Contractual payment charge

salmosalaris

For this to have any chance of working you have to nail the following facts :
a. The contract is distance not on-premises
b. An express request was not
made That is the vulnerability IMO , however from the UK guidance the lack of express request enabling cancellation rights on contracts already completed is interestingly absent unlike the EU directive .
c. It is not a day to day transaction
d. It does not fall into the automated process criterion ( I'd suggest phone to pay services certainly would and so would payment machines at least )

Or alternatively convince the court that a sign does not a contract make , although that argument looks increasingly difficult .

spikyone

Coupon-mad wrote: »

But I already covered this in the thread I started at the time when I first changed the newbies thread, I read the Regs then, thoroughly, and explained my reasoning - search the forum for Cancellation Regulations and see what I said then. This has all already been discussed although not many people were interested or replied.

Perhaps I missed the original discussion; that's no reason to stifle the debate now though.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It is not a day-to-day transaction.

No it is not. Read the definition of a day-today transaction in the Regs - it's things like buying a newspaper or a cookie. Already covered that at the time.

It is pure opinion that parking your car when you go into a shop to buy a cookie or newspaper is not day-to-day. It is not defined in the UK regs (having text-searched for "day-to-day" there is only one reference, where day-to-day transactions are excluded). Can you please post links to support your view?
A quick Google search brings up this link http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/day-to-day%20business%20transactions
"Day-to-day things or activities exist or happen every day as part of ordinary life".


In modern society, the act of parking your car is very much a part of ordinary life for a significant majority of the population.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Because different Countries have different problems and the EU has tried to issue a one-stop 'umbrella Consumer Rights Directive' to address any such surprise contracts.

Neither the EU Directive nor its guidance mention surprise contracts anywhere. Again, you are pulling this from the section of your UK government document (linked a little further on) that relates to CPUTR, not the section that relates to Consumer Contracts. You haven't even addressed the shortcomings of your "renting a parking space" argument, which would obviously (IMO) relate to the sort of services shown here http://www.parklet.co.uk/.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Not sure what you mean. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regs updated the CPUTRs, effectively.

No, they didn't - both regs exist, in parallel, and they relate to different things. As I've said several times, the document that you linked was about updates to CPUTR as well as the Consumer Contracts Regs, and the 'surprise contract' guidance is in the CPUTR section. I've copied the link again below.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226626/bis-13-1107-government-response-to-consultations-on-misleading-and-aggressive-practices.pdf

Read page 3, the contents page, and it is clear there are two sets of regulations being discussed.

Also, read the new Consumer Contracts regs; they supersede the "Distance Selling" regulations and Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc Regulations. Neither of those bore any relation to car parking (I accept that in isolation, that doesn't mean that the new regs are also irrelevant)

You can also search for the Amended CPUTR on gov.uk. It was amended around the same time as the Consumer Contracts regs came into being, and it is CPUTR that covers "surprise contracts" (and which can be used to claim against PPCs for distress and inconvenience).

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I am aware of that and it doesn't bother me. Sees off most PPCs, it's generic enough to suit all cases. If I started differentiating no Newbies would 'get it'!

So you're willing to give newbies irrelevant advice? That, surely, is a bad idea.



Let's set out the things I think we can agree on here.

1) There are basically 4 types of car park. (i) Paid-for parking and (ii) free parking (those that are free for "x" hours fall into one camp or the other depending on the length of stay, and I'm ignoring residents permit parking as cancellation of contract is pointless for those anyway) and within those types, (iii) those that operate on a contractual charge basis and (iv) those that operate on a breach of contract basis
2) Paid-for parking is excluded by reference to automated vending
3) The effect of withdrawal/cancellation does not annul the contract, it ends the contract at the time at which withdrawal is communicated to the trader - 14(3) of the European Directive makes this clear. Therefore, a contract was in force at some point. You didn't reply to this point, so I presume you accept it.


On the basis of point 3, there is nothing to prevent a breach of contract charge being made for the period in which the contract was in place. So withdrawal is only of potential use in a free car park operating a contractual charge model, and even then appears sketchy on the basis of 14(3).

Why are you so set on advocating this approach when there are approaches that are far less controversial?

Coupon-mad

Can't be arsed - no time to revisit it and dig out the links I found and posted before. I already explained ages ago why I recommend a generic template appeal and why I include the drop hands off and the cancellation paragraph, in every case. Also I already covered in an older thread about day to day transactions which are defined as buying a newspaper, etc. - low value quick transactions where the price term is obvious. This is not.