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

dxc_chappie

So are PPCs now going to resurrect all old claims going back 6 years? Will there be flood of letters from PPCs going out to past "offenders"?

Herzlos

POFA 2012 will still be in place, so we're probably only looking at 3 years of backdated spam. Probably as quickly as possible to try and catch people before a new approach can be decided upon.

Coupon-mad

dxc_chappie wrote: »

So are PPCs now going to resurrect all old claims going back 6 years? Will there be flood of letters from PPCs going out to past "offenders"?

No doubt some will, yes. But not all cases are the same as the Beavis case.

bazster

Cornucopia wrote: »

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.

When it comes to parking contracts the act of parking (and remaining parked after you have seen - or ought to have seen - the terms) is taken to be acceptance of the contract. Acceptance by performance.

If you send someone a letter and they completely ignore it there is no performance.

Someone even tried suing a parking company after sending them a letter setting out that, if they continued to pursue a parking charge, then this would constitute acceptance by performance of his terms, which were that they agreed to pay him a stipulated sum. They continued, he sued, and he got a severe telling-off by the judge and a stern warning not to try it again.

bazster

Cornucopia wrote: »

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).

Budget hotels are the most worrying area in my opinion. One of them already tries to charge people £400 for smoking in their room (with the allegation sometimes seeming to be as dubious/unfounded as many PPC charges).

Unlike many other transactions, in a hotel you need to identify yourself (at least to the extent of handing over a credit card). For most other transactions, though, the trader doesn't know who you are so there's really no point in them trying to levy default charges.

The reason it's so popular for parking is, quite simply, there's a bloody great unique number on the front/back of every car.

bazster

Herzlos wrote: »

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?

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.

Coupon-mad

bazster wrote: »

The reason it's so popular for parking is, quite simply, there's a bloody great unique number on the front/back of every car.

...only if people don't cover it up whilst on land infested by the ex-clamper brigade!

nigelbb

bazster wrote: »

The reason it's so popular for parking is, quite simply, there's a bloody great unique number on the front/back of every car.

There is also the parallel of council parking & statutory penalties that the PPC's ape. The fact that there are real fines for parking offences makes their fake private 'fines' seem equally justified in the eyes of many motorists.

There is also the scary sounding Protection Of Freedoms Act to threaten motorists with. If the parking measures in Schedule 4 had not been tacked onto terrorism legislation but had been standalone as the Parking Miscellaneous Measures Act there would be on less weapon for the crooks & bullies in PPW World to use.

arthurx1234

Sooo....
Beavis wasted everyones time
and as for the "genuine pre-estimate of loss" advise from experts on this forum===SCUPPERED--- So good luck with your fight against the ticket if you have used that as an excuse for not paying

Arthur

bod1467

Added to my Ignore list. You do talk some utter rubbish.