Driver/registered keeper under 18

twhitehousescat

"The "contract" of parking is relevant only to the period she was parked there. Unless she left the car there until she was over 18, the contract is, and always will be, with a minor."


I like that , the contract the minor entered into was only for a few hours , (as stated on signage) , not for life

"A minor between 7 and 18 years of age can therefore enter into a contract. There is a presumption, however, that they do not understand the implications of entering into the contract. This means that the minor remains protected, to the disadvantage of the other party. The minor is also able to cancel a contract at any time before reaching the age of 18, and for a reasonable period afterwards without valid reason as the contract is ‘voidable’. Although generally minors are protected,"

jmccabe

Thanks for your reply; the heinous infringement was overstaying her welcome in a car park that I believe is owned by Cordea Savills and houses Lidl, Pets At Home, and a few other places.

This has been going on since July and I've (on behalf of, but not under the instruction of, if you know what I mean) been dealing with it. In the worst case it'll be me that as to cough up the dough, and I obviously don't want to, but...

There have been letters and the latest one from DRP is that they've recommended to their client that they instruct a solicitor blah blah, so waiting to see what happens next.

I've based the appeal/defence on the age issue; that may, in hindsight, have been the wrong way but we'll see.

Perhaps I would've been better arguing about the signage; the sign going in to the car park is practically unreadable, especially as there are often random pedestrians wandering about there that you need try to avoid and, as far as I can see, it's quite easy to miss reading any of the signs actually up in the car park (having looked after the fact). There are certainly places you can park where there aren't any signs particularly visible, so I've come back on here to see whether the fact that I've based the argument on age so far means I can't re-divert the argument at the next stage.

Umkomaas

owned by Cordea Savills

Savills are quite good at cancelling PPC parking charges. Pen them a nice letter and ask them to help.

twhitehousescat

well they are going to take court action or they won,t

blow BW s legal brains one , get daughter to write letters to britannia AND BW stating that she wishes to cancel the contract she entered as a minor

we shall await there replies , as they are treading in aspects of law over there heads , and will cost them money to work out an answer to comply with UK law

Half_way

Thanks for your reply; the heinous infringement was overstaying her welcome in a car park that I believe is owned by Cordea Savills and houses Lidl, Pets At Home, and a few other places.

How long was the overstay?
10 minutes or less
15 minutes
20minutes
more than 30 minutes?
more than 1 hour?


As for Savills, before you get in touch you should post up what you intend to say on here first

beamerguy

twhitehousescat wrote: »

well they are going to take court action or they won,t

blow BW s legal brains one , get daughter to write letters to britannia AND BW stating that she wishes to cancel the contract she entered as a minor

we shall await there replies , as they are treading in aspects of law over there heads , and will cost them money to work out an answer to comply with UK law

That will be fun ..... given the low intelligence of BWLegal, would they understand ? doubt it

jmccabe

Thanks for those replies. The overstay was substantial (over an hour), which helps my view that she didn't understand what she was getting into!

I've emailed Savills to check they are the owner of the site; I didn't find anything definitive, just a link saying they'd bought the site in 2015, but I will let you know what I'm thinking of saying.

For what it's worth at the 'appeal' stage, which seems like a total farce to me, 'we' filled in the form stating what I've mentioned before, i.e. that she didn't understand the consequences and, even then, she has cancelled the contract, as allowed by law, and that there is therefore no charge to pay. Despite that Smart Parking have passed it on to DCP who've done the usual stuff. I've written, recorded delivery, to both them and Smart Parking reiterating that the contract has been voided and there's no charge to pay

Interestingly, wrt the "necessity" thing, I've just had a chat with one of my daughter's friend who's studying law and has just done a module on contract law that dealt in part with contracts with minors. Apparently one of the cases they studied dealt with some university student who went and bought a load of suits (he said) from a Saville Row tailor and got away with not paying for them due to a defence of infancy and the contract not being of necessity because he already had loads of clothes, so didn't need the extra suits. I'll check more on the details with him, but I think it may be Nash v Inman, the details of which can be found on Wikipedia (I can't post links yet or I'd have done so!). It's an interesting one; although that case is quite old, I don't think anything significant has changed in English law to make it invalid.

waamo

I think there is a world of difference between parking a car and buying a bespoke suit.

Interesting that you listen to a law student but disagree with the qualified, practicing solicitor that has responded on this thread.

jmccabe

waamo wrote: »

I think there is a world of difference between parking a car and buying a bespoke suit.

Interesting that you listen to a law student but disagree with the qualified, practicing solicitor that has responded on this thread.

Who's that, then? I wasn't made aware that a practising solicitor had responded.

Redx

jmccabe wrote: »

Who's that, then? I wasn't made aware that a practising solicitor had responded.

why would anyone make you aware of that fact or have to state it ?

its not a requirement on signup, but the regulars who come here daily and offer free advice have seen posts where we know when a practising solicitor has posted, of which there may be a handful, and/or people like BARGEPOLE who have CILEX training

it would be wrong of them to actually give proper legal advice on this forum so any OPINION they have given is just that, a personal opinion backed by their legal training and experience but as you are not paying for that advice it has to be taken as an opinion only, but a powerful one given what they do for a living


it does say so in her post, skim reading wont help