parking in London

pappa_golf

worn_out wrote: »

This is the view i've been taking but i've got unnerved by comments about this being just a minor infringement and easily rectified, and judges are saying not enough to nullify the contract. I was looking at the Proceeds from Crimes legislation to see if it helped, but there's nothing specific I can rely on.

if it did , then the DVLA would have been shut down ,,,,,,,,,

beamerguy

pappa_golf wrote: »

if it did , then the DVLA would have been shut down ,,,,,,,,,

hahahahaha ... so good, what you on pappa, i want some

worn_out

pappa_golf wrote: »

if it did , then the DVLA would have been shut down ,,,,,,,,,

I'm with you on that one !

I was thinking along the lines about profiting from an illegal act, which I think is in the proceeds legislation. There are several cases where 'contracts' were formed , but because an illegal act was implicit the contracts were declared unenforceable...on the basis that you cannot contract based on an illegal action.

worn_out

this was one link -

https://www.morton-fraser.com/knowledge-hub/illegal-contracts-supreme-court-clarifies-law

beamerguy

worn_out wrote: »

I'm with you on that one !

I was thinking along the lines about profiting from an illegal act, which I think is in the proceeds legislation. There are several cases where 'contracts' were formed , but because an illegal act was implicit the contracts were declared unenforceable...on the basis that you cannot contract based on an illegal action.

NO NO, parking scammers are just low key stuff as is
a county court. Just concentrate on winning and if it
goes to court (doubtful), you can claim your costs for a win

Coupon-mad

worn_out wrote: »

The LA have written to me stating that they are pursuing LCP for the illegal parking signs. This confirms the signs were in breach of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S224 (3) .where it states "if any person displays an advertisement in contravention of the regulations he shall be guilty of an offence........".

This should be enough to establish that a 'contract' which relies on the illegal signs is invalid. ? Surely it is not open to interpretation by a District Judge.

Nope.

Neither of the points you made in your opening post would win at a hearing, as a defence. However, when people do get claims on here, we do help them with a decent defence and 99% of fully-assisted people win.

nosferatu1001

beamerguy wrote: »

No permission for signs = no contract
If LCP are stupid enough to see you in court, let
the judge do the spanking.

For your pure pleasure, it would be worth telling
your story to the local press which will let others
know and if the signs are illegal, refunds are due
for those who paid

If you’re assuming ex Turpi is a magic bullet, you can be in for a shock.
It’s not a strong defence.

worn_out

Would you say that once you pass the ANPR cameras you have 'agreed' to be bound by the contract terms and thus that is the time the contract started ? I ask this, even though I know the BPA CoP states 'grace periods' should be allowed. For instance, the BPA state 10 mins minimum should be allowed for leaving the car park at the end of the parking period, PLUS time allowed at the start to read the signs. This suggests to me entry through the ANPR is 'conditional acceptance subject to reading the T&Cs'. The contract starts after the initial grace period allowance has passed and ends 10 minutes before exiting through the ANPR cameras. In my case, I was allowed the 10 minutes at the end, but only one minute at the beginning (a total of 11 minutes). While this is not made known to the driver anywhere in the car park it is the BPA CoP..however it took me (the other day) 7 minutes to actually read the copies I have of the T&Cs, the parking conditions and pricing rules. I was in and out in 16 minutes so this might suggest any overstay was not of any significance which the BPA state 'the odd few minutes should not be pursued'.

This is the extract from the BPA CoP

13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If thedriver is on your land without permission you should stillallow them a grace period to read your signs and leavebefore you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace periodat a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave theprivate car park after the parking contract has ended, beforeyou take enforcement action. If the location is one whereparking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the endof the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes

Coupon-mad

Would you say that once you pass the ANPR cameras you have 'agreed' to be bound by the contract terms and thus that is the time the contract started ?

Nope. We would not say that. A daft, embarrassingly anti-consumer, unreasonable & unfair argument, spouted by desperate PPCs and their Trade Bodies. It's defendable.

In my case, I was allowed the 10 minutes at the end, but only one minute at the beginning (a total of 11 minutes).

Same as this case then, only this person has a PE PCN:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5761491

I would not be concerned about defending either case, clearly you need some minutes on arrival and have not agreed to any contract on the threshold of the car park site! And if you are allowed AT LEAST ten minutes to leave, then clearly 11 minutes all told is more than reasonable and indicates the driver cannot have outstayed actual parking time when the 10 minutes 'leaving' grace time is taken off. And never mind the other argument, that the exist camera may not be synched with the entrance timer and/or synched with any separate PDT machine...which would only need to be ONE minute out!

worn_out

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Nope. We would not say that. A daft, embarrassingly anti-consumer, unreasonable & unfair argument, spouted by desperate PPCs and their Trade Bodies. It's defendable.



Same as this case then, only this person has a PE PCN:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5761491

I would not be concerned about defending either case, clearly you need some minutes on arrival and have not agreed to any contract on the threshold of the car park site! And if you are allowed AT LEAST ten minutes to leave, then clearly 11 minutes all told is more than reasonable and indicates the driver cannot have outstayed actual parking time when the 10 minutes 'leaving' grace time is taken off. And never mind the other argument, that the exist camera may not be synched with the entrance timer and/or synched with any separate PDT machine...which would only need to be ONE minute out!

As the car park signs state ALL parking time is to be paid for...and the BPA advise operator members NOT to advertise the grace periods - then any person 'nipping in' for a quick 5 or 10 minute shop is paying unnecessarily... it's clearly a money making scam.