Condensed legal analysis of private parking charges

mikerobertgreen

Howdy!

I've written a condensed legal analysis of car parking charges levied by private entities, looking at the penalty argument and the position under the Unfair Terms Regulations 1999.

It should be useful for anyone wanting to know slightly more about the legal issues in this area; and for those who intend to argue a county court / small claims case yourself.

challengethefine.com/blog3.html

BenefitMaster

mikerobertgreen wrote: »

http://challengethefine.com/blog3.html

http://challengethefine.com/blog3.html

I've spoken to Mike recently - a stand-up guy trying to do the right thing.

:money:

Umkomaas

Interesting read Mike - thanks for linking it in here.

Just one point - I'm wondering if Sam should be 'wandering into town'
.

Computersaysno

One tiny thing ...they are not fines.

bazster

Computersaysno wrote: »

One tiny thing ...they are not fines.

challengethespeculativeinvoice.com would make a terrible URL.

bazster

Not exactly a ground-breaking analysis is it?

salmosalaris

Perhaps that's just the free lite version

nigelbb

bazster wrote: »

Not exactly a ground-breaking analysis is it?

Agreed. He for instance seems to accept as a given that there is a contract for parking in a free car park in the first place. Many of us believe that this is not the case as for example in a supermarket car park the driver parks with the permission of the retailer offering free parking as an incentive to shop in their store. In breaching that license by e.g. overstaying the driver becomes a trespasser.

Additionally he misunderstands the whole 'commercial justification' argument as in these cases the sum demanded is acknowledged to be a penalty but that this penalty has a commercial justification.

The_Deep

What possible commercial justfiication could there be for penalising an overstay if that time is spent in the store spending money?

There is a car park near me, Forebury Retail Park, with four large furniture sheds, a Staples, Argos, Hobbycraft , a couple of lifestyle (overpriced Chinese tat) stores, a Decathlon, etc.

http://www.simplificationcentre.org.uk/2013/03/why-didnt-they-see-the-sign/

If you are comparison shopping for furniture three hours may well not be enough. Also there is a "no return within two hours" stricture, why?

Surely neither of these is in the best interests of the shpper.

mikerobertgreen

nigelbb wrote: »

Agreed. He for instance seems to accept as a given that there is a contract for parking in a free car park in the first place. Many of us believe that this is not the case as for example in a supermarket car park the driver parks with the permission of the retailer offering free parking as an incentive to shop in their store. In breaching that license by e.g. overstaying the driver becomes a trespasser.

Additionally he misunderstands the whole 'commercial justification' argument as in these cases the sum demanded is acknowledged to be a penalty but that this penalty has a commercial justification.

I've PMd you about the assumption of contract.

I think the distinction you draw between something not being a penalty and something being a penalty that is saved by commercial justification is inappropriate for the target audience of the post. They will not care: they want to know whether it the term is enforceable or not.

So you're technically correct, and that is great for court argumentation, but somewhat pedantic for the audience of the post

I'll implement the change, as it is always good to be correct.

mikerobertgreen

bazster wrote: »

Not exactly a ground-breaking analysis is it?

Sure, but a mass-scale restitutionary claim to have all charges refunded certainly ought to be considered so!

I was going to include a bit on the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, as that has not been covered before as far as I'm aware on this forum, but that would only be of use to specific fact patterns before a court. It would not help tackle the systemic issue.

Keep in mind my objective here is the systemic issue. I want everyone refunded and the practice stopped. Everything I post to do with the site has to be seen in that light.

Not a groundbreaking post, certainly. But my wider aims should be applauded if you truly want to see a change and repercussions for the parking companies.