How can the law assume we've entered contracts, assume we see signs?

nigelbb

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Can you imagine the queues to get off the motorway?

No problem at all with a sufficiently large holding area or number of barriers. The alternative as C-M says is to make them all free parking with no time limit.

Le_Kirk

nigelbb wrote: »

No problem at all with a sufficiently large holding area or number of barriers. The alternative as C-M says is to make them all free parking with no time limit.

You don't remember the queues (or maybe you didn't travel that way) to get through the Dartford tunnel (before it went ANPR) even though there were 15 - 20 barriers.


But I agree ALL MSAs should be free ALL the time.

The_Deep

I have used MSAs in France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. AFAICR, none have time limits.

nigelbb

Le_Kirk wrote: »

You don't remember the queues (or maybe you didn't travel that way) to get through the Dartford tunnel (before it went ANPR) even though there were 15 - 20 barriers.

The volume of traffic entering & leaving a Motorway Service Area is an infinitesimal fraction of the traffic using the Dartford crossing & could be easily managed with barriers.

infocom

"The system takes the standpoint that is signs are plentiful, well placed and clear to see then it is your responsibility to read them. It's not an unreasonable position to be fair"

But thats the problem isn't it. To read them we need to know they are there. How can it be my responsibility to read something I dont know exists.

I had no idea about another comment above "by entering on private land, you are deemed to have read the signs". No one has ever told me that in my life, why would I assume it, and assume there are signs - its a service station to me, I've been using them all my life and had no idea there are time limits, I assumed we have the right to use them. We are after all spending money in them. I thought they are there as a service to drivers. We pay to use their services and facilities. I actually think a facility provided to supply the public a service (especially paid) should not come under the same rules as "a private land owner has the right to charge you". Isn't everywhere owned by somebody, do I have to look out for signs everywhere like even when walking down the street or going in a pub, to make sure I am not going to be charged for just being there? I would think people in support of Parking Eye and the landownder must be wandering around places that are owned by someone but not actually looking to see if there are signs they must pay to use them as its all assumed we can isn't it? Like going into a pub.... I honestly dont think it acceptable a pub could put signs up saying you must pay to use it, and then people who have no idea about that use it without knowing or seeing the signs then get a demand for payment even if they had a pint. Its ridiculous.

Ultimately I just dont believe I can have a contract forced upon me without seeing signs, and no one can confidently say "100% of people MUST have seen the signs" therefore everyone is entering a contract, there's bound to people others like me who haven't. No one has told me by entering private land I am entering a contract, they dont teach that in school, so without knowing how can I be in a contract? I cant be the first and last person who has not noticed the signs. It was tipping down that day, and I had to take extra care driving, maybe thats why I didn't see the one at the entrance (but I cant say why as at the time I was not thinking about something I didnt know existed). I didnt pass any other of the small ones where i parked, there are none in front of the entrance to the services (they are off to the sides). So I just cant be in a contract. I dont understand how someone can just say I am without my knowledge or agreement.

Dean000000

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I disagree that there should be any such animal. Honestly, kill the industry completely. ok - ill run with this.... so basically landowners should just, perhaps, open the doors and allow anyone to park on their land, and park how they like, for as long as they like...


All the while - paying out for maintenance of roads / pavements etc.....as there are some very litigious people out there... That's your stance. Understood.


In a utopian (but realistic) world, landowners/retailers themselves should simply use clear signs agreed properly. If they need an income from the car park (not all do - e.g. Supermarkets and Hotels do not), have a pay on exit barrier. Minimum sum of, say £2. Okey doke. So who do you think should pay for either:


A) The man that has to collect the £2, or,
The expensive infrastructure required to collect that £2, its upkeep (remember you cant frustrate the buyer) and any rental / data charges that come with this?


