Are ANPR cowboys guilty of mis-selling

Albert_owley

Shoot me down in flames as I don't have much of a head for Legalese, but could we not convict the Parking Cowboys in court for mis-selling? The recent PPI scandal due to the Banks mis-selling a service seems no different to what companies like Parking Eye do. I enter into a contract apparently as soon as I park and they sell me the service of parking. This service is wholly unsuitable to my needs given that I can park on double yellows, or even in the Lord Mayor's parking space and it would cost me less than the £100 charge (not a fine) from Parking Eye. Parking Eye, if you are reading this, then I give notice that my PCN is being stored away for the day when you are targeted by money chasing solicitors just like the Banks.:j

beamerguy

Albert_owley wrote: »

Shoot me down in flames as I don't have much of a head for Legalese, but could we not convict the Parking Cowboys in court for mis-selling? The recent PPI scandal due to the Banks mis-selling a service seems no different to what companies like Parking Eye do. I enter into a contract apparently as soon as I park and they sell me the service of parking. This service is wholly unsuitable to my needs given that I can park on double yellows, or even in the Lord Mayor's parking space and it would cost me less than the £100 charge (not a fine) from Parking Eye. Parking Eye, if you are reading this, then I give notice that my PCN is being stored away for the day when you are targeted by money chasing solicitors just like the Banks.:j

As long as they state on their signs that the car park uses ANPR, there is no mis selling

If you continue to park you are supposed to know what is
going on (debatable in many cases)

fisherjim

Albert_owley wrote: »

I enter into a contract apparently as soon as I park and they sell me the service of parking. This service is wholly unsuitable to my needs given that I can park on double yellows, or even in the Lord Mayor's parking space and it would cost me less than the £100 charge (not a fine) from Parking Eye. Parking Eye, if you are reading this, then I give notice that my PCN is being stored away for the day when you are targeted by money chasing solicitors just like the Banks.:j

If you park on a double yellow line you are not entering into a contract you are given a penalty charge by an authority.

When you park your car in a private car park they allege you are entering into a contract after a set period of time to digest the terms of that contract.

The only similarity is the shady tactics that then go on to deny you of any leeway, compassion, or appeal against their greed for cash should things go minutely against their rules, or bending of the rules.

Guys_Dad

Albert_owley wrote: »

Shoot me down in flames as I don't have much of a head for Legalese, but could we not convict the Parking Cowboys in court for mis-selling?

Bang ! Bang!

Geoff1963

They argue that they are offering a service for a price, like a nightclub will charge N x more for a pint of Coke than Tesco do.
They argue that the price suddenly jumps up after a set time, or that it is much lower ( e.g. £2 vs. £60 ) if you park in certain areas, display certain tickets or badges etc.

Good point fisherjim about the minor infringements issue ; it would be interesting to know what proportion of their revenue comes from "penalty" charges rather than normal ones. If it is unduly high, that could point towards "entrapment", such as vaguely worded signs. There's a thread which discusses "parking", and if perhaps there should be a requirement to show that the vehicle was parked, rather than merely on the premises ( as logged by ANPR ).

pappa_golf

Geoff1963 wrote: »

They argue that they are offering a service for a price, like a nightclub will charge N x more for a pint of Coke than Tesco do.
They argue that the price suddenly jumps up after a set time, or that it is much lower ( e.g. £2 vs. £60 ) if you park in certain areas, display certain tickets or badges etc.

Good point fisherjim about the minor infringements issue ; it would be interesting to know what proportion of their revenue comes from "penalty" charges rather than normal ones. If it is unduly high, that could point towards "entrapment", such as vaguely worded signs. There's a thread which discusses "parking", and if perhaps there should be a requirement to show that the vehicle was parked, rather than merely on the premises ( as logged by ANPR ).

in 99% of cases on here , the land is owned by a 3rd party (shop / pub etc) , therefore the parking co has NO loss only the land owner

a little stunt was tried by proserve? (ransom buisness park) to reverse this and state that the parking co was liable for the landowners loss , or something like that

or was it trevor whitehouse , cont remember that far back

Guys_Dad

Geoff1963 wrote: »

it would be interesting to know what proportion of their revenue comes from "penalty" charges rather than normal ones. If it is unduly high, that could point towards "entrapment", such as vaguely worded signs.

The whole business model is based on these "poenalty" charges. In fact, in a number of cases the PPC actually pays the landowner to trawl the site relying totally on the charges they make on infringements.

You need to recognise the difference between indignation on this matter (that all of us share) and the illegalities. PPCs lose cases because of their failings to adhere strictly to the laws and business practices, including signs. And, yes, these may very well be forms of entrapment, but in each case, you need to prove that.

But the best you can do as an individual at the moment is to warn your friends that they can incur charges in private car parks, that some PPCs actually do take people to court and if any of your mates do get a private parking ticket, before doing anything including appealing or deciding to ignore, get them to come on here, read the Newbies thread and then read up a number of other threads too.