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

bazster

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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

I've been looking at this stuff:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Smart-Film-starter-Kit-4-X-2-electrochromic-film-switchable-glass-glass-pdlc-/261068133745

Unfortunately it's transparent when the power is on, opaque when off, and you really need it to be the other way around otherwise your number's gonna disappear whenever you turn off the key, which is obviously a no-no when parking on the public highway!

Or a simple visor above your number plate such that the plate is partially obscured when viewed from the height/angle of a PPC camera. I've had a look at the number plate regulations and as far as I can see they specify the minimum angles of visibility of the plate in a horizontal plane, but say nothing about the vertical.

salmosalaris

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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

It is so laughably easy to avoid a PE ANPR ticket I would argue their system does nothing to reduce the deliberate abuse of their car parks by those who set out to do so .But it was the need to prevent such abuse that provided a large part of their justification for their charges and their necessity .

bazster

bod1467 wrote: »

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

The same idiot who, such is his ignorance, hoped on another thread that this wouldn't lead to councils increasing their charges.

Umkomaas

arthurx1234 wrote: »

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

For those of you not familiar with the hypocrisy here, this is a little reminder of the threads this guy opened on the forum desperately seeking the ('scuppered') regulars' help to get his son off a parking charge.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5206641

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5207717

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5213977

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5219986

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5218792

Until he finally popped his cork and exploded at regulars with this diatribe:

I must be one of the few posters who is trying to keep "on topic" and not preoccupied in a quest to insult others whose viewpoint differs from the majority. Iwonder if their phobia is treatable.
This topic has evolved into a verbal punch up and I feel a bit like Rodney King. I have tried not to insult individual posters.

The concept of someone having a different opinion to others seems to inflame certain posters emotions and is beyond the grasp of the genetically deficient individuals involved. Posting hyperlinks to my previous posts in a feeble attempt to discredit anything I may have posted again shows the inability of these single celled organisms to grasp the idea of free speech and free thinking so proves they should refrain from venturing far from the primordial ooze in which they inhabit.
I have tried to resist the strong temptation to lower myself to the level of others but the amount of effluent emanating from the keyboards of the dim witted makes it unavoidable.

It is important that posters remember that criticism is just prejudice made plausible.

I am amazed that some knuckle dragging Neanderthals’ have mastered the QWERTY keyboard, however have failed to stick to the topic being discussed and fail miserably at containing their anger
.
I do laugh at some of the nonsense ejaculated onto this forum by these unusual suspects, and the questionable motivation for doing so, perhaps to lead a peasant rebellion, but as long as they are doing something constructive with the other hand that’s o.k. by me.
So my stance has not changed Beavis should pay up
Spleen vented haaaaaaaaa and breath,
baa baa for now everybody baa baa
“ I am a soldier in the army of the Lord and would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live as if there isn't and to die to find out that there is.”


Arthur

Purely, as the reader will understand, to create a little bit of context and balance in this!

Cornucopia

arthurx1234 wrote: »

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

That's a slightly jaundiced view of the ruling.

The penalty charges must still be reasonable. All that has happened is that the Court has ruled that THESE fees are reasonable for THIS car park in the Beavis case circumstances.

(The tweet above specifically says this).

Cornucopia

bazster wrote: »

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.

IANAL, but I'm sure that I/we/some lawyers could devise a contractual arrangement based on the Beavis ruling that would mess with landowners and/or protect against penalty fees.

The contractual circumstances start with their general invitation for you to park on their land, whilst frequenting the business(es) of their tenant(s). You then write to them to "clarify" the exact terms of that invitation, because you are "aware" that the terms they wish to apply do not suit you and you wish to negotiate with them. At the end of it all, you have the option not to park there, and they have the option not to let you - that being the ultimate object of all of this.

If you want to encourage a response from them, then you add a pre-payment for parking to your letter. Yes, I know there are rules/laws about unsolicited payments, and would need to look into them to decide whether this was a good gambit or not, and whether a cheque or cash would have best effect.

The other contract law point is that an earlier contract has the potential to set the context of any subsequent contact. There would then be a potential legal challenge as to whether the Car Park signs could implement a completely new contract, invalidating the previous one between you & the landowner, or whether it was possible, but only if explicitly stated.

I'm also thinking penalty fees upon the landowner if they allow their PPC agents to issue penalty fees on you. As I say - lots of fun to be had with contract law, especially in the light of these new "principles".

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.

That couldn't possibly work.

If Judges want to avoid the need to get "stern" with us, they need to stop handing down stupid judgements.

TDA

A) It won't work.

Even if it did, it is an incredibly convoluted and time consuming method to use every time you park. Far better off just parking in accordance with the T&Cs and if you end up with a ticket anyway defending it in court.

bazster

TDA wrote: »

A) It won't work.

Even if it did, it is an incredibly convoluted and time consuming method to use every time you park. Far better off just parking in accordance with the T&Cs and if you end up with a ticket anyway defending it in court.

My approach as far as practicable is to simply avoid businesses that have the scum in their car parks (having written to the CEO to tell him why they have lost my custom).

I am however running out of supermarkets within a sensible driving distance.

Cornucopia

TDA wrote:

A) It won't work.

As I said, the intention is to mess with the Landowner (making it clear that their actions have consequences) and/or to achieve protection against penalty charges.

There is nothing controversial with the broad concept of negotiating the terms of a contract so that it suits both parties (indeed, that is the essence of a contract).

Even if it did, it is an incredibly convoluted and time consuming method to use every time you park. Far better off just parking in accordance with the T&Cs and if you end up with a ticket anyway defending it in court.

I'm not thinking of this as an "everytime you park" thing. The Landowners of your few frequently chosen car parks remain the same over a prolonged period. You engage with them once, well before you want to park under your preferred terms.

bazster

You just don't seem to grasp that that you can't inveigle someone into a contract simply by offering them terms, they need to do something positive to indicate their acceptance. Don't see how sending them money helps, if they've got any sense they'll simply return it.

If the idea is to indicate that you don't accept their terms then you've actually made your position weaker: if you now go along and park there you have given them positive proof that you actually know what their terms are and that by parking there you accept them by performance.