We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Gladstones Taking Mum To Court- Defence
Options
ironicallylegal
Posts: 10 Forumite
Hello!
I am acting as a Litigant Friend for my mum, who received a PCN for parking on private land. The Claimant, Millennium Door and Event Security are being represented by Gladstones who are making a claim that my mum 'breached the terms of the parking'. I have sent an acknowledgement of service. The gist of the defence is that:
There can be no contract as the signs were prohibitive- there was a 'Keep Clear Private Car Park' sign placed in the car park, which suggests that contrary to an offer to park, parking was prohibited.
However, this can go either of two ways as there are other signs on the premises. In the alternative that the court holds that a contract can be construed from the signs, I would argue that the £160 fine is unenforceable. To do this, I rely on Clause 19 of the BPA Code of Practice:
“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must
be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the
charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the
amount in advance.
19.6 If your parking charge is based on a contractually agreed
sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. If it is
more than the recommended amount in 19.5 and is not justified
in advance, it could lead to an investigation by the Office of
Fair Trading.”
Now this is where I'm struggling. The sign that warned of the PCN stated:
"By parking or remaining without a valid permit, you agree to pay a sum of £100". It later states that a failure to pay within 28 days will result in a further £60 payment.
As a matter of contract law, if the first part of the sign is to be read as saying 'you can park here if you pay £100' then it is an offer to park in return for consideration of £100, and this falls within Clause 19.6 as a contractually agreed amount, and it would not exceed the £100 limit placed by the BPA. My issue is with how the further £60 comes into play. Is it a further inflation of the initial fine and thus in breach of the code, or is it being charged separately for breach of contract, meaning that in itself it does not fall foul of Clause 19.5 as it is below the £100 limit?
I should further highlight that the £60 fine was included in microscopic print and buried in a paragraph of text. Aside from arguments relating to Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, if someone has further points to add I would be very grateful.
Edit: Millennium have no claim in trespass either as they are not the owners of the land.
I am acting as a Litigant Friend for my mum, who received a PCN for parking on private land. The Claimant, Millennium Door and Event Security are being represented by Gladstones who are making a claim that my mum 'breached the terms of the parking'. I have sent an acknowledgement of service. The gist of the defence is that:
There can be no contract as the signs were prohibitive- there was a 'Keep Clear Private Car Park' sign placed in the car park, which suggests that contrary to an offer to park, parking was prohibited.
However, this can go either of two ways as there are other signs on the premises. In the alternative that the court holds that a contract can be construed from the signs, I would argue that the £160 fine is unenforceable. To do this, I rely on Clause 19 of the BPA Code of Practice:
“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must
be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the
charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the
amount in advance.
19.6 If your parking charge is based on a contractually agreed
sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. If it is
more than the recommended amount in 19.5 and is not justified
in advance, it could lead to an investigation by the Office of
Fair Trading.”
Now this is where I'm struggling. The sign that warned of the PCN stated:
"By parking or remaining without a valid permit, you agree to pay a sum of £100". It later states that a failure to pay within 28 days will result in a further £60 payment.
As a matter of contract law, if the first part of the sign is to be read as saying 'you can park here if you pay £100' then it is an offer to park in return for consideration of £100, and this falls within Clause 19.6 as a contractually agreed amount, and it would not exceed the £100 limit placed by the BPA. My issue is with how the further £60 comes into play. Is it a further inflation of the initial fine and thus in breach of the code, or is it being charged separately for breach of contract, meaning that in itself it does not fall foul of Clause 19.5 as it is below the £100 limit?
I should further highlight that the £60 fine was included in microscopic print and buried in a paragraph of text. Aside from arguments relating to Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, if someone has further points to add I would be very grateful.
Edit: Millennium have no claim in trespass either as they are not the owners of the land.
0
Comments
-
Pre estimate of loss no longer flies, (Beavis v Parking Eye).
Have you watched this video?
This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.
Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed in the house as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an
M.P. for unprofessional conduct
The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently
http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41
and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Why have you abandoned your earlier thread and started again?
Please ask a Board Guide to merge your threads.0 -
-
….. and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
I'm sceptical. I admit to not having looked at the detail, but until the entire practice of private parking invoicing is banned, as was clamping, I just can't believe it will stop. Some of the minor operators may be driven out of business, but the likes of ParkingEye will just adapt their business model to take account of any new regulations that are thrown at them.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards