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

nigelbb

Cornucopia wrote: »

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).

The £85 that the Supreme Court deemed not to to be unconscionable or unreasonable to deter overstay in a busy car park is well below the £100 that the BPA Ltd thinks is OK for all parking 'crimes' e.g. wheel over white line, 10 minutes overstay, mis-typing a registration number etc

Cornucopia

bazster wrote: »

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.

Four things (I'll go over again, before I leave you to it for the time being)...

- It isn't solely about "inveigling" them. There is a cost to them of even reading your letter. Multiply that several hundred times (from different "customers") and you have enough work for a full-time person, potentially.

- Yes, potentially they would return your 50p. At a cost to them. Multiply that several hundred times... you get the idea.

- The Beavis ruling specifically creates a principle whereby a contract can (effectively) be unilaterally imposed. I think we should explore that, especially in the context of protesting it.

- The general principle of contracts is that they are mutually agreed, and can be subject to a degree of negotiation. The judgment does not change that, although it imposes certain practical considerations.

The Powers That Be have decided (in their wisdom) that contract law should control the otherwise almost trivial act of parking. So be it. That decision has consequences.

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.

The intention is not to park there under their terms. Though if you did, I cannot really see your position being any weaker than it already is - which is quite weak indeed.

Herzlos

Is the better approach to park in a car park, go straight to the customer services desk to attempt to renegotiate the contract? Or is it too late as you've already parked?

Coupon-mad

Cover your number plate when leaving then remove the cover once back out on street.

You can negotiate if disabled, if the CS desk will listen.

System

The Beavis ruling specifically creates a principle whereby a contract can (effectively) be unilaterally imposed.

You've got that back to front. It's the driver that makes the offer by parking. PE accepts it once the car has been in position for a period of time. Then the contract is formed i.e after grace.

bazster

Cornucopia wrote: »

Four things (I'll go over again, before I leave you to it for the time being)...

- It isn't solely about "inveigling" them. There is a cost to them of even reading your letter. Multiply that several hundred times (from different "customers") and you have enough work for a full-time person, potentially.

- Yes, potentially they would return your 50p. At a cost to them. Multiply that several hundred times... you get the idea.

That's got nothing to do with contract law, it's simply making yourself a pain in the behind. Good luck getting hundreds of people to act in unison but if you can achieve that you should simply get them to all to boycott the place and write to the CEO explaining why they are doing so. That'd work, but you've no chance of getting hundreds of people to do it.

Cornucopia wrote: »

- The Beavis ruling specifically creates a principle whereby a contract can (effectively) be unilaterally imposed. I think we should explore that, especially in the context of protesting it.

No it doesn't. Whether you agree with it or not the principle that a contract can be offered by signage and accepted by performance has been established for donkeys' years. It's not being imposed unilaterally, you have the option of rejecting it and leaving.

Cornucopia wrote: »

- The general principle of contracts is that they are mutually agreed, and can be subject to a degree of negotiation. The judgment does not change that, although it imposes certain practical considerations.

A contract can be subject to negotiation, but doesn't have to be. The UTCCR 1999, and then the CRA 2015, introduced the idea that a term in a consumer contract could be (but isn't necessarily) unfair if it hasn't been negotiated. This Supreme Court judgment seems to rip that to shreds, which if anything leaves you in an even weaker position vis a vis the contract offered by the landowner, not (as you seem to think for reasons I can't fathom) a stronger position.

nigelbb

IamEmanresu wrote: »

You've got that back to front. It's the driver that makes the offer by parking. PE accepts it once the car has been in position for a period of time. Then the contract is formed i.e after grace.

You've got that back to front. If you accept the fiction that in a free car park that there is a contract for parking rather than a bare licence (a proposition that was not tested in the Beavis case) then the offer is made by PE & the motorist accepts by performance i.e. parking.

bazster

nigelbb wrote: »

You've got that back to front. If you accept the fiction that in a free car park that there is a contract for parking rather than a bare licence (a proposition that was not tested in the Beavis case) then the offer is made by PE & the motorist accepts by performance i.e. parking.

I too should've qualified my above points by stating that in a free car park it is indeed a fiction that there is any contract at all.

In Beavis, Lord Neuberger started the entire Supreme Court hearing by inviting Barry's QC to pursue this argument. The QC refused and insisted there was a contract. Neuberger still wasn't happy and invited the counsels to make further written submissions on this point, in which Barry's QC still ignored the open goal in front of him and continued to insist there was a contract.

So the SC judged the case on the basis that there was a contract, and we are where we are. :wall:

The_Slithy_Tove

bazster wrote: »

So the SC judged the case on the basis that there was a contract, and we are where we are. :wall:

Are you saying that it's perfectly feasible to argue in future cases that there was no contract. When challenged with Beavis, you point out that in that case, the presence of a contract was only assumed, and it cannot be drawn from that judgement that a contract exists in this case?

bazster

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Are you saying that it's perfectly feasible to argue in future cases that there was no contract. When challenged with Beavis, you point out that in that case, the presence of a contract was only assumed, and it cannot be drawn from that judgement that a contract exists in this case?

I'm not sure really. Moloney dealt with the issue at the County Court when he ruled (wrongly) that BB's promise to leave after two hours constituted consideration and hence there was a contract, and having ruled on it he did not allow it as an appeal point. Despite that, the Appeal Court touched on it, and the Supreme Court threw the door wide open again, except Barry's QC declined to walk through it.

So I'm not sure where it really stands now as a potential defence, I just know it has not been properly explored.