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

fisherjim

Maybe the government will extract their very large heads from their even larger backsides and actually do something to regulate this tarnished industry.

There is no reason why they can't put proper rules and laws in place, not wishy washy codes of practice and guidelines dreamed up by the farcical organisations that exists to support the extortionists!

There should be a set of legal standards for signage and charges, no incentivisation of staff, no toytown ANPR and the scheme should be overseen by a government department like the car MOT system is.

But of course they can't even keep the local councils in check so why would they start with PPC Muppets

Cornucopia

Another contract law possibility:-

The ruling specifically includes the potential for one party to act as an agent for another in making and enforcing contracts. So, there then exists a form of protest whereby a group of protesters could stand outside a car park, and for a nominal consideration of 1p, offer to act as agents for arriving motorists with the landowner and the PPC.

This could be done in conjunction with the windscreen notices suggested by MarktheShark, or in some cases by offering to obscure ANPR reading of the car number plate upon entry, for example by standing in front of the camera, where placed at ground level.

Whilst it's a shame that the Supreme Court chose to go down this route of devaluing existing legislation (something that I believe they should be much more cautious about), the potential for mischief-making using contract law is simply vast.

salmosalaris

The Supreme Court did introduce a useful caveat to its judgment , albeit on Twitter !

https://mobile.twitter.com/UKSupremeCourt/status/661846322417397760

bazster

I'm not sure a comment on Twitter (even if it does come from the Supreme Court) does caveat a Supreme Court judgment!

salmosalaris

Hence my exclamation mark :-)

TDA

Cornucopia wrote: »

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.

This is getting a bit desperate now. Silence can't amount to acceptance of an offer and the landowner has done nothing through their conduct to suggest that they have accepted.

As for thoughts that restaurants will now charge £85 for a table spill - please read the judgment before spouting such sensationalist nonsense. The court provides for the need for a legitimate interest, a clear social benefit and also references the fact that in parking the income from breach is largely the sole stream of income.

DCodd

TDA wrote: »

This is getting a bit desperate now. Silence can't amount to acceptance of an offer and the landowner has done nothing through their conduct to suggest that they have accepted.

As for thoughts that restaurants will now charge £85 for a table spill - please read the judgment before spouting such sensationalist nonsense. The court provides for the need for a legitimate interest, a clear social benefit and also references the fact that in parking the income from breach is largely the sole stream of income.

That suggests that you think that this judgement will have no effect on pay and display private parking? It also suggests that you think that the restaurants customers would fight the charge through the courts.


The parking charges are still just speculative invoices just as the restaurants would be...No?

Cornucopia

TDA wrote: »

This is getting a bit desperate now. Silence can't amount to acceptance of an offer and the landowner has done nothing through their conduct to suggest that they have accepted.

It is not silence - it is the act of continuing to allow you to park on their land, after the delivery of proposed contract terms. Two can play at the imposition of contract terms game.

As for thoughts that restaurants will now charge £85 for a table spill - please read the judgment before spouting such sensationalist nonsense. The court provides for the need for a legitimate interest, a clear social benefit and also references the fact that in parking the income from breach is largely the sole stream of income.

I agree that it is sensationalist, though I disagree that the caveats make other applications of the principles unlikely. What is more of a deterrent is that parking is one of the few of this type of activity where Ts & Cs are unlikely to be known prior to turning up to use the service. In using a restaurant, it is likely to be held unreasonable, if, when you went to their website to book or consult the menu, you were not given the opportunity to see their penalty charges. Also, we need to consider that unreasonable charges deter the establishment of goodwill, which this type of business ultimately relies upon.

Fortunately, I think parking provides an almost unique opportunity for abuse (but I wouldn't be surprised if other penalties did start to appear, nor do I think that Which? were being sensationalist in supporting the Beavis case).

TDA

Sorry, but it is silence. They have done nothing to communicate their acceptance whatsoever. If you think the courts are going to rule that a you can send someone a letter proposing contractual terms and they have accepted it because they ignored it you are having a laugh.

Herzlos

Isn't that how it works the other way round? By parking, you are taken to have agreed to a contract which you may or may not know exists? A contract that you would never agree to independently either.