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

toddstar

Marktheshark wrote: »

I shall place this notice inside my car windscreen.

Contractual parking offers:
Any offered contractual parking charge notices shall be subject to a contract formation fee of £150, if you do not agree to this contractual offer, do not send a parking charge notice to the keeper of this vehicle.
This is a Contractual offer to accept the contractual formulation charge.

As I read the judgement of the Judges, this is good enough to constitute a contract, its a sign and they have ample opportunity to read and accept the offer.

Lets not get over carried away here, they can have it one way or the other and what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Get your contractual offers printed and displayed in your cars, its open season !

ah yes, I knew there would be another use for that empty tax disc holder, I was going to peel it off my windscreen when I got around to it, it can stay there now though, got something to display in it.

Jim_AFCB

toddstar wrote: »

ah yes, I knew there would be another use for that empty tax disc holder, I was going to peel it off my windscreen when I got around to it, it can stay there now though, got something to display in it.

Ah, but it would need to be bigger than a tax disk in order for the signage to be readable. Got to give them every chance of being able to read it....

toddstar

Jim_AFCB wrote: »

Ah, but it would need to be bigger than a tax disk in order for the signage to be readable. Got to give them every chance of being able to read it....

ah, but we could setup our own ipc where the policy states that fonts need not be bigger than the font on a tax disc. and also setup our very own ias so that we can say the font was plenty big enough for traffic wardens and police to read so why not the ppc.

Marktheshark

I dont even think they considered that you have the right to offer the parking firm a contract as well.
Its your car, they want to engage you and service your contract, what did the judges basically say ?
A contract is a contract and the hundreds of years of case Law can go whistle, don't like the contract, don't service it.
See how they like it up.
Good decision by the judges say I, open season is here on offering contracts.

salmosalaris

God help us

Cornucopia

If the essence of the ruling is that "a contract is a contract", then it seems to me that the simplest thing to do would be to submit a proposed contract to selected landowners, to which said landowner would have the choice:-

1. Reply stating that they do not accept the contract terms. (This will cost them time & money to do).

OR

2. Not respond, allowing the contract terms to be forced upon them, creating a contract nullifying any subsequent parking penalties on their land. Obviously, the contract entered into initially can be worded in such a way as to prevent any subsequent attempt to modify critical contract terms.

Half_way

Meanwhile at the BPA/Parking eye celebrations, things are getting a little bit carried away, at a celebratory Toast with Patrick Troy and Rachel Ledson ( with Rossana Breaks in the background) gets a little bit too merry and a bottle of Zinfandel is knocked over, spilling its contents onto the white table cloth and a few wine glasses are broken tucked, not to worry, this is a party right?
However tucked away in tiny small print ( and slightly out of focus/blurred)

"contractual notice, by using the restaurant facilities you are agreeing to help maintain a pleasant an tidy environment, breakages will be charged at £80 per item, and spillages will incur a table linen replacement fee of £250 per table covering"

A few days later, demand notices are received by the team at Parking Eye, and the BPA asking for a ridiculous amount for a minor spillage and a few broken glasses, to add to the mix, the hotel has also 'fined ' them £150 as they alleged they were smoking in their hotel rooms.

Not to worry, these are clearly penalties and are therefore unlawful, so a letter is drafted by Chorleys finest outlining the facts as they see them.
However the protests dont hold much water, when the response comes back citing Barry Beavis vs Parking Eye at the Supreme court.

Cornucopia

Based on another aspect of the ruling, we have it within our control to bring this down simply by refusing to accept the contract terms, either by an over-riding contract, or by refusing to do business at all.

Once a reasonable proportion of people object to the terms, they cease to be reasonable, and therefore cease to be enforceable.

IIUC.

HO87

Half_way wrote: »

Meanwhile at the BPA/Parking eye celebrations, things are getting a little bit carried away, at a celebratory Toast with Patrick Troy and Rachel Ledson ( with Rossana Breaks in the background) gets a little bit too merry and a bottle of Zinfandel is knocked over, spilling its contents onto the white table cloth and a few wine glasses are broken tucked, not to worry, this is a party right?
However tucked away in tiny small print ( and slightly out of focus/blurred)

"contractual notice, by using the restaurant facilities you are agreeing to help maintain a pleasant an tidy environment, breakages will be charged at £80 per item, and spillages will incur a table linen replacement fee of £250 per table covering"

A few days later, demand notices are received by the team at Parking Eye, and the BPA asking for a ridiculous amount for a minor spillage and a few broken glasses, to add to the mix, the hotel has also 'fined ' them £150 as they alleged they were smoking in their hotel rooms.

Not to worry, these are clearly penalties and are therefore unlawful, so a letter is drafted by Chorleys finest outlining the facts as they see them.
However the protests dont hold much water, when the response comes back citing Barry Beavis vs Parking Eye at the Supreme court.

Indeed.

And that is now an entirely realistic scenario. One hopes that the law of of unintended consequences kicks in quickly. Or at least quicker than it has taken to get any clarity in PPC World - bearing in mind that I first came up against a PPC (now long defunkt) in 2004. Then again 11 years seems quite reasonable in legal timescales.

I doubt that their lordships will notice any difference as it will be the Filipino maid who does the shopping and the gardener who visits B&Q etc. The one thing we can be certain of is that a PPC will never get within sniffing distance of Whites or the Carlton Club.

mo786uk

The outcome of the case was not surprising - what is a little surprising is that most peopel thought they would do SOMEHTING on the doctrine of penalties - but they seemed to have sidestepped it and say it is fine as it is.

They are also endorsing the concept of commercial justification - which actually I don't have a problem with per se - its just the fact that it is so far open to debate as to what falls in and out of it.