Dispatches: Channel 4 at 8pm Tonight

ManxRed

Why don't the car park owners pay a fee to the PPCs to 'manage the parking' for them, and the tickets are £20?

That way, there's little incentive for the PPC to issue as many tickets (generate as much revenue) as possible through ticketing of legitimate customers like they do now.

If the landowners really value their car park spaces like PPCs say they do, then pay to have them managed. THAT should be how PPC's earn a profit, not through unenforceable charges levied against interlopers AND genuine car park users alike, hoping that most victims are ignorant of the law and will simply pay up.

Because, let's face it, PPC's aren't managing car parks, they're just trying to make as much money as possible, and anyone who claims otherwise really is being terribly naive.

Cornucopia

Cygnus_Alpha wrote: »

Funnily enough I was thinking along similar lines. In response to their notice, I am about to issue a contract variation to a PPC which will give them 14 days to reply if they do not wish to be bound by its terms.

Indeed.

In (ab)using contract law, they leave themselves open to the various conventions it entails.

Cornucopia

ManxRed wrote: »

Because, let's face it, PPC's aren't managing car parks, they're just trying to make as much money as possible, and anyone who claims otherwise really is being terribly naive.

In the Beavis case, the Landowner is not only not paying for car park management services, but is being paid by PE £1000 a week, derived solely from penalty charges.

It will be a huge shame if the Appeal court does not do anything to rule against such an arrangement.

HO87

@TDA

POFA was an attempt to put matters on a statutory basis that effectively traded the imposition of keeper liability (and the consequent abandonment of privity) in exchange for PPC's fulfilling a number of clearly defined criteria.

The truth is that very few PPC's manage or choose to adhere to the law - look at the number of PPC's that have recently moved away from seeking keeper liability for an illustration of that fact. There is and has been widespread flouting of the statutory documentary requirements and deadlines so why should there be any reason to believe that PPC's will behave any differently if provided with a private equivalent of TMA 2004?

Finally, neither side should attempt to make Beavis out for something that it is not. The facts of the case are both specific and somewhat unique and will not be mirrored in the vast majority of other cases.

Given the opportunity that other companies providing entirely different contractual arrangements might be handed to make extra cash were the appeal to be refused I doubt many would forego it. Many hotels already seek to impose "fines" i.e. sums charged in terrorem (as a deterrent) for smoking in non-smoking rooms. One wonders whether they might not extend that to leaving a room too untidy, for example, or failing to eat the continental breakfast? Might it be failing to sit down promptly enough in an aircraft or flushing the toilet too many times next?

salmosalaris

@TDA
In a pay to park arrangement the consideration is the parking tariff in return for the provision of a parking space . The contract is a straightforward consumer contract .
Take for example a motorway service area where two hours free parking must be offered . To deter abuse the service operators then impose a high level of charging eg £10 for the next hour . The high tariff is an admitted deterrent encouraging short stays and traffic flow. So a failure to make that £10 payment generates a loss to the services of only £10 if the car was abiding by all other t@c not £100 that their PPC may seek .
Could you explain your consideration argument when the clear promised consideration in the contract in this scenario is the £10 parking tariff and how this contract is different from many other things I may purchase , for example a hotel room that I promise to check out of at 10am ?
The contract in a free car park is a contrived arrangement , in reality there is no contract .with the greatest respect to HHJ Moloney I think his reasoning that simply promising not to breach the contract is good consideration is taking things a step too far

Captain_Leaky

Today's Daily Telegraph has an item covering the RAC Foundation's view on this, and there is a Comments section at the bottom of the page. You have to sign up with Disqus to post, but it is worth it. If anyone with a good knowledge of this issue would like to go over there and post some proper information that would be great, since there still seems to be a lot of misunderstanding going on. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/11424093/Thousands-of-illegal-private-parking-fines-may-be-refunded.html

TDA

HO87 wrote:

POFA was an attempt to put matters on a statutory basis that effectively traded the imposition of keeper liability (and the consequent abandonment of privity) in exchange for PPC's fulfilling a number of clearly defined criteria.

The truth is that very few PPC's manage or choose to adhere to the law - look at the number of PPC's that have recently moved away from seeking keeper liability for an illustration of that fact. There is and has been widespread flouting of the statutory documentary requirements and deadlines so why should there be any reason to believe that PPC's will behave any differently if provided with a private equivalent of TMA 2004?

Because it would be paired with an independent, government-staffed regulatory body with the statutory authority to impose sanctions where companies do not play ball.

salmosalaris wrote: »

@TDA
In a pay to park arrangement the consideration is the parking tariff in return for the provision of a parking space . The contract is a straightforward consumer contract .
Take for example a motorway service area where two hours free parking must be offered . To deter abuse the service operators then impose a high level of charging eg £10 for the next hour . The high tariff is an admitted deterrent encouraging short stays and traffic flow. So a failure to make that £10 payment generates a loss to the services of only £10 if the car was abiding by all other t@c not £100 that their PPC may seek .
Could you explain your consideration argument when the clear promised consideration in the contract in this scenario is the £10 parking tariff and how this contract is different from many other things I may purchase , for example a hotel room that I promise to check out of at 10am ?
The contract in a free car park is a contrived arrangement , in reality there is no contract .with the greatest respect to HHJ Moloney I think his reasoning that simply promising not to breach the contract is good consideration is taking things a step too far

It is different and that is precisely one reason why penalty clauses in your hotel scenarios would quite possibly fail. In P&D car parks it may very well be the case that the main purpose of the contract is not to deter breach, but for payment to be made for the provision of a service. It is quite possible, though not certain, that a commercial justification argument along the same lines as that advanced by Moloney would fail on this basis.

Regarding your suggestion that HHJ moloney's reasoning that a promise not to perform a specific act is good consideration is going too far, I would suggest that the man is perhaps somewhat better versed in the law of contract than you are. That a promise to do (or not do) something is good consideration is trite law.

hoohoo

Cygnus_Alpha wrote: »

I totally agree. £20 would deter me. But why charge the minimum possible to deter when you can charge £100 and make lots of money by intimidating people.

The companies that charge £20 do not want to make their money from parking charges. They want to genuinely manage the car park for the benefit of the landowner, the motorist, and of course, themselves.

Companies like this tend to be the ones that retailers choose once they have been ravaged by the likes of ParkingEye and seen their customer base sail off into the sunset towards their competition.

Sadly, they tend to lose out at tender stage to the uninitiated retailer who has not yet been educated, and prefers to choose a 'free' service.

They will most always lose out at tender stage at retail parks, because there the landowner will get a kickback of 15% or £1,000, and the landowner does not really care that this hurts the business of the shops on site.

jkdd77

I refer to the arguments put forward by Andy Foster in the linked thread as to why HHJ Moloney erred on the matter of consideration:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=88568&st=140
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=88568&st=160

salmosalaris

@ TDA
Please explain , re consideration
What value is there to Parking Eye in promising to leave a free car park that they do not own ? I could possibly buy this argument if the landowner was the contracting party but it is only of value to Parking Eye if the motorist stays and breaches the contract