***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
A demand for a £50 parking 'fine' landed at Iffy Towers a few days ago.
My offence was staying two hours 43 minutes at the Moto services on the A1(M) in Washington, Tyne and Wear.
Guilty, of course, but as I was in the cafe and I did spend some money, I'm not inclined to pay.
The place is never busy, so it's not as if I've denied another motorist the opportunity to park.
There was no ticket on the car when I returned, but the demand says they have 'photographic proof' of my offending.
I wonder about that, because the car park is shared with an adjacent motel, and for all they know I could have been visiting someone there.
Perhaps it matters not, they send out the demand anyway.
This is my first such ticket, and I understand the advice for someone not wanting to pay is to ignore it, and any subsequent demands.
Is this still the best thing to do?
Any thoughts/experiences welcome.
Split into 100 reply volumes
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 8 Nov 10 at 19:58
|
|
Did your parking cause them a loss? You have said that you did not deny another motorist the opportunity to park. It's hard to see how they could have suffered a loss. I would just ignore it, not contact "them", and collect any further collections as mementos.
|
Ignore it, do not enter any correspondence, do not reply to subsequent 'baliff' letters and never admit being the driver.
There's not a damn thing they can do.
|
|
What on earth could you do for 2hrs 43min in a Moto? I'm in favour of stopping at these places if it suits but 30mins max is all I can stand.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Fri 8 Oct 10 at 09:54
|
"What on earth could you do for 2hrs 43min in a Moto?"
Probably dogging round the back.
|
...Did your parking cause them a loss?...
Not that I can see.
I also don't recall seeing any 'Maximum stay two hours' signs, although I expect there are some.
The 'ticket' is issued by a company from Milton Keynes and speaks of 'our client's property'.
It looks like a standard template they send to every naughty motorist.
mlc,
Thanks, for that, very reassuring.
Fenlander,
In two hours 43 minutes I ate a sandwich, a donut, did some work on the netbook - and made a few posts on here.
Last edited by: Iffy on Fri 8 Oct 10 at 09:55
|
|
The motels on these sites now have terminals on the reception desk to enter your car registration into the parking company system to excuse you the hassle of ignoring their demands. Which are generated by ANPR cameras.
|
QUOTE FROM "THE OTHER PLACE
The facts are:
They cannot fine you but (in theory at least) by parking you can enter into a contract which is imposed by clear signage.
If the contract is broken - for example by an overstay or by not shopping in the shopping centre providing the parking facility - then in theory at least a charge can be imposed.
That charge cannot be punitive and over the years the courts have tended to find that the charges made by parking companies are punitive so have tended to throw cases out.
Furthermore it is simply not economic for the parking companies to take cases at this level to court so they tend to use debt collector tactics of endless letters containing increasing threats of "imminent" court action without ever actually going to court.
But that is not to say the charges are unenforceable.
Faced with clear signage which cannot be missed which clearly outlines the terms of the contract and photographic evidence of the stay a court could well find for the parking company but may not impose the level of charge they are demanding.
So although I advocate not responding to anything they send you, not appealing and not paying them anything unless you receive a claim sent by the court -- to say they are unenforceable is going too far.
Things to remember are:
**the keeper cannot have entered into the contract unless they were there.
**unless ordered to so so by the court the keeper does not have to disclose who was driving.
**never enter their appeals process. The "appeals process" is largely bogus and you might provide evidence to support their case
**only respond to a blue claim form sent you by the court. Threats of imminent action and solicitors letters should be ignored but if you do receive a blue claim form you do need to respond to it and file a defence (which is free) or judgment can be awarded by default.
Reply to this message | Report message as offensive | Link
|
>> QUOTE FROM "THE OTHER PLACE
>>
Also from the t&c of the other place:
"Intellectual Property Rights
We are the owner or licensee of all intellectual property rights in our site, and in the information and material appearing on it. Those works are protected by copyright laws and treaties around the world. All such rights are reserved.
Materials from the site must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. "
|
|
But any assignment of copyright is not effective unless it is in writing signed by or on behalf of the assignor (CDPA 1988, §90(3) ). Since the poster is the creator of the copyright work and no written assignment exists, the T&C are, I would suggest, irrelevant.
|
>> irrelevant.
>>
Whateva, mister.
|
|
I didn't see the signage relating to parking/copyright when I enetered the car park/website!
|
I suggest you ask Lucy on HJ.
IMO, if you admit to being the driver, you are liable for the charges beyond your free 2 hour stay. You will most likely have been photographed entering and leaving the car park.
The operators are a business who are obliged to provide 2 hours free facilities (parking, restrooms, etc.) as a universal benefit. Beyond that, you go by the terms that are displayed in the car park.
|
Perky,
Thanks for that - I think I can spot a court document, but the 'blue form' tip is worth remembering.
...Beyond that, you go by the terms that are displayed in the car park...
I would have a bit more sympathy if there was a pay and display machine to buy a ticket for stays in excess of two hours, but I'm sure there isn't.
I might be able to swing by later today and check the signage.
On a more general point, what a way to treat paying customers.
"He only spent eight quid, send the swine a bill for fifty."
|
That would be CP Plus I imagine Iffy being a Moto service area.
I have had many dealings with them in the past and I have a name and number you could use for contacy if you need it. Just email me but If I were you I would ignore everything too.
In lorry drivers cases they contact the firm, the Boss gets sick of it and tells the driver to sort it pronto, so we have no option but to pay it.
It certainly would be by ANPR camera on entry and exit and I think you have to pay in the restaurant by using the terminal and putting your registration number in.
Bet you nipped through the fence and went to the Pub behing the forecourt!
The foods better if you're northbound.
Pat
|
>> On a more general point, what a way to treat paying customers.
>>
>> "He only spent eight quid, send the swine a bill for fifty."
>>
Did you spend the money with the company that runs the car park or a food franchise?
www.voa.gov.uk/instructions/chapters/rating_manual/vol5/sect710/b-rat-man-vol5-s710.htm
"free parking for two hours (after which charges may be made) in quantities specified by the Department of Transport;"
|
Pat,
Thanks for the background info.
I was southbound, the cafe area is much bigger on that side.
It has nice, wide open spaces between the tables.
Plenty of room to set up office for an hour or two, or perhaps nearly three.
The sandwiches are OK, but the chocolate-covered custard donuts are genuinely yummy.
...Did you spend the money with the company that runs the car park or a food franchise?...
I'm not sure, I think the part that sells the yummy donuts is run by Moto, the station operator.
There is also a Costa Coffee, and on t'other side, a Burger King.
Either way, I think the question is splitting hairs, there is no pedestrian access to any of the outlets.
I am a customer of the service station in its entirety.
The food franchise holder might not be too impressed at the way its customers are being treated.
|
>> The food franchise holder might not be too impressed at the way its customers are
>> being treated.
>>
Unless he is getting a cut of the parking profits. :)
|
They probably don't care.
The two hour limit appears to be fairly standard in my very limited experience of UK service stations.
Ferrybridge has a similar setup, cameras and notices everywhere.
|
...They probably don't care...
If a third party - in this case a parking company - was discouraging customers from coming to my business I would care.
On t'other hand, I've been in service stations down south in which the car parks are packed.
Were I a food operator there, I'd be delighted people were being moved on because it makes room for more prospective customers.
|
Moto run the actual services but contract out most sections of it.
I believe it's EFD who do the food on a franchise type basis.
The parking is contracted out to CP Plus and they run it to make a profit for their customers (Moto) and also for themselves.
If you contact Moto they will just tell you it is nothing to do with them.
Two hours is the standard time allowed to park free on any MSA and if the camera hasn't noted you leave, and the terminal hasn't recorded you've paid a ticket will be issued.
To add to the misery of all this, it now means that lorries who park overnight and pay £22 for the privilege don't even have a car park attendant walking round as a deterrent to the curtain fairies and the diesel thieves.
Don't get me started!
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Fri 8 Oct 10 at 11:46
|
>a deterrent to the curtain fairies..
There's a layby just down the A30 from us where truck drivers often park to sleep off their heavy lunches. I've seen quite a few of the trucks with one of the trailer doors or curtains tied open.
Is this a "Nothing worth Nicking" sign for the curtain fairies?
If so, doesn't it make the ones who are loaded more of a target?
Kevin...
|
Yes it is Kevin and it does of course tell them the other lorries must be loaded too.
