Can anyone tell me what this means?

bod1467

From what I recall reading, the EU guidance for the directive/whatever that was the driving force behind the CC (ICAC) specifically mentions parking as an example of a distance contract. The guidance for CC (ICAC) does not specifically mention parking, but that doesn't mean the EU guidance fundamentally fails to apply.

In other words, it seems there is more evidence to support the view that the cancellation rights of CC (ICAC) applies to parking (except for P&D at a ticket machine) than there is for the opposite view.

hoohoo

I thought of this analogy which might clarify.

It doesn't matter where the service is actually provided, it is how the contract offer and acceptance takes place that matters, and whether there is face to face contact or not.

If you find my wonderful hair cutting business on the web* and book an appointment online, this is a distance contract, no matter that you actually get your hair cut at my place of business.

Similarly for my rival, who operates mobile hair cutting and comes to your house.

If you make a repeat booking while I am cutting your hair, this would be on-premises. If you phone up to make a repeat booking, this would be distance.

If you make a repeat booking with my rival, this would be off-premesis.

If you bump into me in Morrisons**, and book an appointment, this would be off-premises, even though the service is performed on premises.

If you bump into me in Morrisons**, say you will book later and then immediately phone to book an appointment, this probably be off-premesis and not distance, depending how 'immediately' you phoned.

It is where and how the contract is offered and concluded that matter, not where it is eventually performed.

---

*This is just an example. Don't all turn up at my house expecting to get your hair cut.
**Not likely, since they are infested with ParkingEye

spikyone

bod1467 wrote: »

From what I recall reading, the EU guidance for the directive/whatever that was the driving force behind the CC (ICAC) specifically mentions parking as an example of a distance contract. The guidance for CC (ICAC) does not specifically mention parking, but that doesn't mean the EU guidance fundamentally fails to apply.

In other words, it seems there is more evidence to support the view that the cancellation rights of CC (ICAC) applies to parking (except for P&D at a ticket machine) than there is for the opposite view.

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/files/crd_guidance_en.pdf
This is one of the great misconceptions that led to the mis-use of CC(ICAC). The EU guidance mentions "renting a parking space", which is entirely different from using a publically-accessible car park.
In fact, MSE has a handy guide on renting out your driveway etc as a parking space:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/cheap-parking-rental

hoohoo wrote: »

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.

You seem to be saying - in this post and the one where you provide your analogy - "if it's not face to face it can only be a distance contract". However the guidance makes allowance for automated business premises, which are also not face to face. So you first have to ask "is a car park an automated business premises?", to which I believe the answer is yes - it's a business premises that operates automatically.
I don't think a judge will ever have to decide - none of those who strongly advocate this approach have actually tested it before advising its use, even with a single-point appeal at POPLA.

hoohoo wrote: »

I disagree. Paid for parking via a ticket machine is an automated vending machine and so excluded.

This is not clear-cut - the UK guidance document does not specify whether paying for parking falls within the "vending machine" or "automated business premises" category.
In car parks the pay-machine only provides the proof of payment - not the service. A vending machine is generally considered to be a machine that dispenses a product, and I'd say it's something of a stretch to consider a parking ticket to be a product - it has no inherent value. When you park, you're making use of a service, and you don't obtain the service from the pay-machine.

nigelbb wrote: »

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.

It sounds like tosh to me too. But it was mentioned in the original Beavis decision, section 5.2, which means that unlike CC(ICAC) there is now some supporting evidence from a real court:
http://nebula.wsimg.com/8bc2fd992ffc9ff3697c488fd4583721?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Back to the point I was making when I originally mentioned this - if consideration is given and automatically accepted at the time of parking, then IMO it must be an automated business premises.