Dispatches: Channel 4 at 8pm Tonight

Cornucopia

I think the current judgment from Cambridge is arcane, anyway. At the heart of it is the idea that if you set up a company to make penalty charges, then your commercial prerogative is major part of making those penalty charges lawful.

It's going to be fascinating to see what comes back from the Court of Appeal. I can't see the original judgment standing, although I think the result is bound to be a compromise of some sort.

I found this quite interesting...

https://conradmeehan.wordpress.com/2014/06/

bod1467

Cornucopia wrote: »

I found this quite interesting...

https://conradmeehan.wordpress.com/2014/06/

In fact, if the private parking companies were truly to address this last point in good faith, the campaigns against their work may well evaporate. If the penalties are fair, seen to be fair, and applied fairly, then no-one would really have cause to complain, and no-one would probably care whether the penalties had a sound basis in law or not

And that is really the nub of the issue ... if PPC PCNs were, say, £20 I don't think anyone would really bat an eyelid - they'd just "take their medicine". The problem is the obscene amounts the PPCs make their PCNs - even during a "discount" period!

Cornucopia

I thought the point about the contract being effectively an agreement to "shop" in return for free parking was a excellent one - certainly more compelling than some of the Cambridge arguments on contract parties.

bazster

Cornucopia wrote: »

I thought the point about the contract being effectively an agreement to "shop" in return for free parking was a excellent one - certainly more compelling than some of the Cambridge arguments on contract parties.

I don't think it's excellent at all. What if someone parks, takes a 15-minute 'phone call before leaving their car, decides that the matter is urgent enough to demand their attendance, and drives out of the car park without ever leaving the car? Breach of contract to shop?

Consider a retail car park where there is no PPC and no supposed contractual signs. By what right do shoppers park there? Well that's easy, they park under the terms of an implied licence.

So what happens to that implied licence if a PPC rocks up tomorrow and erects their signs? Answer: there's still an implied licence. A PPC cannot offer as consideration that which you already have i.e. permission to park. So there's no contract, and at best all the PPC signs do is to modify or constrain the terms of the licence - and if you break the terms of the licence you are a trespasser, a tort which is actionable only by the lawful occupier of the land, not a PPC.

All moot anyway, because the only point up for appeal in Beavis is whether the charge is commercially justifiable.

Cornucopia

I did say "agreement to shop", not "contract". ie. you went there in good faith with the intention to shop - I don't think that's unreasonable in a retail park. Different rules elsewhere e.g. motorway services. Whether you actually did or whether something else came up are part of the practicalities of this issue. Either way, I don't think that matching customers to vehicles in the way of MET parking is ever justified, and I would certainly be "Parkicus" if the situation arose.

Someone needs to apply some common sense, here. But I'm not holding my breath.

I disagree with you about "implied licence". Clearly (legally) the licence involved is the one in effect at the time. Just because parking was free yesterday, doesn't stop it being charged for tomorrow.

Herzlos

Cornucopia wrote: »

I thought the point about the contract being effectively an agreement to "shop" in return for free parking was a excellent one - certainly more compelling than some of the Cambridge arguments on contract parties.

Then they should do it with a fee to park and a refund with a till reciept, and a barrier on exit. That way everyone pays what they should and there's no need to chase them for contractual penalties. Unfortunately that doesn't generate revenue.

With the agreement to "shop", how do you define "shop"? Do I have to pay the charge if the item I wanted isn't in stock and I leave empty handed? or if I discover I left my wallet at home and return to the car before reaching the door?

The whole model only works by raking in money from fabricated violations.

Cornucopia

The present model is a nonsense, I think we're all agreed on that.

The article talks about what "shop" means, and yes, it could include not actually buying anything, or not buying anything physical (booking a holiday, ordering a book).

I think people are getting over-excited about the notional "agreement to shop". It was intended by the article author as a way of cutting through some of the nonsense about contracted parties, and not an edict that no one can leave the carpark without a 3-piece suite.

What ever happened to parking validation by shops? Surely that's the easy way to do this?

bazster

So if "agreement to shop" is the consideration, if I park in a retail car park with no intention of shopping and intending instead to walk round the corner and jump on a train, there can be no contract because I offered no consideration. And I can't breach a contract that never existed...

Cornucopia

No idea.

I would have it £10 per visit, with validation for free/cheap parking in the shops. I really don't understand why it has to be any more complicated than that.

zaax

Cornucopia wrote: »

No idea.

I would have it £10 per visit, with validation for free/cheap parking in the shops. I really don't understand why it has to be any more complicated than that.

Ever heard of window shopping?