Dispatches: Channel 4 at 8pm Tonight

bazster

TDA wrote: »

The problem with that argument is that there is no existing obligation to 'leave after 2 hours'.

Yes there is. It's private land, you have an existing obligation in common law not to be there at all, save as permitted by the landowner (i.e. you have an obligation not to trespass). If you arrive at 2:00 p.m. and the landowner permits you to stay for two hours then all that happens at 4:00 p.m. is that you become subject again to your existing obligation not to be there at all.

The argument that a promise to leave is consideration is tantamount to saying that a promise not to trespass is consideration. Patently absurd.

bazster

salmosalaris wrote: »

W

so ? what of notional value has been offered to Parking Eye?
Promising to leave is worthless , but then HHJ tacks on a promise to pay the charge if not . But IMHO the fundamental flaw is this is not an agreed charge to park beyond the limit or a core term of the contract ( which would be good consideration but also a contractual sum ) ,but instead damages for breach of contract so presumably there must be a valid contract to breach irrespective of this charge .
Anyway it matters not a jot what I think and I'm willing to be shot down because presumably I'm wrong.

You're not wrong.

bazster

Cornucopia wrote: »

The other option is making it pay and display with entry of licence plate at 20p for up to 2 hours. Then there is consideration, and a penalty for breach.

No, the other option is for the landowner to pursue transgressors for trespass. Damages would be nominal, but by the time he's added in his (legitimate) costs you are likely to come up with a ticket of something in the region of £20. The payment rate for £20 tickets would be quite high, and anyone stung for £20 is likely to be a bit more careful in future, which ultimately is what the landowner wants (unless he's milking PCN's as a source of profit, in which case he can go screw himself; if he wants to make a direct profit from his car park he can stick up ticket machines and barriers).

Of course, he would need to pursue a small percentage of £20 non-payers to the courts in order to encourage payment in general, and all in all car park management is going to be a cost to him, but so what? We all accept that if we have a thing of value we need to pay to protect it. I've just had a new front door installed on my house. I could've saved some money by not having locks installed, but no, I accepted I needed to invest in protecting my property as I couldn't rely on catching and suing my friendly neighbourhood burglar after he'd made off with my valuables, my wife and my cat.

trisontana

That just shows up the stupid argument that is sometimes put forward about the "expense" of having to install barriers in car parks. Supermarkets are quite willing to spend thousands on securing their actual building, but somehow are reluctant to spend just a little more on barriers.

bazster

trisontana wrote: »

That just shows up the stupid argument that is sometimes put forward about the "expense" of having to install barriers in car parks. Supermarkets are quite willing to spend thousand on securing their actual building but somehow are reluctant to spend just a little more on barriers.

Perzackly.

Captain_Leaky

A 'Pay to leave' Barrier system would be the only fair way to do it, but they can't gouge your wallet with that model, so I guess it's a non-starter.

andy_foster

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.

Cornucopia's suggestion has merit insofar as if a contract is negotiated and agreed with the landowner prior to entering the car park, that could 'trump' the offer communicated by the signs and acceptance thereof by performance. The chances of the landowner agreeing to such an offer seems unlikely unless you have a lot of leverage.

However, your suggestion, much like those of displaying signs in your car refuting an offer which you have accepted by performance, appears to be fundamentally flawed. As a general principle, silence cannot be construed as acceptance. It is hard to conceive of a situation where a PPC could be deemed to have accepted a motorist's offer of variation of terms by performance.

hoohoo

salmosalaris wrote: »

So let's imagine that penalties become enforceable where the aim of the contract is to deter . What level of deterrent is necessary ? . Mr Troy says BPA charges are in line with statutory penalties and HHJ Moloney touched on this . However, if I am correct ,if Mr Beavis had parked in a local council car park and overstayed his welcome or not purchased a ticket he would have been fined £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days .

Well, a deterrent of £100 has already been found not to work completely, because 2 million motorists get charges each year.

However, a deterrent of £20 has been found to work just as well as a deterrent of £100. There are plenty of car parks where this level of deterrent works and there are no figures to show you get more compliance by increasing this to £100.

So...either the charge needs to be lowered to £20

...or it needs to raised to something like £500 to really make motorists take notice.

I-LOV-MONEY

bazster wrote: »

Yes there is. It's private land, you have an existing obligation in common law not to be there at all, save as permitted by the landowner (i.e. you have an obligation not to trespass). If you arrive at 2:00 p.m. and the landowner permits you to stay for two hours then all that happens at 4:00 p.m. is that you become subject again to your existing obligation not to be there at all.

The argument that a promise to leave is consideration is tantamount to saying that a promise not to trespass is consideration. Patently absurd.

So does this answer the question I put on this other thread?

bazster

I-LOV-MONEY wrote: »

So does this answer the question I put on this other thread?

Not that I can see, seems to be a different question.