeating them into appealing to this forum's beloved PoPLA with lurid scaremongering about court cases. Some regulars here even trot out the same bloodcurdling spiel even when it's a PPC who has never done court.

Give people the facts, let them make up their own minds. If you could be bothered to look you would find many posts where I have told people that "their" PPC never or hardly ever does court, and then I follow it up by pointing out that the PPC has 6 years to change their mind about it. Those are the facts people need to make an informed decision, not hysterical rubbish about "certainly" receiving a court claim.

GingerBob_3

Buzby wrote: »

Since most of these cases depend on signage, providing your own negates and repudiates the establishment of a contract, as the burden of risk shifts.

My VRM has a line at the bottom that states: "No contractural obligations accepted or implied". This answers any claim that being in the car park means an agreement to terms I probably was unaware of. Since my rejection has equal standing to theirs, it is up to the PPC to take issue with my modifying term and ask me to leave. Since most use ANPR, this won't happen - which is their loss.

The fact the ANPR cannot read my rejection is an irrelevance - it does not make their case any stronger. When required I respond to any PPC letters with a blow up image of the term - in some cases the begging letter chain stops, in others it runs full term but Court? Nope.

Is this for real? If so, it appears to be the ultimate solution? It's not been tested in court, but the parasites just rollover and give up when presented with it?

It reminds me of my work in the procurement department of a large company. On the back of our purchase orders was the following statement (or words to a similar effect):

"Your terms and conditions of sale do not apply. Our terms and conditions of purchase (see below) apply exclusively to this order". That's telling 'em!

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Well, given the successes we are getting at POPLA as compared to the blind following of the Beavis case by some judges, I would rather take my chances with a kangaroo than a mole-rat,

Fine, your choice. So why not give everyone else a choice instead of beating them about the head with lurid predictions of court action which, in many cases, will almost certainly never materialise?

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

And writing non-compliant in size.

Plates up to Buzby's usual his standard of advice, I see.

Reminds me of those stupid notices the FMOTL loonies put in their windscreens.

Guys_Dad

bazster wrote: »

Fine, your choice. So why not give everyone else a choice instead of beating them about the head with lurid predictions of court action which, in many cases, will almost certainly never materialise?

I agree with that. But the staunch advocates of ignoring POPLA don't spell out what the consequences could be.

Just suppose the CoA upholds the right of commercial justification of a penalty argument. Would you be totally surprised if there was a spate of late claims from current court-dormant PPCs?

I have absolutely no probem with anyone offering alternatives to POPLA/IAS as long as they spell out the possible problems of court papers etc.

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I agree with that. But the staunch advocates of ignoring POPLA don't spell out what the consequences could be.

Who are these people?

bod1467

GingerBob wrote: »

It reminds me of my work in the procurement department of a large company. On the back of our purchase orders was the following statement (or words to a similar effect):

"Your terms and conditions of sale do not apply. Our terms and conditions of purchase (see below) apply exclusively to this order". That's telling 'em!

In a B2B situation, the last set of T&Cs presented (and agreed) during the contract cycle are what applies. That's why companies paying invoices have T&Cs (e.g. for payment terms) on the back - if the other party accepts the payment then they have accepted the revised terms.

Buzby

Guys_Dad wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

And writing non-compliant in size.

Plates up to Buzby's usual his standard of advice, I see.

Coming from you, that is indeed a compliment.

Now explain to me, and anyone else interested how two signs stating different points, makes one valid and the other not? This is contract law and requires offer and acceptance. There has been none - so the landowner is within his rights to prohibit access.

Should they not do so, there can be no expectation of any acceptance, making success for them even more problematic.

Buy hey - if you want to roll over and play their gMe, you just go right on.

bod1467

As I replied earlier - your revised T&Cs can't be accepted as what you have written is not English.