Pat
|
>> "He only spent eight quid, send the swine a bill for fifty."
Only 8 quid for a sandwich and a donut at a motorway services? Were they on special offer?
|
...Only 8 quid for a sandwich and a donut at a motorway services? Were they on special offer?...
Frozen north - we're all poor up here.
|
>You will most likely have been photographed entering and leaving the car park.<
Presumably this means the car will have been photographed. I hope it doesn't mean the driver - although I guess that will be next.
|
There are several issues here.
Iffy probably won't get clobbered by the might of the law if he does nothing, but that doesn't mean the parking company doesn't have a case.
It may well be that he has entered into a contract by parking where he did. However, any contract will have been implicit and open to a challenge on the basis that the signage was not clear.
Secondly, it would have to be established that it was indeed Iffy who was the driver. If there is no direct evidence of that, then there is no way in which the parking company can make the registered keeper of the vehicle disclose who was driving, except under a special dispensation which I understand would be difficult and expensive to achieve.
Thirdly, if the existence of a contract were proved and if Iffy was proved to be the driver, any court would have to determine what amount would be payable. It would be unlikely to accept that £50 for a few minutes' parking was appropriate, especially as the parking company would have a hard time showing that it was out of pocket as a result of the overstay.
In view of the uncertainties of the scenario, my understanding is that the parking company may make some further attempt to scare Iffy into paying, but would be unlikely to take the case to court.
And what of the moral issues? I don't think I'd lose too much sleep over it. I realise that there are places where cars parked inconsiderately on private land can cause problems, but I don't think this is one of them. It's difficult to see in what way anyone has been harmed, inconvenienced or put out of pocket.
|
|
Just another reason to avoid MSA's like the plague, as if one was needed anyway.
|
If ever there was a case for revolving number plates like Bond, this would be it.
Simply switch as you enter a car park then switch back again on the road.
|
|
Ideally so it shows the number on the car of the boss of the car park company, if that could be ascertained.
|
The last one I got, on a shopping complex, took them 8 months to write to me.
I ignored all the letters, which eventually racked up over £200. I got bored and emailed them suggesting they ' contacted the person who parked the car '...that stuffed them and they sent me another letter saying ' We have marked this matter ' refused to pay ' and referred it back to our clients '. End of matter. I didn't park the car anyway.
They also run our local shopping car park. I've tried to provoke them several times but I assume they have me in the records as someone who knows the law.........I never get tickets now.
My neighbour has had her first from them.......ignored it up to £210 so far. She didn't even park, just dropped her son off .
Ted
|
I carried out a site visit an hour or so ago, and the plot has thickened a little.
There is a shiny new ANPR camera on a pole at the entrance to the car park, as well as a large billboard sign, which you cannot read because you are still moving.
The car park itself is now plastered with signs about two hours maximum parking, and instructions to motel guests to register their cars or face a £15 admin charge.
Further signs instruct you to pay £10 by text message if you want to park longer than two hours.
I'm certain not all these signs were there when I parked, and I'm fairly sure none of them were.
Not that I take great issue with that, but it shows rigorous enforcement of the two-hour rule has only begun on this site within the last few weeks.
As regards the ANPR picture showing the driver, I might well have had the roof down, so I could be in bother if I go down that route.
|
>>As regards the ANPR picture showing the driver, I might well have had the roof down, so I could be in bother if I go down that route.
It is my understanding that any contract is between the driver and the company. You have received letter as registered keeper. I do not think there is any legal enforcement for you to name the driver, even if it is you?
|
|
One of the advantages of a company car, particularly when the if your employer cites their 'data protection responsibilites' as a reason for not disclosing who was parking the car
|
...I do not think there is any legal enforcement for you to name the driver, even if it is you?...
Yes, I think that's right.
Chris Peugeot's helpful post further up the thread explains this further.
One tactic is to tell a lie by writing to the company and say 'take it up with the driver', but not tell them who it is.
I won't be doing that as I'm not keen on telling porkies.
