ParkingEye-v-Beavis Appeal: Date Set

salmosalaris

That's an unrelated issue . I said why is it necessary to be able to pay at the time of parking in response to an earlier post .

nigelbb

TDA wrote: »

Nigelbb you are assuming we are still discussing a breach model. We are talking about the ppcs having changed their signs to comply with a contractual charge model. The doctrine of penalties only applies to breach

Whether talking about a penalty masquerading as damages for breach of contract or a penalty masquerading as an agreed charge doesn't matter. Neither case would be a typical day-to-day transaction as normal day-to-day transaction don't try & trip up the consumer with extravagant penalties.

menantoll

salmosalaris wrote: »

That's an unrelated issue . I said why is it necessary to be able to pay at the time of parking in response to an earlier post .

My reason for method of payment was against the day to day transactions argument. I can't think of any day to day consumer transactions that are invoiced.

nigelbb

salmosalaris wrote: »

That's an unrelated issue . I said why is it necessary to be able to pay at the time of parking in response to an earlier post .

It certainly couldn't be classed as a normal day-to-day transaction if there wasn't the ability to pay at the time of parking.

Personally I think it's a distraction to think the regulations have anything in them to enable to consumer to repudiate the contract (if one exists which it does not in a free car park). However the disguised penalties mean that such a parking contract is already a nullity & unenforceable under existing consumer law like the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Castle

salmosalaris wrote: »

Why is it necessary to have the ability to pay at the time other than to strengthen the argument that it is a disguised penalty ?
Why wouldn't this suffice ?

"If you wish to stay longer than 2 hours in any 24 hr period you will be issued with an invoice to the address of the registered keeper of the vehicle detailing payment options . The charge for this will be £100 or £60 if you decide to pay within 28 days of the invoice . Payment is accepted by cash , cheque , credit/debit card or BACS

The contract is with the Driver not the Registered Keeper so the invoice has to be made out to the driver.
Under POFA they would have to obtain details of the RK from DVLA within 14 days; so will need reasonable cause. I think requesting names simply to send out parking invoices may not be "reasonable" as no breach has happened.

salmosalaris

Castle wrote: »

The contract is with the Driver not the Registered Keeper so the invoice has to be made out to the driver.
Under POFA they would have to obtain details of the RK from DVLA within 14 days; so will need reasonable cause. I think requesting names simply to send out parking invoices may not be "reasonable" as no breach has happened.

Every contractual sum is considered reasonable cause presently

DCodd

salmosalaris wrote: »

Every contractual sum is considered reasonable cause presently

I think what Castle is saying is that they would not have reasonable cause to get the RK's details from the DVLA as the contract was with the driver and not the Registered Keeper.

salmosalaris

DCodd wrote: »

I think what Castle is saying is that they would not have reasonable cause to get the RK's details from the DVLA as the contract was with the driver and not the Registered Keeper.

Isn't that what they do though already ??

Marktheshark

salmosalaris wrote: »

Isn't that what they do though already ??

The POFA was flawed in that is makes a keeper responsible for a contract negotiated by a driver and the keeper has never even read the contract let alone agreed it.
Bit like saying if you lend someone your lawn mower and they take a contract on to pay someone for cutting the grass instead with your mower, the person lending the mower is responsible for the contract as it was his mower.
That was seriously flawed and has to be illegal in many ways.

salmosalaris

nigelbb wrote: »

It certainly couldn't be classed as a normal day-to-day transaction if there wasn't the ability to pay at the time of parking.

Personally I think it's a distraction to think the regulations have anything in them to enable to consumer to repudiate the contract (if one exists which it does not in a free car park). However the disguised penalties mean that such a parking contract is already a nullity & unenforceable under existing consumer law like the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Ok , in addition

" if you wish to pay at the time of parking please send payment by post to crappark , Letsby Avenue , Aberdeen , phone 0999 999 or go online at https://www.crappark.com/paymentattimeofparking
The reply ?