Breach of contract

Gashead69

I have had a recent parking fine from HX Car Park Management, stating my wife had not parked in between the lines in a disabled bay. The signage is poor in the disabled bay area where she parked. We lost both appeals despite photos showing no clear signage in that area. The first appeal I did not get any notification by e mail it had been rejected and the fine rose to £100. My question is in the letter they stated a contract had been breached. It is a free car park so no service had been entered into. We also had no written or spoken agreement with HX so has contract been breached? Or are they falsely using the term breach of contract? 

Coupon-mad

It is a free car park so no service had been entered 

Wrong, with private parking, the contract is formed by conduct, by parking, and the breach is of a term on a sign.  They are not falsely using that term.

Losing at IAS is normal because it;s a kangaroo court run by this rogue industry, in the interests of the parking firms.

IGNORE IT, no paying it, come back if you get a court claim.  This is a rogue industry and we almost always win in court.  No risk.

The only other thing to do is of course, Plan A in the NEWBIES thread that we want everyone to read first!   Please do, and report back. I'm not saying what Plan A is because that would deny you the knowledge you will learn by reading the NEWBIES FAQS and links.

Le_Kirk

The contract is the signage and, having read it (assuming there is  suitable sign at a readable level with legible writing) and stayed in the car park, you/she are deemed to have accepted the terms of the contract.

Gashead69

What is a contract?

A contract is a legally binding promise made between at least 2 parties in order to fulfil an obligation in exchange for something of value. Contracts can either be written, oral, or a combination of both. The signage is the terms of condition of parking and should state contract.

I would not place a contract for a house to be built by a sign. 

KeithP

Gashead69 said:

I would not place a contract for a house to be built by a sign. 

Has anyone suggested you should?

D_P_Dance

It is not a fine.  If a judge decides that a contract is in existence, he/she will decide whether you ha.qve breached it or not.  Until that time do not pay them a penny.  Have you complained to your MP?  .Have you read the newbies?.

fisherjim

Gashead69 said:

What is a contract?

A contract is a legally binding promise made between at least 2 parties in order to fulfil an obligation in exchange for something of value. Contracts can either be written, oral, or a combination of both. The signage is the terms of condition of parking and should state contract.

I would not place a contract for a house to be built by a sign. 

Try telling that to the the judge in the Beavis case:

On 15 April 2013 Mr Beavis left his car in the car park for nearly 3 hours. As Mr Beavis subsequently ignored demands for payment, Parkingeye commenced County Court proceedings to recover the £85 charge. As the case involved points of principle that were likely to affect other similar claims it was assigned to the Designated Civil Judge for East Anglia.

The Judge held that a motorist who parked in the car park did so on the terms displayed on the noticeboards and thereby entered into a contract with Parkingeye which included an obligation to leave within 2 hours and if not, an agreement to pay the £85 charge. The Judge accepted that whilst the charge had the characteristics of a penalty in that Parkingeye did not suffer any specific financial loss, it was commercially justifiable as it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount.

If you want to go it alone do so, but the regulars on here have seen it all and know what they are talking about!!

ParkerstNick

Le_Kirk said:

The contract is the signage and, having read it (assuming there is  suitable sign at a readable level with legible writing) and stayed in the car park, you/she are deemed to have accepted the terms of the contract.

A contract must have a number of recognisable elements to be enforceable. eg offer of terms, acceptance of those terms, consideration given, intention by both parties to contract etc. The signage is not the contract, but may be the offer of terms.

nicestrawb

I don't see the point in arguing about the contract. The members on here aren't trying to pick holes, they're trying to point out what is worth arguing and what isn't. It's already been decided by judges and the high courts that the sign is the contract, it's not negotiable. Whether you have had the chance to see and accept the contract is another issue, especially if you're saying the signage is poor.

KeithP

ParkerstNick said:

Le_Kirk said:

The contract is the signage and, having read it (assuming there is  suitable sign at a readable level with legible writing) and stayed in the car park, you/she are deemed to have accepted the terms of the contract.

A contract must have a number of recognisable elements to be enforceable. eg offer of terms, acceptance of those terms, consideration given, intention by both parties to contract etc. The signage is not the contract, but may be the offer of terms.

Would you agree that the signs offer the terms?
By parking, it is claimed the motorist has accepted those terms.

That's certainly what the Supreme Court thought.

Redx

Beavis lost due to extremely good signage conveying those terms and he was in breach and Parking Eye complied with POFA , so Lord Dennings red hand rule was complied with , he lost in civil county court, Court of Appeal , plus the Supreme Court

THE THEORY IS THAT THE SIGNS INDICATE THE CONTRACT

one defence argument at POPLA and in court is , POOR AND INADEQUATE SIGNAGE, meaning if the signage is proven to be bad then a defendant may win the case on that technicality, that it wasnt conveyed in a manner equal to the Lord DENNING red hand rule, the onus is on the claimant to prove their case, especially when its all dependent on signage and bay markings etc

so even unaware drivers can be bound by terms they should have seen , read and noted, if clear enough, a lot of cases hinge on those factors, plus landowner authority etc