They often come back to bite you, and that one could big-style given that my mug is probably shown as clear as a bell on the ANPR photo.
|
"As regards the ANPR picture showing the driver, I might well have had the roof down"
Is there a chance that your pink cravat, flapping wildly, could have obscured your face from the camera? Or that your star-shaped, tortoiseshell sunglasses will mask your identity?
|
>> "As regards the ANPR picture showing the driver, I might well have had the roof
>> down"
>>
>> Is there a chance that your pink cravat, flapping wildly, could have obscured your face
>> from the camera? Or that your star-shaped, tortoiseshell sunglasses will mask your identity?
>>
Elton IFFY?
|
...Elton IFFY?...
Very hard driving the CC3 in four-inch platforms.
|
This can also fall into another thread of what is wrong with Britiain today - here we have a company, and I am sure they are not the only one, that is getting away with making huge amounts on the back of something that is possibly illegal, certainly immoral.
Would be interesting to see their company accounts.
|
I've just made a call to a contact I have at CP Plus to find out when it went fully APNR. At 5.45, I got an answerphone and have left a message for a 'chat' but I suspect I may have to wait until Monday morning now.
I wouldn't make any decision about what to do until then;)
Pat
|
>> that is getting away with making huge amounts on the back of something that is
>> possibly illegal, certainly immoral.
>>
They are authorised by the Dept of Transport to do it. See the link I posted earlier:
www.voa.gov.uk/instructions/chapters/rating_manual/vol5/sect710/b-rat-man-vol5-s710.htm
The cost of provision of the free facilities, such as toilets, was heavy and 24 hour opening necessitated a three shift employment system. Because most sites are in rural locations site operators were obliged to convey staff from surrounding areas which added to their costs.
...... the Department of Transport impose certain conditions on the operation of MSAs in order to secure basic services for all motorway users at all times. These conditions are that MSAs must provide:-
+ services for all motorway users 24 hours a day every day of the year;
+ at least hot drinks and cold food at all times;
+ leaded and unleaded petrol and diesel;
+ free lavatories with public access;
+ free parking for two hours (after which charges may be made) in quantities specified by the Department of Transport;
+ a picnic area of at least half an acre;
+ showers and shaver points for lorry drivers;
+ public telephones;
+ a tourist information point if required by the Regional Tourist Board;
+ a police post if required by the local constabulary;
+ all facilities to be made available and accessible to disabled people (eg. dedicated parking spaces to be reserved near amenities);
and they must not:-
+ allow the sale or consumption of alcohol;
+ allow rear access to the site to be used other than by MSA staff, delivery vehicles, and the emergency services;
+ be used for purposes unconnected with the use of the motorway. The MSA must not become a destination in its own right, generating extra traffic on the motorway. Its purpose is to serve the incidental needs of people in the course of a motorway journey.
Last edited by: Suppose on Fri 8 Oct 10 at 17:47
|
3 months ago I had statement (never recevied the original invoice) from a Moto Service Area in Berkshire for staying 2 hours 54 minutes and like the OP I was eating/business meeting in their facility and had not noticed any of the signage (more like I took no notice of it as there are signs for everything) and on the advice of a barrister friend I have totally ignored everything.
He told me not to enter into any contact with them whatsoever and they will eventually go away. They have threatened me with all sorts. Legal action, credit rating agencies, debt collection agencies etc after 8 weeks all has gone quiet.
I was advised to ignore everything but if I do get a blue form (very unlikely) from a court then to call him and he will advise me what to do next. The Scammers try it on with very official looking documentation to try and frighten you too
I now only visit a Moto if I need a toilet break but I refuse to spend any money in their services. If I get summonsed to Court I will go as the maximum fine I believe is £80 and their demands have been for much more money than that.
|
It's worth noting redfire, that CP Plus handle the parking for Moto, Welcome Break and Roadchef as well.
Pat
|
|
Thanks Pat, I did not know that
|
What on earth does
"free parking for two hours ... in quantities specified by the Department of Transport"
mean? It's the only relevant part of the huge cut and paste and is totally unintelligible.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 8 Oct 10 at 19:34
|
...and is totally unintelligible...
Agreed, it's clumsy and ambiguous.
However, if the sentence is correctly constructed, you should be able to remove what's in the brackets and still be left with something that makes sense.
It then reads: "Free parking for two hours in quantities specified by the Department of Transport."
I take this to mean there is a specified number (quantity) of free-for-two-hours spaces at each service area.
