Dispatches: Channel 4 at 8pm Tonight

TDA

salmosalaris wrote: »

No
HHJ in his judgment said that the landowner has the right to offer parking and that in theory those landowner rights could be passed to PE , but were they ? Are they ever ?
But if PE were agent of an undisclosed Principal ,the landowner would be offering the parking but PE could enforce a contract in their name so in effect landowner losses would come into play , and the signage in Beavis would ( nearly ) support this . The trouble is in a lot of car parks it's pretty obvious who the Principal is so if PE were deemed generally to be an agent the Principal would be disclosed on many sites and PE would have no right to enforce in their name .Most Principals don't want to be embroiled in court claims for parking tickets whilst their coffers were being filled by the defendant

I had thought similar previously. All PE would have to do is ensure there is no mention of the principal on their signage and they'd have carte Blanche to sue in their own name even as an agency relationship. Probably wouldn't even have to ask the landowner to remove any indications of their own as to their standing as the landowner as in my experience the big landowners (AVIVA etc) don't advertise their ownership on site as it is.

salmosalaris

I can think of no other reason than they want to be seen ( in a persuasive judgment ) that they are Principal .
Think hospitals, if agent , it's pretty obvious the Principal is disclosed
and they'd struggle to sue .
That's if you get a DJ who understands , most don't
Apparently according to one learned judge it doesn't matter whether PE are agent or Principal , it's common for an agent to sue , and yes on this site PE indicated on the signage they were acting on behalf of the landowner ???

Cornucopia

Presumably the Landowner identity is still required to allow for negligence claims.

I suppose the other option is that PE actually lease the car park and the fee to the Landowner is then rent. PE would therefore need a way to manage negligence claims.

salmosalaris

Cornucopia wrote: »

Presumably the Landowner identity is still required to allow for negligence claims.

I suppose the other option is that PE actually lease the car park and the fee to the Landowner is then rent. PE would therefore need a way to manage negligence claims.

It's all about denying liability but wanting the ability to sue

Northlakes

PE argue they are commercially justified in their charges but are they?
Are they not more like a W'mHill or Paddypower (bookies) who live and survive only by chance. They don't provide a service which cannot be provided by other means. They rely for their living on the odd chance that a motorist overstays or parks outside marked bays.
Bookies make their living by calculating the difference in odds between a horse winning or losing versus the amounts laid on each runner. Therefore no one owes PPC's or bookies a living at all, not even any landowner who allows their car park to be run as a gaming table.

So they are chancers and therefore there is absolutely no reason why they should exist at all, so any argument for commercial justification is non-existent.

Herzlos

Cornucopia wrote: »

In some places, that wouldn't be much of a deterrent.

It's not supposed to be a deterrent, that'd make it a penalty.

It's meant to ensure people pay their own way and compensate the land owner for spending longer than requires.

Of course doing it properly isn't a gold mine.

ManxRed

Cornucopia wrote: »

In some places, that wouldn't be much of a deterrent.

But there wouldn't be any landowner loss, so why would you need a deterrent?

Cornucopia

The problem with that argument is that it looks only at a narrow definition of loss: the car-park is free, therefore if I am parked too long, the only consequence is that someone else cannot park there for free. Therefore zero loss.

However, that's a very driver-focused way of looking at it. If you consider a car-park near a station that is persistently abused, such that it deters genuine customers, then would you want errant drivers to be liable for lower rents for the shop units, because of reduced trade?

I don't necessarily agree with HHJ Moloney's reasoning on all of the points he made, but all credit to him for exploring the issues very thoroughly (including this one).

Cygnus_Alpha

Cornucopia wrote: »

The problem with that argument is that it looks only at a narrow definition of loss: the car-park is free, therefore if I am parked too long, the only consequence is that someone else cannot park there for free. Therefore zero loss.

However, that's a very driver-focused way of looking at it. If you consider a car-park near a station that is persistently abused, such that it deters genuine customers, then would you want errant drivers to be liable for lower rents for the shop units, because of reduced trade?

I don't necessarily agree with HHJ Moloney's reasoning on all of the points he made, but all credit to him for exploring the issues very thoroughly (including this one).

The bit where he errs IMHO is that once PE have purchased the "valuable rights" as Moloney refers to them, then the commercial interests of the landowner and PE diverge. In other words, PE's commercial imperative is to issue as many invoices as possible by hook or crook, which is not the same as the landowner's commercial interests of not alienating the customers of the retail businesses on his land while deterring non-customers from parking.

In all fairness, Moloney addresses this by referring to the landowner as the "supplier" of PE and that PE would not want to alienate their "supplier". All good in theory albeit a tenuous argument but in practice we have seen PE and other PPC's do exactly that.

DoaM

Cygnus_Alpha wrote: »

All good in theory albeit a tenuous argument but in practice we have seen PE and other PPC's do exactly that.

Just ask Somerfield.

hxxp://nebula.wsimg.com/14332b8e46df00197bb4b6bb20eafa45?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1