Its either the car park users, or the landowner - there are no other options. so that £2 doesn't look a very attractive return on investment right now....Perhaps they might consider compensating the loss by say, increasing the charge to £5


Yes you would get some overstayers but the businesses would gain a captive audience. You asknowledge that some of these car parks for like, people that want ti park near, say a local hoslital say (or whatever) meaning that in some instances the business at hand would see £0 commercial benefit from these patrons - patrons that might stay all day, or, why not, even a couple of days? perhaps a week? perhaps even 2 weeks! Might be cheaper to drive to one of these near heathrow, and get a taxi the rest of the way And EVERY driver would pay £2 at least, as opposed to at the moment with the free for all/misleading signs where drivers have no clue and some never see signs.

Honestly the vast majority of drivers are not out to avoid a £2 tariff or clear terms.

The idea of 'carmageddon' is a myth spouted by the parking firms, BPA and IPC.

Can you kind of see my point? if you cant, them im afraid I have wasted my time....


your business model doesn't work - and if I owned prime location, that was yielding £60/day (say) I would probably consider building flats, or, commercial units for long term rent - rather than chickenfeed car park fees.


Anyway, we are never, ever going to see eye to eye on this - but hopefully you might take a balanced view moving forward.


To be clear - I don't defend PPC's, poor signage or underhand tactics.


I defend the rights of landlowners to conduct business on their terms, but in a honest way...


to even further clarify - I only got involved here as the question was - why should a person be bound by a contract (signs) when parking on private property.... when I don't see any feasible alternative.

Coupon-mad

No one has told me by entering private land I am entering a contract, they don't teach that in school, so without knowing how can I be in a contract? I cant be the first and last person who has not noticed the signs.

Well no, this is often on this forum, we win in court in MSA well-defended cases (I can never remember one lost) and this guy shared your view and he's a switched-on person who also had no idea:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/aug/26/parking-eye-takes-on-top-barrister-85-fine

waamo

Le_Kirk wrote: »

You don't remember the queues (or maybe you didn't travel that way) to get through the Dartford tunnel (before it went ANPR) even though there were 15 - 20 barriers.


But I agree ALL MSAs should be free ALL the time.

Having used that crossing in the week before and the week after the barriers came down the difference was astounding.

As for car parks I think operators should actually manage car parks. Rather than just charge for parking why not assist people in busy supermarkets when finding parking can be difficult, think Christmas time.

Of course the profit margins would be much slimmer but given a common sense approach people would have a much easier time of parking.

I also wholeheartedly agree about motorways. Who on earth would deliberately misuse them?

nigelbb

Dean000000 wrote: »

to even further clarify - I only got involved here as the question was - why should a person be bound by a contract (signs) when parking on private property.... when I don't see any feasible alternative.

You didn't answer my post where I described the feasible alternatives.

All pay car park should have barriers on entry & exit just like in most multi-storey car parks.

For free car parks with time limits or other restrictions then the signs need to be really, really, really prominent so that they are impossible to miss e.g. the driver is forced to drive slowly through a chicane with billboards either side then through an arch with signs that are truly impossible to miss.

Coupon-mad

Originally Posted by Coupon-mad
I disagree that there should be any such animal. Honestly, kill the industry completely.

ok - ill run with this.... so basically landowners should just, perhaps, open the doors and allow anyone to park on their land, and park how they like, for as long as they like...

No, I mentioned barriers and clear, simple signs which are clear indicators to drivers that there are some rules/that it's private land. Signs designed not to be missed.

IMHO, the very vast majority of drivers are not rogue parkers, and will follow clear instructions. If say, a retail site is used as a popular parking place then charge everyone for the parking (no not with a man in a kiosk collecting money) and let them have a part or full refund if they spend tenner.

If some people are seen there every day, same VRN, then a landowner can certainly get DVLA data and send the keeper a warning letter, if necessary, mentioning 'trespass' and the possibility of a small claim. Amazingly, in my experience of drivers who come here, that would put most people off...because people don't know that cars can't be clamped or that trespass is only a tort, not a crime, and that huge damages can't be charged.

For a retailer to have every single parker paying £2 - even those who just pop in and out and don't bother to get a refund - it would be decent business model that easily pays for itself, and more. It's a numbers game. Large retail park drivers number thousands per day.

And by removing the scammer, they keep their real customers happy who have otherwise been scared into paying for the heinous crime of being elderly and taking a bit long to shop because they also went to the loo or stopped for a coffee. Shopping should be an enjoyable experience and you should want to return, so the gain in customer experience would be important in itself.