Secondly,
The operator may charge a driver who stays longer than two hours.
|
>>However, if the sentence is correctly constructed, you should be able to remove what's in the brackets
I did, hence the ellipsis.
>>and still be left with something that makes sense.
It doesn't.
The construction you put upon it is just that - you might be right, you might be wrong.
I'm not an idiot, I passed the verbal reasoning test ;-)
|
...you might be right, you might be wrong...
As you might imagine, I have some difficulty with the contention I might be wrong.
To be serious for a moment, I think it's clear the DoT allows parking charges after two hours, but does not specify how much.
This allows the operator to make whatever demands it wants.
My protection against unreasonable demands lies elsewhere.
|
>> This can also fall into another thread of what is wrong with Britiain today -
>> here we have a company, and I am sure they are not the only one,
>> that is getting away with making huge amounts on the back of something that is
>> possibly illegal, certainly immoral.
>>
>> Would be interesting to see their company accounts.
>>
Or lack of!!
|
Master van. Generator/Gas bottle. Water. Kettle. Cup. Tea bag. Coffee. Spoon. Soon to be Microwave. Tall bucket>Bin liner>cable tie>get the picture?? I hate, absolutely hate and despise the faceless s>hite bureaucracy that pervades this once great land and they can all go and rot in hell. We have as much chance of getting out of the mess we are in by urinating into the wind. Politicians are all Wasters without grasp and grass roots upbringings. Ok yah! old chap.
As for any dreamers out there (no, not you lot) they can go the same way.
Grrrrrrrrrrrr MD
AND as someone said in a recent thread. History could teach us a thing or two.
My view is if the Puppy doesn't grow up and keeps spoiling it's environment, despite one doing one's best for it's well being then it only has one fate.
Adults only please.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Sun 10 Oct 10 at 17:14
|
|
Do they really still have to sell leaded petrol?
Last edited by: spamcan61 on Fri 8 Oct 10 at 20:55
|
Can't help agreeing with you Martin even though I try to avoid winding myself up;-)
Every time I see something like the story today about the dinner lady who was spoken to about "grooming" a child after giving him a biscuit I wonder what sort of person, regardless of whatever bonkers regulation they imagine exists, would be so moronic as to make an issue of it. Of course the reason is that somebody even more moronic has appointed them to do so.
Back to Iffy, the practice of bluffing disproportionate amounts of money out of people for overstaying in car parks is as immoral as conning pensioners out of £2,000 for putting a few slipped roof tiles back (and the same innocent types are presumably the ones who get conned).
I shall boycott Moto in sympathy. I only go in the ones with a Marks or a Waitrose anyway, other than for a widdle.
|
...I shall boycott Moto in sympathy...
Top man.
It's the greed I can't stand, too.
I know it's all Iffys and buts, but had they sent me a reasonable bill for an hour's parking, say three or four quid, I'd have paid it.
|
Massive overheads need massive income to service that cost. However that cost should be met by 'normal' means via income from the business that 'they' have chosen to be in. Trying to extract monies by unscrupulous means is unjust and won't be tolerated by robust folk. Those of a nervous disposition may succumb and that is for them.
If however there are a large proportion of motorists abusing the system (Parking) which I doubt, then some move may be appropriate to deal with the matter.
Where though does the matter end on this or any other subject where income is sought, but is not forthcoming through 'normal' means. Fines and punishment can only go so far. What are these companies going to do after these spurious attempts at extraction have been rendered unsuccessful.
I may now have a Beer.
|
>> spoken to about "grooming" a child after giving him a biscuit I wonder what sort
>> of person, regardless of whatever bonkers regulation they imagine exists, would be so moronic as
>> to make an issue of it. Of course the reason is that somebody even more
>> moronic has appointed them to do so.
Yes it's moronic but it's also deliberate and embraced with the glee of a zealot.
There's a whole army of non jobs been created over such lunacy all on the gravy train with another army of clerics and admin staff to back them up with another army of HR Elfinsafety behind them and countless managers with their own teams too.
All of them on the look out for a minor molehill appearing to make a year or two's mountains out of to justify their non jobs with reams of reports to be discussed at the all important 'meetings'.
Martin speaks for many of us including me who are sick to the back teeth of the lot of them and all the blasted greedy grabbing politicians all singing from the same Common Purpose hymnsheet.
