Advice please on case regarding contracting with minors

Half_way · 7 August 2018 at 5:29PM

Its usually a god idea to put what put what you intend to say on here first, who/what company is the franchisee?

The_Deep · 7 August 2018 at 5:46PM

Whether a contract exists or not, a judge may very well decide that failing to enter a VRN in a free car park, when you are a patron of the restaurant is a trifling matter, and the Law does not concern itself with trifles.

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

They may also recognise this as the scam which it is. Has your son vented his spleen on social media?

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

sa sc

jkdd77 · 7 August 2018 at 8:22PM

For what it's worth, I think that the argument that parking is not a "necessity" within the meaning of the case law quoted above has merit (there is no definitive case law on the question of whether parking is indeed a necessity), but I'm not aware of a single case actually won by the minor driver or his/her parents on this ground, and it seems that, in practice, most judges don't like a perceived attempt to "evade responsibility" in this manner.

I would include it as one defence point amongst many, but I wouldn't hang my hat on it succeeding.

As regards s.2 of the Sales of Goods Act 1979, parking is a service rather than a good.

There might be an additional argument that a court should be slow to hold that a minor, being a person who is deemed in law to lack full mental capacity and understanding, genuinely intended to accept and enter into such a one-sided, onerous and punitive parking contract, or to agree to a term of paying £100 for such a trivial "breach".

Once again, however, I think most judges would lazily apply Beavis without considering the special position of minors.

[Deleted User] · 7 August 2018 at 8:37PM

You'll be hard pressed to argue a fully qualified 17 y.o. driver with the responsibility for being in charge of a potential weapon (there's case law in that) cannot be responsible for a £60 parking fine. I just don't see that this point has legs. Google gillick competence too. Different context, but sound principles as to decision making and understanding.

That said - there may be brilliant reasons that C's case will fail - genuine customer, mere typos, unclear signs etc.

Write to the debt collector give your address, confirm its an address for service and let them crack on. They appear to be on notice that D is a minor, so they will either have to wait or sue D via mum/dad as appropriate.

Castle · 7 August 2018 at 9:03PM

Johnersh wrote: »

You'll be hard pressed to argue a fully qualified 17 y.o. driver with the responsibility for being in charge of a potential weapon (there's case law in that) cannot be responsible for a £60 parking fine.

It's not a fine.

onomatopoeia99 · 7 August 2018 at 9:14PM

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

Would a minor have the capacity to understand that by parking the car he was accepting the terms and conditions of the contract?

Yes, a 17 year old would have the capacity to understand. Please try to avoid setting the rights of teenagers back to the days of Agar-Ellis in the cause of getting out of a parking ticket.

[Deleted User] · 7 August 2018 at 10:08PM

It's not a fine.

:rotfl:
A silly error. *Claim not fine*

I shall redouble my efforts to avoid further uses of misleading terminology!

Snakes_Belly · 8 August 2018 at 12:26AM

I have been visiting this site for over twelve months now whilst fighting my own case. What seems to be apparent to me is that decisions made by judges can be quite random. If though you give them enough reasons to dismiss the claim one of them may do the trick.

I am not trying to set the rights of teenagers back but I can understand how parents feel when their kids get shafted.

[Deleted User] · 8 August 2018 at 12:37AM

A parent's love n' all thzt. Fine.

But young adult not kid. That is why the point is doomed to fail - this is more than the whimsy of different judges. There's some high level case law on the point.

If though you give them enough reasons to dismiss the claim one of them may do the trick

.

I disagree - that can be the case, but it is also true that good points can be shrouded by bad ones.

Snakes_Belly · 8 August 2018 at 2:03AM

I have taught this age group and they are extremely naïve when it comes down to finance and contracts etc.

Advice please on case regarding contracting with minors

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free