Grace period before/after paid period

Car1980

Timewarp said:

Car1980 said:

Kaizen2024 said:

10 minutes and 1 second exceeds the 10 minute Grace Period.

BTW the majority of people here will tell you not to pay the charge even if you were two hours over; or if you did not pay for parking at all for that matter.

Hi mate. Can you tell us what the contract says, verbatim?

Rather silly to give people money on the basis of a contract that doesn't clearly imply agreement of such terms.

And 1 second over ten minutes is clearly de minimis, so that's not a goer.

Link to photo of T&C's here

So, buried in the small print and unenforceable then.

Car1980

Kaizen2024 said:

Most operators charge from time of entry to exit and correctly state as such in the contract (the one provided by the OP does not). If the motorist does not agree with such a term, they have the option to leave. It’s best practice for the terminal to produce a receipt (with time of purchase only) on this basis (instead of expiry).

Incredible how 41,000 people a day study and read a contract but just think "fck them" and refuse the option to leave. 

Kaizen2024

That’s the main issue isn’t it, people just don’t read the signs then look to blame the operator for the consequences that follow. Instead of spending god knows how much on consultations etc, the Gov should run a campaign on the importance of reading signs when parking.

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

Most operators charge from time of entry to exit and correctly state as such in the contract (the one provided by the OP does not). If the motorist does not agree with such a term, they have the option to leave. It’s best practice for the terminal to produce a receipt (with time of purchase only) on this basis (instead of expiry).

But 'contract' is not King.

A judge must always consider the fairness of a consumer contract and the authority in HMRC v NCP (re the 'green button' finding) kills off such an unfair term.

As will the MHCLG.

It's rather like the killing off of the 5 minute rule which was obviously unfair too. The date the APAs declared that banned is irrelevant because that rule was always in breach of the CRA.

As is the term you describe.

PPCs only get away with it because - up until now - the ATAs have supported everything they want that churns more PCNs. And because most people don't know about the CRA and see court as a risk and don't know what to say in defence of a supposedly contractual term where the effect is unfair detriment.

Money for old rope right now, innit?

Kaizen2024

That’s like comparing apples with oranges. There is nothing unfair about someone having to pay for ALL their time spent on someone else’s land, and is no different to the policy in a barrier controlled car park; just without a barrier.

Car1980

But your signs are abysmal by design. The clearer the sign, the more compliance and the less tickets issued.

When you say people don't read the signs, what you mean is people don't read the of mass of terms and conditions. You don't even need half the text on there. It's irrelevant but has the handy effect of reducing space for the core terms.

You sit there in your portakabin waving your arms in faux confusion that the man on the street hasn't taken in the text when it's sitting there in black and white when you know full well that's not how humans work in the real world.

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

That’s like comparing apples with oranges. There is nothing unfair about someone having to pay for ALL their time spent on someone else’s land, and is no different to the policy in a barrier controlled car park; just without a barrier.

It's clearly unfair to right-thinking persons unconnected to PPC World. Including MPs, well-respected motoring organisations and judges.

Especially with no information to even tell people their parking period start time (free or not).

I think you and I already know we'll never agree about consideration periods, will we? But we do agree - I think - that there's no such thing as a zero consideration period.

So how is it right that we've seen a massive increase here recently of ridiculously scammy examples of hidden roadway or forecourt CCTV 'immediate ticketing' with zero consideration period.

How exactly is that explosion of rogue (covert lurking ticketing by post) any different from the 'clamped within a minute' stories from 15 years ago?

Kaizen2024

Yes, we can both agree that there must always be a Consideration Period.

Where we appear to disagree is that the SOLE purpose of the CP is to give the driver an opportunity to read the signs and either leave or stay.

If there is evidence that the driver did not spend their time reading the signs (via CCTV or warden) a Parking Charge is justified regardless of how long the vehicle was there, as they had no business being on someone else’s land without permission for ANY period.

You only need a fixed minimum CP when you only have entry & exit times (ANPR) to rely on, and there is no reason why the contract cannot include a term that, by staying, the driver accepts that their time started when they arrived as they can always leave if they do not accept this term.

Obviously, if there is evidence that the driver parked, walked straight to the sign to read it, got back in the car and immediately left; no charge should be issued as this is the intended purpose of the CP.

Coupon-mad

That completely disregards the fact that dropping off / picking up passengers (and some other good reasons to stop) isn't parking. On-street, you can even legitimately stop and wait on double yellows for such exempt activity. No PCN risk.

You can't make up different rules for badly signed private roadways!

It also completely disregards the law about (against) covert surveillance.

I'm confident that there is zero chance of you or the BPA's hanger-on from convincing the MHCLG about your version of a consideration period, so I'm chilled to debate* but disagree.


*at least we are having a debate, of sorts.
I won't engage with the IPC otherwise. That ship sailed due to the industry's conduct. Should have taken what was on the table & all but offered to your industry in 2021.

  

Boat_to_Bolivia

Kaizen2024 said:

That’s the main issue isn’t it, people just don’t read the signs then look to blame the operator for the consequences that follow. Instead of spending god knows how much on consultations etc, the Gov should run a campaign on the importance of reading signs when parking.

The signs are unreadable and IMHO, 10 minutes is not enough time to drive in, stop, attempt to read the signs  go and buy a magnifying glass and a ladder in order to read the signs, so decide it is an impossible task and try to exit the 'private land asap'....but lo and and behold a PCN is issued no matter what! And what is worse is that it isn't even your land and you are just fleecing people for your own personal monetary gains....stop pretending its anything else than a money making scheme...

Absolutely nothing to with parking.