Back to Iffy and his strange enjoyment of MSA, the signs are normally quite visible and along the lines of 'if you park you agree to' etc, though obviously better signed in the truck parks as that's where the long termers usually are.
I'd do exactly as you Iffy and ignore the things, just bear (or is it bare) in mind that from their point of view on the CCTV they'll see a wealthy playboy type with his roof down so possibly recognisable....they just might deem you worth pursuing as obviously having the funds to pay any court costs etc.
|
Or maybe they just want him to bribe them with an offer of a free hairdo...
I'll um... make another cuppa now I think..
:-)
|
"Would be interesting to see their company accounts"
There you are:
www.moto-way.com/userFiles/file/MHL%20-%202009.pdf
|
I got chased at the tip the other week by some spotty youth in a yellow jacket shouting ' Oy, you ' at me......red rag/bull, etc.
Reason ? I'd tossed an old gas fire away for a pal without a car. He thought it was an electric fire, I'd thrown it through the hole with ' no electricals ' on it.
He got to me before I had a chance to drive off and harangued me about it. I told him it wasn't electrical but he was still having a go at me when I told him to go and whine to someone who gave a flying ****, and drove off.
It's just another example of the sort of so-called authority I hate.
I take the classic to old car shows and there are always hordes of yellow jackets waving their arms at you to show you where to park, I'm reasonably intelligent enough to follow the car in front and park next to it.......I don't need all these ' testiculators ' ....people who wave their arms about and talk a load of bullocks !
Ignore them Iffy....stand up for the ordinary man !
Rant over....more grrrrrr.
Ted
|
>>I take the classic to old car shows and there are always hordes of yellow jackets waving their arms at you to show you where to park, I'm reasonably intelligent enough to follow the car in front and park next to it.......I don't need all these ' testiculators ' ....people who wave their arms about and talk a load of bullocks !
As someone who has helped run about 20 village shows, several with with classic vehicle displays, I can assure you that left to their own devices, a significant number of people will park in the first available place they like the look of - under a tree for the shade, near the exit, near the toilets or whatever. Chaos ensues and the entrance becomes blocked as the ones behind follow suit, ignoring any "CAR PARK THIS WAY" signs.
We tried not having car park helpers (a job nobody wants to do by the way, and we are always desperately short of people) but it just doesn't work.
There's often a different view form the other end of the telescope ;-)
|
www.cp-plus.co.uk/
These are the accoubts we need to see what profit there is in parking.
Pat
|
The Moto section on the CP-Plus website is called 'Driving Up Parking Revenues' which says it all.
We are also told: "After dark, travelling customers find the sight of a parking operator in a fluorescent jacket extremely reassuring."
More moonshine, it's an automated cash extraction operation, no more, no less.
|
|
Iffy, I was going to give you a tenner if it all went t*** up, but not if you've got nearly 3 hours to sit around in service stations eating donuts and posting on here from your smart lap top. Honestly, I'd have thought that should've been my job!
|
..., I was going to give you a tenner if it all went t*** up...
Aw, shucks, I'm touched.
It was only one donut, and I did do some work.
Perhaps I still qualify for a fiver. :)
|
>> Aw, shucks, I'm touched.
I always thought you were touched....by what, though, I'm not sure ! :-)
Ted
|
Is that you in today's paper iffy? Reads just like your circumstances if not.
John
|
|
Arkell v Pressdram (1971) refers!
|
To drift my own thread a little, there's some interesting info here about the issuing of parking tickets:
tinyurl.com/253gbm6
If you can't be bothered with the full article, the case histories at the bottom are worth a look.
|
Not seen this over the weekend but am a little disturbed at the line most take here.
When parking Iffy entered into a contract, he does not dispute this. The signs are very obvious in every MSA I have used (including this one) and the charges have been in place for well over 10 years (the last time I stayed more than 2 hours without using the hotel).
He did not pay the fee as required by the contract, he does not dispute this.
He is taking exception to the other party to the contract trying to enforce it.
No wonder this country is in a mess.
What do you want the MSA operators to do, put a barrier on the exit and only allow cars which have overstayed their permitted time out if they have paid?
Blue touchpaper lit.
|
>> Blue touchpaper lit.
