NCP Car Park, not a parking ticket question

Ditzy_Mitzy

Note: I have considered the parking board, however that seems to focus on fighting private parking tickets and this matter is unrelated.  It is more, I suspect, a legal question regarding the invitation to treat principle.  

My friend recently parked in a barrier-controlled, pay-on-exit NCP car park.  The car park has a number of large signs at the entrance displaying the various tariffs applicable to parking, which can be read prior to driving up to the entrance barrier and taking a ticket.  Said signs (I was there and have seen them) state that up to four hours' parking at the ordinary day rate was £9.80, however a 'night rate' of £4.95 was applicable for entry at any point after 5 pm and exit prior to 11 pm.  My friend parked at 7.15 pm and returned to retrieve his car at 10.45 pm, in compliance with the stated conditions of the 'night rate'.  When he returned and put his ticket in the machine to pay, he received a demand for £9.80.  He then contacted the car park's control room via the telephone built into the parking machine which, incidentally, had a further copy of the parking tariff attached to it confirming the 'night rate' of £4.95.  

The control room staff member explained that the 'night rate' was no longer in force, and that my friend would be required to pay the 'day rate' for the parking.  He argued the point, explaining that there were numerous signs in the car park confirming that the 'night rate' was still offered.  The staff member said that the signs should not be there and then hung up, my friend telephoned back and spoke to someone else who wasn't helpful and, finally, in frustration, paid £9.80 and left the car park.  He had to pay to get out, as otherwise his car would have been trapped in there indefinitely.  One of the staff spoken to did suggest that my friend should email NCP and complain, if he felt motivated to.

The consumer rights and legal side of this is what I am not sure about.  I am aware of the 'invitation to treat' principle applicable to retail transactions, i.e. a shop doesn't have to sell something at the advertised price, but am unsure if that can be relied upon for a contract for a service already provided.  The contract to park would be formed, I assume, by pressing the button to initially obtain the ticket on entry, the decision to enter that contract having been made further to reading the tariff outside the car park entrance.  NCP's justification for charging more, which seems to be pricing error, doesn't seem to be good enough in the circumstances.  Invitation to treat is all well and good when the opportunity exists for the customer to not proceed with the transaction, or to negotiate further.  Here we have a situation where further negotiation was impossible and the service had already been provided.  Has anyone any thoughts?  

Manxman_in_exile

I wouldn't call that a pricing error or a unilateral mistake.

Don't any statements on the signs in the car park qualify as the T&Cs that parking in the car park is subject to?  I'd say they were clearly in breach of their own T&Cs.  If they are saying that the night rate no longer exists then it is their responsibility to correct their own signage and remove all mention of it from their T&Cs, not for your friend to second guess what they'll be charged.

I'd complain to NCP, but if they won't refund your friend I'm not sure what else they could do.  They aren't going to sue for a fiver - are they?

[Edit:  I think you still might be better off on the parking board as this is clearly - to me at least - a question about parking T&Cs]

user1977

Luckily, one of the leading cases on contract law is about car park pricing and whether it's an offer rather than an invitation to treat (it's the former...):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_v_Shoe_Lane_Parking_Ltd

The price on the tariff should apply. I don't see any legitimate alternative argument. Are NCP still denying that, or has he not bothered asking?

Ditzy_Mitzy

user1977 said:

Luckily, one of the leading cases on contract law is about car park pricing and whether it's an offer rather than an invitation to treat (it's the former...):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_v_Shoe_Lane_Parking_Ltd

The price on the tariff should apply. I don't see any legitimate alternative argument. Are NCP still denying that, or has he not bothered asking?

Manxman_in_exile said:

I wouldn't call that a pricing error or a unilateral mistake.

Don't any statements on the signs in the car park qualify as the T&Cs that parking in the car park is subject to?  I'd say they were clearly in breach of their own T&Cs.  If they are saying that the night rate no longer exists then it is their responsibility to correct their own signage and remove all mention of it from their T&Cs, not for your friend to second guess what they'll be charged.

I'd complain to NCP, but if they won't refund your friend I'm not sure what else they could do.  They aren't going to sue for a fiver - are they?

[Edit:  I think you still might be better off on the parking board as this is clearly - to me at least - a question about parking T&Cs]

Thank you both, and also put on the parking board.  This only happened last night, so God knows what NCP will say if he does make a complaint.  It's only a fiver, as you say, so he may decide it's not worth the bother.  I would, but it's not directly my problem.  Thank you for the advice about the test case, too, very handy.

Ath_Wat

I think that this

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

  One of the staff spoken to did suggest that my friend should email NCP and complain, if he felt motivated to.

Is all you could expect.  The staff he was speaking to probably had no way to change the amount he paid at that moment.  He should indeed email NCP and complain, if he feels motivated to, and they will probably refund the four quid.

Ditzy_Mitzy

Quick update: saw my friend the other day and he has decided not to bother pursuing the matter.  He did, however, find the advice given here interesting as he had no idea civil law could be so complicated or far-reaching.  Thank you all.