Can anyone tell me what this means?

bazster

Good grief, you really are a pillock aren't you? What part of "controlled by a machine" are you struggling with? Don't blame me, it's your choice of dictionary website! Apparently you can't even tell the difference between an adjective and the past participle of a verb.

But we can bandy dictionary websites all day, and you can blither on about all the etymology you want, but plain English is plain English and the word means what it means however you might try to distort it in defence of your half-baked interpretation of the law.

Don't bother replying, you are now in my blocked list.

spikyone

bazster wrote: »

Good grief, you really are a pillock aren't you? What part of "controlled by a machine" are you struggling with? Don't blame me, it's your choice of dictionary website! Apparently you can't even tell the difference between an adjective and the past participle of a verb.

Except that "controlled by a machine" isn't the definition. The definition given on that site is "operated by automation". It seems your grasp of English really is as bad as I thought - in the context of "automated business premises", 'automated' is used as an adjective. ["I automated my business premises" would be the past participle of the verb]

bazster wrote: »

But we can bandy dictionary websites all day, and you can blither on about all the etymology you want, but plain English is plain English and the word means what it means however you might try to distort it in defence of your half-baked interpretation of the law.

This seems fairly rich, given your persistent half-baked interpretation of CC(ICAC) - which is supported by precisely zero case law.

bazster wrote: »

Don't bother replying, you are now in my blocked list.

Sulking only shows your true colours. This reply is intended for the information of others who might consider following Bazster's legal advice...

hoohoo

The_Deep wrote: »

this is a response to the ridiculous template we have on this forum that mis-uses the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation, and Additional Charges) Regulations, where any appellant is claiming that car parking is a distance contract. [CC(ICAC) replaced DSR]

I agree, who was responsible for it?

It does seem as if car parking is a distance contract (as defined in the regs)

“distance contract” means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded;


check - contract concluded between a trader and a consumer
check - under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme
check - without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer
check - with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication
check - up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded;

In the case of paying via a ticket machine, the guidelines are that this is excluded:

(2) These Regulations do not apply to contracts—
(a) concluded by means of automatic vending machines or automated commercial premises;

Guidelines:
Examples of contracts concluded by vending machines or automated commercial premises would include purchasing car parking tickets or train tickets at a machine.

If you paid by telephone or internet, or it was free, then the contract is not excluded.

nigelbb

hoohoo wrote: »

It does seem as if car parking is a distance contract (as defined in the regs)

“distance contract” means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded;


check - contract concluded between a trader and a consumer
check - under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme
check - without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer
check - with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication
check - up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded;

In the case of paying via a ticket machine, the guidelines are that this is excluded:

(2) These Regulations do not apply to contracts—
(a) concluded by means of automatic vending machines or automated commercial premises;


If you paid by telephone or internet, or it was free, then the contract is not excluded.

If it was a free car park there was no contract.

Alternatively even assuming that there was a contract in a free car park then it would be excluded from distance selling regulations as there was no exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication.

I just skimmed the regulations & it seems that parking contracts may not be subject to the cancellation provisions as :-

Low value off-premises contracts (value less than £42) are exempt from the information and cancellation provisions of the regulations but subject to those on additional payments and charges and delivery and risk.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310044/bis-13-1368-consumer-contracts-information-cancellation-and-additional-payments-regulations-guidance.pdf

hoohoo

The distance communication is the signage.

As the two parties never meet, there must be some form of distance communication between them or the contract could not be communicated.

The £42 limit only applies to off-premises contracts, not to distance contracts.

nigelbb

hoohoo wrote: »

The distance communication is the signage.

As the two parties never meet, there must be some form of distance communication between them or the contract could not be communicated.

The parties don't meet but it's not distance selling as the car park is the business premises of the trader.

TBH skimming over guidance on the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Charges) Regulations I think that going through contortions to try & prove that they apply to contracts for parking is akin to the sort of contortions PPCs go through to pervert contract law to justify their parking charges. For example there is an exemption for day-to-day transactions sold on premises as the consumer will be very familiar with the goods or services, and their cost, so that that the level of information required by the Regulations would be superfluous. Parking is clearly a 'day-to-day transaction' like 'buying a cup of coffee, the daily paper, weekly groceries, a tube of toothpaste etc.'

hoohoo

nigelbb wrote: »

The parties don't meet but it's not distance selling as the car park is the business premises of the trader.

TBH skimming over guidance on the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Charges) Regulations I think that going through contortions to try & prove that they apply to contracts for parking is akin to the sort of contortions PPCs go through to pervert contract law to justify their parking charges. For example there is an exemption for day-to-day transactions sold on premises as the consumer will be very familiar with the goods or services, and their cost, so that that the level of information required by the Regulations would be superfluous. Parking is clearly a 'day-to-day transaction' like 'buying a cup of coffee, the daily paper, weekly groceries, a tube of toothpaste etc.'