>>
No blue touchpaper about it. Just someone who is not prepared to pay his way in life, a common problem. Could pay - won't pay, says it all.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 11 Oct 10 at 08:53
|
...Just someone who is not prepared to pay his way in life, a common problem...
ON,
I've paid my way in this life ever since I've been old enough to do it.
Kindly refrain from making false statements about me.
And don't tell me, you'd be happy to pay £50 to park for under an hour.
|
>> I've paid my way in this life ever since I've been old enough to do
>> it.
Calm down iffy, just an effective attempt at livening the proceedings. Those who won't pay are a different lot to those who won't be ripped off. The won't payers are unlikely to hang around here. I do think you were a bit careless though, unless the scheme started or was signposted after you were there.
|
Well, you've lit my blue touch paper IJWS.
Yes, anyone in Iffy's circumstances has entered into a contract and that contract presumably is binding on both sides.
How come then that at Chester services on the M56 every year, without fail a huge entourage of 'travellers' ( I can't call them what I would normally call them, I don't think) come and descend upon the service area for up to a fortnight.
They park free of charge, they don't get parking tickets, they are not clamped.
Their children steal from the shops, they use all the facilities and leave them destroyed and broken. Anyone else who who parks on there gets their diesel stolen and trailers broken into. Cars also get vandalised.
What is the operators reaction to this?
They draft in a security company to try and protect THEIR building and the goods in it. They make no attempt to remove them whatsoever.
Whilst this is going on, they still expect their vulnerable customers to pay their parking fee and to run the gauntlet of these people, and will also pursue anyone who doesn't in the manner they are pursuing Iffy.
This isn't peculiar to Chester services either, I have seen in happen on Lancaster and Cherwell Valley in the past.
It's an admirable concept of yours that we should all keep to the terms of parking as stated on the warning notices, but can I suggest you direct that concept at the MSA Operators and the parking companies they employ, and ask why they don't do the same?
Pat
|
Iffy
I've just had a word and Washington went live on ANPR in June 2010.
Can you email me at pat.nicholson@tiscali.co.uk please.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Mon 11 Oct 10 at 09:04
|
Pat
I agree that it should not happen, but with no fixed address there is not a lot that can be done - but what could be done isn't.
Unfortunately we don't have enough police, or those with enough will, to take on these people.
My point was really that Iffy has chosen not to pay and is chosing to avoid the connsequences - so far.
|
No fixed address?
They are parked there illegally for up to three weeks at a time, isn't that long enough to wheel clamp them?
Or isn't anyone paid enough money to actually do it?
These people choose to avoid paying and they have no consequences whatsoever to avoid.
Pat
|
..He did not pay the fee as required by the contract, he does not dispute this...
What I will not pay is £50 for 43 minutes' parking.
That is not a reasonable parking charge, it is an attempt at a fine by a private business which has no right to punish anyone.
I posted earlier in the thread I would be quite happy to pay a reasonable charge for the overstay, say £3 or £4.
|
>> I posted earlier in the thread I would be quite happy to pay a reasonable
>> charge for the overstay, say £3 or £4.
But could you not have done that at the time?
Last services I stopped at were Trowell returning from Sheffield Uni open day last week. Signage was reasonably explicit that stays over two hours were chargeable and a method of payment was set out.
|
...But could you not have done that at the time...
When I checked a couple of days ago, there were shiny new signs with a text number to pay for extra parking.
I don't think the signs were there when I parked, but they may have been.
Either way, I left without paying.
Just as I could have paid at the time, the company could have sent me a reasonable bill, not an attempt at extortion.
|
My point is that you did not pay the advertised parking charge, now you refuse to pay what you see as an unreasonable penalty.
If you had paid for the parking as you should have done then they would not be pursuing you for the larger sum.
Your choice . . . .
|
"You refuse to pay what you see as an unreasonable penalty".
Legally, the parking company cannot charge a penalty - that is the prerogative of a court of law consequent upon a conviction.
There is some doubt as to whether the parking charge was in fact on display at the time.
In any case, the parking company has no right to pursue anyone for anything more than a reasonable charge. It cannot punish someone for not paying up at the time.
"Your choice". Of course. Iffy has chosen to pay nothing.
