Since October 1st, companies running car parks and other parking areas have been unable to clamp cars for alleged parking violations.
Has anybody received a ticket?
|
There's been the odd one asking for advice over on HJ. Also noticed that Argos/Homebase have put up new signs presumably designed to be PoFA compliant.
Close to store entrance so difficult to miss. Simply advise that by usage you agree to certain conditions (max stay, park in bays etc) and that if you fail to do so you agree to pay a charge of £90.
Far too soon for it to be tested in court.
|
|
Going to be an interesting one, presumably the car owner is now responsible instead of the driver at the time, that should see the parking companies keener to push for court.
|
Questions
Is the registered owner liable if they declare the driver?
or then only if the declared driver fails to respond?
What is the legal status of the request? ie false info etc,
If somebody asked me who had been in a local car park 2 weeks ago at a certain time, I am not sure that I could answer honestly with100% certainty.
|
>>Full info in here - open up the pdf - scroll to the second page.<<<
Does not cover private land - just refers you to www.POPLA.org.uk
Their document does not appear to be exhaustive, (at a first scan).
|
The Schedule to PoFA covering unpaid parking charges is at:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted
It's a bit of a dog's dinner of drafting but there's no obvious criminal sanction for giving false information. The landholder might in that circumstance, whether dealing with Mr M Mouse or keeper's cousin in Upper Volta, assume that para 5(b) is back in play and proceed against the keeper. If the keeper lies or misrepresents to the Court then offence & or contempt committed.
Those intending to proceed in such fashion should pack a toothbrush.
|
>> The Schedule to PoFA covering unpaid parking charges is at:
>>
>> www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted
Does the amount to be paid in para 4 (5) have to be a 'reasonable' sum, or can it be any amount of money that the owner of the land or his agent dreams up?
Last edited by: Duncan on Sat 3 Nov 12 at 07:34
|
I would say any amount as long as it is clearly displayed in the notice. We are talking contract law here and the law doe not normally concern itself with the amount involved in a contract or whether the contract represented good value.
If for example I agree to buy your car for an amount that is well over the odds that is still a valid contract although a bad deal for me. The courts will enforce that contract.
As long as you can clearly see the amount of the parking charge and understand you are entering into a formal contract by parking in the car park the amount on the notice is what you are liable for.
|
>> >> As long as you can clearly see the amount of the parking charge and understand
>> you are entering into a formal contract by parking in the car park the amount
>> on the notice is what you are liable for.
>>
Would I, or Joe Punter know that We are entering into a formal contract?
Supposing the Ts & Cs are not clearly visible and I/we cannot easily read the amount of the charge?
|
"Would I, or Joe Punter know that We are entering into a formal contract?
Supposing the Ts & Cs are not clearly visible and I/we cannot easily read the amount of the charge?"
These things would have to be tested in court but I believe that if there is a clear notice specifying the charges and advising you that your entering in to a contract by parking in that car park it would be difficult to claim otherwise.
Every time you buy a something of service you are entering int a contract. If you get on a bus you are implicitly entering into a contract and agreeing to pay the fare for example. You cannot argue that you didn't know the law. A contract to park your car is legally no different.
|
>> Would I, or Joe Punter know that We are entering into a formal contract?
You can read the sign that says what happens if you over stay. You dont need to know its a formal contract, but you know the penalty.
>>
>> Supposing the Ts & Cs are not clearly visible and I/we cannot easily read the
>> amount of the charge?
Thats is your get out clause, however you can be sure that they will make sure the sign is clearly visible so it wont be a get out clause.
|
|
For course we are assuming that English is the drivers first language, not sure how this would apply to someone who can't read or understand the term & conditions.
|
|
Just put a sign on your dashboard that says "I do not agree to any terms and conditions. I refuse any invitation to form a contract. I do not understand terms and conditions."
Last edited by: sooty tailpipes on Sat 3 Nov 12 at 17:34
|
For the purposes of the law the assumption is made that you can understand English both spoken and written. You can't plead, for example, that you didn't understand the word on your motor insurance proposal form.
|
|
Seems rather harsh.. odd that for the Law you have to understand English and yet in the hospital I work in we produce pre-op leaflets in maybe ten different languages or provide an interrupter FoC, I guess if these people went to court then they would be tried still unable to understand what was going on?
|
|
Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse. Even in the days when no-one except the lawyers and lawmakers could read.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 3 Nov 12 at 21:11
|
Parking Tickets Issued Since October 1st - Bromptonaut