The regs don't say that it is not a distance contract if the car park is the business premises of the trader. (or if they do, please correct me). Instead, the regs define what a distance contract actually is.

Parking is clearly not a day to day transaction. The plethora of different complicated contracts and business models mean the man on the street does not have a clue what they are getting themselves into, and the regs are there to protect consumers by requiring certain basic information, such as how to appeal, who the trader is, what the code of practice is and so on.

spikyone

Good to see that some semblance of common sense and reasoned argument is back on this thread.

hoohoo wrote: »

check - under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme

I agree with much of what you've said, but I think this is where the "distance" side falls down - the seller (in this case the PPC) is not providing the service from a distance. The service is provided at the motorist's location (the automated business premises) and without any action on behalf of the PPC. AIUI, a distance service provision would be, for example, someone who fixes your computer by remote access. They are working from their business premises, which is not where the consumer is based. I don't believe that it can be a distance contract if the service is performed immediately at the consumer's location.

hoohoo wrote: »

In the case of paying via a ticket machine, the guidelines are that this is excluded:

Correct. This certainly falls under an automated business premises (it's explicitly covered in a UK Government guidance document for another consumer rights issue, p14:
https://bisgovuk.citizenspace.com/consumer-competition-landscape/guidance-on-payment-surcharges/user_uploads/bis-payment-surcharges-guidance-ccp-final-draft-version--ar_cma-17-feb-2015-.pdf)
(EDIT: I see you previously quoted the section on car parks)

hoohoo wrote: »

The regs don't say that it is not a distance contract if the car park is the business premises of the trader. (or if they do, please correct me). Instead, the regs define what a distance contract actually is.

OK, well you've agreed (and the guidance document clearly demonstrates) that paid-for parking falls within the basis of an automated business premises (or vending machine). The question is this: In the case of a free car park, does the removal of the ticket machine and a cash payment change the basis from an "automated business premises" transaction to something else?
I seem to recall that a particular DDJ - possibly Moloney in the Beavis case, so open to question! - suggested that there was a contract in free parking, and that the consideration given by the motorist was a promise not to overstay - or something to that effect. Were that to be true, I would have to say that there is no difference between a free car parks and those that are paid-for; there would still be consideration that is automatically accepted.

nigelbb

spikyone wrote: »

I seem to recall that a particular DDJ - possibly Moloney in the Beavis case, so open to question! - suggested that there was a contract in free parking, and that the consideration given by the motorist was a promise not to overstay - or something to that effect. Were that to be true,

I don't believe that this is true. A promise not to overstay cannot be good consideration when it is already a pre-existing obligation. There is no need to try & contort contract law to include free car parks. The occupier gives permission to the driver to park & they become a trespasser when they fail to abide by the conditions of that licence e.g. by overstaying. It's then open to the occupier to claim damages for that trespass.

hoohoo

spikyone wrote: »

Good to see that some semblance of common sense and reasoned argument is back on this thread.

The distance regulations are not a get-out-of-jail-free card for motorists. They just require some sensible information to be provided by the trader for the protection of the consumer. This is not particularly onerous, and can easily be provided. It just mostly isn't right now (with the possible exception of Napier, who seem to be on the ball with this one)

I agree with much of what you've said, but I think this is where the "distance" side falls down - the seller (in this case the PPC) is not providing the service from a distance. The service is provided at the motorist's location (the automated business premises) and without any action on behalf of the PPC. AIUI, a distance service provision would be, for example, someone who fixes your computer by remote access. They are working from their business premises, which is not where the consumer is based. I don't believe that it can be a distance contract if the service is performed immediately at the consumer's location.

We will probably have to agree to disagree on this one, and let a judge decide. The main thrust in the legislation seems to be a requirement for face to face interaction for it not to be a distance contract.

OK, well you've agreed (and the guidance document clearly demonstrates) that paid-for parking falls within the basis of an automated business premises (or vending machine).

I disagree. Paid for parking via a ticket machine is an automated vending machine and so excluded. However, paid for parking via other means, such as phone or internet, is not a vending machine and so is not excluded.

The regulations don't exclude parking. They exclude parking paid for via a vending machine.

The question is this: In the case of a free car park, does the removal of the ticket machine and a cash payment change the basis from an "automated business premises" transaction to something else?

Yes. The regulations state the contract must be concluded by a vending machine. In a free car park, the contract is concluded by parking, seeing the signs and walking away.