MSE News: Parking campaigner fails to challenge 'excessive' charge at Supreme Court

Half_way

trisontana wrote: »

There is a suspicion that certain stores (such as Aldi) have a secret agreement with the PPC that none of their customers will be taken to court. This does show that they are very wary of bad publicity over this issue.

It would be interesting if It would possible to force their hand with court action over a double dip or similar
And couple that with some bad press aimed at aldi.

trisontana

A good one to go for is the "no return with x hours" rule where two different drivers are involved, especially if the second driver was unaware that the first driver had been in that car park earlier. That raises the point of who has broken their made-up rule?

Half_way

Bonus if it's a hospital site where the driver isn't the RK, where would that leave patient confidentiality?

Brooker_Dave

Marktheshark wrote: »

I feel for the extra £90 risk, dragging the actual landowner/ contract party in to court, will soon make them aware of what is happening to their customers as well.
They will be getting a front row seat.
They wont be able to use the litigants solicitor as they joint defendant.
It will all get very expensive indeed for them, if they fail to turn up, you should get counter claim by default of no defence entered.

At present its a win win situation for the greedy landowner, sit back, wait for the easy money.
Getting dragged to court and rolled up in the court case is not going to be fun is it.
Not so easy money now.

But this is a one off for the retailer yes they get to cheat their customers out of £100 or so, but said customers will never return, so where is the commercial logic in that?

nigelbb

trisontana wrote: »

A good one to go for is the "no return with x hours" rule where two different drivers are involved, especially if the second driver was unaware that the first driver had been in that car park earlier. That raises the point of who has broken their made-up rule?

It makes no difference if the second driver is aware or not of the first driver's visit. The alleged contract for parking is with the driver not the car.

Half_way

nigelbb wrote: »

It makes no difference if the second driver is aware or not of the first driver's visit. The alleged contract for parking is with the driver not the car.

and if the RK decides to ignore the letters/barrage of stuff from PE ( or similar) because thats what they were told in the pub, or via a google search, such as this result http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/private-parking-tickets.htm
that then offers this advice at the bottom

Just ignore them and it will go away. If a parking company tries to litigate you then the most he can claim from you is the amount you overstayed your ticket.

TDA

Half_way wrote: »

Smoking fine in a travel lodge?
Also the consumer association/which article mentions some of the possibilities

No one should be smoking in a hotel room they don't own. And I say that as a former heavy smoker myself.

Whilst the idea of dragging the landowner into court is interesting I have the feeling we will be seeing a much higher number of cases being struck out/summary judgement before the matter gets anywhere near a court room.

bargepole

Fruitcake wrote: »

... "if you do not cancel this now, you agree to pay me a contractual fee of 85 quid if my appeal is upheld by PoPLA or a court, in addition to any other expenses I have incurred in fighting your baseless claim" ...

This won't work.

In order for there to be a valid and enforceable contract, consideration has to flow between the parties, in the form of money or something else of value.

HHJ Moloney ruled, and the COA and UKSC both agreed, that in a parking contract formed by signage, consideration from the PPC is the provision of a space, and from the motorist it is the promise to leave within 2 hours.

The above wording does not offer any consideration to the PPC, and there is therefore no contract formed. It would also fail for uncertainty of terms, as 'any other expenses incurred' is vague and imprecise.

It's as useless as most of the so-called contractual terms offered by most IPC members, where they say things like '...only vehicles complying with the following may park here ... if you park not in accordance with the above, you contractually agree to pay £100 ...'. They are attempting to make an offer which is forbidding, which means there is no offer of parking. No offer, no contract.

Half_way

While I despise smoking, its not unknown for non smokers to be fined in certain hotels

edgex

bazster wrote: »

In theory, only if the signs were so clear and obvious you couldn't possibly have missed them. Although, of course, we all know that there's a massive gulf between theory and practice.

& shouldnt these signs be at the entrance to the car park, where a driver is able to stop, read thoroughly, & make a decision as to whether to agree to the contract?