BPA to drop GPEOL Requirement?

megamicky

"My position on GPEOL is that if a motorist is unhappy with the Terms & Conditions of any parking location including any sum for breach of the ‘parking contract’, they should deal with it at the point of parking, namely by locating their car somewhere else. The amount of the parking charge should not be something that they find unreasonable after they have breached the specified Terms & Conditions and which they seek to use as a means of getting off."

If I were the CEO of a shop, located in a retail park, where the Ppc "managing" the car park were encouraging MY customers to "locate their car somewhere else" before even shopping, I'd be very annoyed. As others have said, this perfectly sums up the mindset of the parking companies, although with said mindset perhaps they should be careful what they wish for.

The_Deep

My position on GPEOL is that if a motorist is unhappy with the Terms & Conditions of any parking ... contract’, they should deal with it at the point of parking, namely by locating their car somewhere else.

What that means is, if you do not like Lidl's car park terms and conditions, go and shop at Aldi.

trisontana

I was just about to say the same thing about retailers and the "don't park there" phrase.

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

My position on GPEOL is that if a motorist is unhappy with the Terms & Conditions of any parking ... contract’, they should deal with it at the point of parking, namely by locating their car somewhere else.

What that means is, if you do not like Lidl's car park terms and conditions, go and shop at Aldi.

Frying pan and fire ......

Aaron_Aadvark

The_Deep wrote: »

My position on GPEOL is that if a motorist is unhappy with the Terms & Conditions of any parking ... contract’, they should deal with it at the point of parking, namely by locating their car somewhere else.

What that means is, if you do not like Lidl's car park terms and conditions, go and shop at Aldi.

What about hospitals. I don't like the parking terms at my local hospital. Should I cancel my urgent appointments to find a hospital with terms and conditions I like which also has availability for the treatment I require within the treatment timescale?

trisontana

It's like the cleaning contractor for a supermarket saying "if you don't like the toilet paper we provide in the store toilets, go and shop elsewhere". Steve Clark is forgetting that PPCs are just a peripheral part of the "service" provided by the supermarket and nothing more.

The_Deep

Indeed, the dog's tail, the organ grinder's monkey, the oily rag.

Half_way

The BPA can put what it likes into its code of practice, it matters not one bit what the BPA COP says in regards to GPEOL
A private company or individual can only claim back costs that are equal to any losses caused by a car /person trespassing in their land anything else is an unlawful penalty and if its a contractual term then is it genuine, and does it fall foul of the unfar terms?

According to sources on here and PPs blog, Steve clark has said that
"My position on GPEOL is that if a motorist is unhappy with the Terms & Conditions of any parking location including any sum for breach of the ‘parking contract’, they should deal with it at the point of parking, namely by locating their car somewhere else"

Well my position is that the BPA are nothing

more than a private members club whose sole purpose is to fleece and rip off the motorist/public. The BPA is not a regulatory body, it has no statutory powers and neither do its members who are private parking companies.

The_Slithy_Tove

Half_way wrote: »

...including any sum for breach of the ‘parking contract’...

The BPA have always deliberately failed to understand the legal concepts around breach of contract and GPEOL, so this stance is no different from how it's always been with them. They think you can charge an arbitrary sum for a breach of contract. The law (notwithstanding Maloney's bizarre pronouncement, currently under appeal, and therefore no precident at all) says otherwise.