Advice please on case regarding contracting with minors

rippedoff16

Quentin wrote: »

Don't know where you saw that advice (what did you think the reason was when you were asked the question originally?)

Whatever, what makes you now say they won't take court action now the futility of the age issue has been accepted??

Ok in that case its MET Parking

My Popla appeal was rejected on many points, signage, no warnings, etc. I thought that the contracting with minors was thier weakest response so have now focussed on that. I note that in the last 3 years they have only taken 3 cases to court

Quentin

So now isn't the time to be stressing about that attempt to use that defence point!

Ignore everything. See #4 in the FAQ which advises on the debt collectors stage

In the unlikely event of a lbcca or Court correspondence then come back for advice on how to defend (properly!) at that time

They have 6 years to start legal proceedings

rippedoff16

Quentin wrote: »

So now isn't the time to be stressing about that attempt to use that defence point!

Ignore everything. See #4 in the FAQ which advises on the debt collectors stage

In the unlikely event of a lbcca or Court correspondence then come back for advice on how to defend (properly!) at that time

They have 6 years to start legal proceedings

Perfect and thanks for your help. I was just testing the water before deciding what the next steps were. will take your advice, will sit tight. Just didn't want this to end up costing more.

Thanks Everyone

beamerguy

rippedoff16 wrote: »

Ok in that case its MET Parking

My Popla appeal was rejected on many points, signage, no warnings, etc. I thought that the contracting with minors was thier weakest response so have now focussed on that. I note that in the last 3 years they have only taken 3 cases to court

POPLA nowadays is useless, their assessors do not
understand, one or two do, but in general .... useless
No surprise to us

I don't think a judge would agree with you as he has a driving
licence and that covers everything to do with driving.

Forget the POPLA bunch whatever they say is not law
A judge may well view the signs in a different way and
you should labour this point

Quentin

rippedoff16 wrote: »

. I was just testing the water before deciding what the next steps were.

Once popla fails there's nothing to do as you are in the wait and see/debt collectors stage

(As mentioned above)

File the correspondence you get from the debt collectors and see if court action does turn up

Loadsofchildren123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5864382


The legalities of 17 year olds incurring parking charges was debated at length on this thread not very long ago. Don't mean to be grumpy, but if you'd searched the forum you would have found a lot of information on this before you even started your thread. Please use this forum as the resource it is, by reading similar problems to your own and the advice given. I'm not discouraging you from posting your own thread, but your first post asked if anyone knew of similar cases - a simple search would have taken you to the thread I've linked to above, in which relevant legislation, case law and explanatory notes were linked.

Would your 17 y/o think he could get out of a council ticket because he's 17? If not, why should he get off a private one because of his age? Old enough to drive a car, old enough to read signs (if well placed and clearly worded) telling him what the t&cs of the site are. 17 y/os may well be naïve and unworldly, but then so are lots of adults.

You are far better off focusing on the fact that your son didn't realise that he had to do something to avoid a charge other than simply be a customer - whether that was presenting something for validation or, as is more common, entering his Reg on a tablet at the counter. The point is, how well was this requirement communicated to him as a driver, both at the point of parking and when he ordered his food (if it was communicated at all)? Was it hidden in small print on the signs in the car park? Was it on the signage at all? What exactly did the signs say (these things often boil down to the precise wording)? Was there any sign up inside the McD's to indicate what he had to do, how and where? How prominently displayed was any signage inside the restaurant?


There are lots and lots of threads on this specific issue - often they are gym threads, often pub/restaurant ones too - where users are supposed to sign in on a tablet (or take some other step to validate them as a user of the establishment). The usual defence is that the requirement to do x, y or z did not form any part of the contract between driver and PPC because it was not properly communicated (or at all).


Please move on from the issue of him being a minor and focus on this. What exactly did the signage say?


If it comes to it, you can choose to argue the minors point, but I think it's weak and it may detract from other defences you have which may be much better/stronger defences.