Thoughts on charge terms

Peeves

A friend of mine believes she might not have paid at an NCP car park recently. While happy to pay what might be owed she would, for obvious reasons, not be happy being charged 20x that amount. She's there often and I asked her to photograph the signs.

The interesting term is this:

"If you do not comply with these requirements [usual pay the amount, park within the lines, etc] we may issue you with a Parking Charge Notice requiring you to pay any unpaid parking charge(s), together with an additional amount representing an estimate of the additional expenses we will incur as a result of your non-compliance (including without limitation debt recovery costs) (the "Parking Charge"). Specific details about the parking charge payable are available in each Car Park."

There is another sign that says the Parking Charge is £100.

The way it's written suggests they've excluded themselves from being able to rely on Beavis since they are explicitly saying they will only recover costs incurred. Sending themselves back to the genuine pre-estimate of loss days. Overstaying a paid for car park can surely only ever incur the revenue lost, i.e. the amount that should be paid for the time stayed plus a small admin fee to process a payment.

Am I right in this reading? Apologies if this kind of wording has been raised before but I failed to find out by searching.

Jenni_D

They're trying to add wording to their signs to justify adding £60+ to the PCN value if they have to engage (no cost to them) debt collectors by making it part of the contract. However IMHO the wording is poor and open to interpretation:

1 - if this is a pay-to-park car park then Parking Charge is an ambiguous term ... the parking fee itself is a parking charge
2 - if they don't specify the amount of additional charge then it's an unfair term in a consumer contract

Coupon-mad

I don't think it means what you say because that section is trying to claim an 'additional amount' over & above the £100 parking charge.

Utter greed and completely unjustified crap.

Peeves

I don't disagree that that is their aim. But there are some important flaws. If you're not "in the know" that's not how it appears at all.

1) a parking charge cannot be defined by using the term parking charge. That's a nonsense and a common English use of the term would be preferred, that being the fee/tariff/cost of parking.

1a) the sign does begin with a list of terms and their definitions, e.g. ANPR. Parking charge is not mentioned.

1b) elsewhere in the terms the fee is referred to as the "parking tariff charge", "the tariff" and other terms. Notably, they do use the word charge to refer to the fee.

2) there is no mention of any amount here to disambiguate the parking fee of ~£5/24hr from the much more gravitous (is that a word?) £100 beach of contract charge.

3) a parking charge [notice variety] cannot be issued for non-payment (unpaid parking charge(s)) before the payment has been requested via the parking charge notice. It must refer to the fee. Especially considering a parking charge notice _may_ be issued. It is not guaranteed so a parking charge [notice variety] is not due until asked for.

4) not included here but another clause explicitly says if you cannot produce your ticket you will be charge for each 24hr period plus admin costs (10.11 I think)

I expect, given the confusion and unclear language, a common English reading would prevail. Especially since it would align with public expectation.

The cost is £5. If you don't pay we'll chase you for what you owe plus an admin fee.

I put the full terms on Pepipoo:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=f792ef17713c7c84bc881079fcc84cad&showtopic=146547

Jenni_D

That T&Cs sign is a joke. 🙄

Coupon-mad

a parking charge [notice variety] cannot be issued for non-payment (unpaid parking charge(s)) before the payment has been requested via the parking charge notice.

That's not the case.

The problem is the way the (badly written) Schedule 4 of POFA calls both the 'penalty' and the 'fee' version parking charges.

The new statutory DLUHC Code attempts to deal with it better but the POFA definition is still law - and a fudge.

Peeves

That isn't a problem and makes perfect sense, to me at least. PoFA doesn't define what a parking charge is to the extent that it can be used without clarification in a contract. Probably intentionally since it doesn't know what wording a parking contract will use.

PoFA simply makes the point that monies owed arising in any way from a parking contract can be reclaimed under the act providing the monies can be proven to be owed. It doesn't care about fees vs commercially justified charges vs melons.

The act states, "however the sum in question is described".

For example, if a parking term said, "... you will be invoiced for a naughty boy fee", when referencing PoFA the naughty boy fee would be called a parking charge. As long as the naughty boy fee was inextricably linked to parking terms.

The contract must still specify what a naughty boy fee is and why it would be owed. The terms I've quoted don't. They're ambiguous and therefore free to be interpreted to the benefit of the consumer.

The fee, the charge for breach, and any other charges are all "parking charges" but you cannot, in the reverse, say a parking charge is a fee. It could be one of many things. Like Toyotas, BMWs, and Fords are all cars, not all cars are Toyotas.

Unless the argument has already been made and settled?

Peeves

Jenni_D said:

That T&Cs sign is a joke. 🙄

The most egregious part is the switch from 1 a) i) to 1.2.3 at the end 😂

Coupon-mad

I think a parking charge can be a fee or tariff if the PPC choose to word their contract that way.

e.g. Tariff:

1 hour £1.50
2 - 3 hours £3.50
Parking for over 3 hours: £75

Peeves

Coupon-mad said:

I think a parking charge can be a fee or tariff if the PPC choose to word their contract that way.

e.g. Tariff:

1 hour £1.50
2 - 3 hours £3.50
Parking for over 3 hours: £75

Absolutely.

But where they choose to be ambiguous, and to mix in explicit wording describing recovery for loss, I think they've shot themselves in the foot and PoFA can't help them and nor can Beavis.

Coupon-mad

I'm not convinced they have.

The only bit they are suggesting reflects costs/loss is the added fake DRA fee they never incurred.