All the while - paying out for maintenance of roads / pavements etc.....as there are some very litigious people out there... That's your stance. Understood.

Maintenance of roads and pavements, how does that affect car parks? Yes they need to maintain the car park with tarmac - but any car park has to be maintained anyway, and again, if it is a site that needs an income to cover this then charge everyone and refund the true patrons.

PPCs don't fund any tarmac, or maintenance at all, usually. So how does killing the PPC industry off change the cost of keeping a car park for customers?

In a utopian (but realistic) world, landowners/retailers themselves should simply use clear signs agreed properly. If they need an income from the car park (not all do - e.g. Supermarkets and Hotels do not), have a pay on exit barrier. Minimum sum of, say £2.

doke. So who do you think should pay for either:

A) The man that has to collect the £2, or,
The expensive infrastructure required to collect that £2, its upkeep (remember you cant frustrate the buyer) and any rental / data charges that come with this?

A large metal cash box securely attached to the ground, beside a barrier, and a phone line (run by, say, PaybyPhone) is not extravagant in terms of cost.

Its either the car park users, or the landowner - there are no other options. so that £2 doesn't look a very attractive return on investment right now....Perhaps they might consider compensating the loss by say, increasing the charge to £5

You'd be surprised, it's a numbers game. For the first time, every single driving visitor would be paying £2.

Yes you would get some overstayers but the businesses would gain a captive audience.

You asknowledge that some of these car parks for like, people that want ti park near, say a local hoslital say (or whatever) meaning that in some instances the business at hand would see £0 commercial benefit from these patrons - patrons that might stay all day, or, why not, even a couple of days? perhaps a week? perhaps even 2 weeks! Might be cheaper to drive to one of these near heathrow, and get a taxi the rest of the way And EVERY driver would pay £2 at least, as opposed to at the moment with the free for all/misleading signs where drivers have no clue and some never see signs.

The above already happens.

Protection racket parking 'enforcement' simply does not work, has never worked except to line the pockets of the fat cats and the entire industry should be illegal. How do the landowners gain a commercial benefit, by scammers fleecing these people?

The landowner doesn't get the money at the moment, in almost every case. Even in the Beavis case where (unusually) P/Eye paid for the privilege of being allowed to sue and harass the retail park's shoppers (shame on the landowners - and the retailers hated it) the price they paid to the landowner was peanuts.

In my 'parking utopia', the landowners would set the signs and terms, and it's in their interests to make the signs very clear indeed, so drivers know what is allowed and expected. People are like sheep and most of them will happily follow clear instructions and pay a tariff, if that's what the landowner decides makes it commercially worthwhile.

The problem we have with ScammersRUs is, their agenda is the opposite of what the landowner wants.

Honestly the vast majority of drivers are not out to avoid a £2 tariff or clear terms.

The idea of 'carmageddon' is a myth spouted by the parking firms, BPA and IPC.

Dean000000 wrote: »

Can you kind of see my point? if you cant, them im afraid I have wasted my time....

No. I can't, your sums don't add up and as usual there is a wrong assumption that people are rogue parkers and that carmageddon will happen. Not true:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/05/bank-holiday-carmageddon-at-asda.html

your business model doesn't work - and if I owned prime location, that was yielding £60/day (say) I would probably consider building flats, or, commercial units for long term rent - rather than chickenfeed car park fees.

You are picturing a landowner who only has 30 drivers per day, and whose land isn't used for anything else. Of course they are not just going to use 'prime land' as a car park, they'd be stupid unless it was merely an interim option.

We very, very rarely hear from any victim who has been charged on some waste land/prime location like that. We see this scam all the time and the vast majority of this land comprises shopping areas, hospitals, supermarkets, hotels, cinema/leisure centres, gyms (and places like railway stations where people would certainly expect to pay more than £2, which was just an example for somewhere like a retail park that would otherwise be free).

I agree £5 might be OK in some places but shoppers will expect a refund for spending money in store or being a patron of the cinema, etc.