Last edited by: ChrisPeugeot on Mon 11 Oct 10 at 12:42
|
Of course, one way round Iffy's scenario would be if the car parks in these places had ticket barriers on entry and exit, with pay on foot machines for those wishing to stay longer than the 2-hour free period.
Presenting the ticket at the exit barrier within 2h of arrival gets you out free - any longer than that, and you have to pay. A simple system which works pretty well at car parks the length and breadth of the land.
But the operators would no doubt cite safety concerns with queues at busy periods as the reason why not - for which read, we are damned if we're giving up the opportunity to fleece the timid and/or unwary.
Plus I suppose the "do anything but play by the rules" brigade would then start parking in the lorry/coach bit - although Pat and her mates will no doubt have Means at their Disposal to discourage that.
|
One or two of the devil's advocate posters say I am avoiding the consequences of my actions.
I have decided not to pay and will take whatever follows from that action.
They have my name and address - I am not in a position to avoid the consequences of my actions and nor am I seeking to.
They could send the boys round, or petrol bomb Iffy Towers.
Excuse me while I go to check on the home insurance. :)
|
>> I have decided not to pay and will take whatever follows from that action.
Are prisoners allowed to participate in online forum activity ? Never mind if they aren't, I expect you'd be too busy what with sharing a cell with "Big Camp Harry" or somesuch...
Good luck. Let us know how you get on...
( best get a scary tattoo just in case )
:-)
|
...sharing a cell with "Big Camp Harry" or somesuch...
I'll not be anybody's bitch, don't you worry about that.
Will you come to visit me?
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 13 Oct 10 at 00:55
|
|
He's been out for years hasn't he ?
|
|
We could have a forum whip round for a year's supply of soap on a rope I suppose...
|
Big Camp Harry likes a whip round....
John
|
|
Being married to one is !
|
...update...
First reminder notice has arrived, so it seems like I am going to have quite a bit of ignoring to do.
It contains one or two nasty little threats, such as additional costs and interest, and my ability to obtain credit could be affected, apparently.
Not without a county court judgment against me, it can't.
They now want £80 for 46 minutes parking.
Who do they think I am - Wayne Rooney?
Last edited by: Iffy on Wed 20 Oct 10 at 13:11
|
|
I hope they don't think you're Wayne Rooney. He is a Very Bad Man and I dread to think what he might have been up to in 2hrs 46 minutes in a motorway service area.
Last edited by: ChrisPeugeot on Wed 20 Oct 10 at 13:19
|
...I dread to think what he might have been up to in 2hrs 46 minutes in a motorway service area...
Eighty quid to park and about ten times that for a bunk-up. :)
|
>> I hope they don't think you're Wayne Rooney. He is a Very Bad Man and
>> I dread to think what he might have been up to in 2hrs 46 minutes
>> in a motorway service area.
>>
Two hours would be quite an achievement....:-)
The words "been up to " perhaps have unfortunate connotations...
|
>> They now want £80 for 46 minutes parking.
>>
No they don't.
They want £80 for breach of the contract that you entered into when you parked.
Your fault for not paying the right charge at the time.
Would I have any business dealings with you based on this post - no!
|
|
There was NO charge to pay! Parking is free, for 2 hours. I am with iffy, I'll pay my way but of the penalty is both unenforceable and accompanied by illegal menace and threats they can forget it.
Last edited by: Perky Penguin on Thu 21 Oct 10 at 09:18
|
...Would I have any business dealings with you based on this post - no!...
IJWS14,
Given the circumstances, are you seriously telling you would pay the £80?
As I've posted before, I would pay a reasonable charge for 46 minutes parking, £5 at most.
The company does not have the right to move straight to penalty/extortion mode purely because I didn't pay at the time.
If they were anything other than scammers, they would have sent me an invoice for a reasonable sum.
Let's say you eat a restaurant meal, only to find you've forgotten/lost your wallet, and can't pay there and then.
You would offer to send the cost of the bill to the restaurant, and probably include a reasonable tip when you did so.
If the restaurant demanded 20 times the bill, would you pay it?
The only way my £80 parking demand can be deemed reasonable is if you accept a fair parking rate at the service area is £100 an hour.
And it's a pity you don't want to do business with me, because you sound very gullible.
|
At the end of the day all this depends on whether you have entered into a contract with the car parking company or not. If you have entered into a contract then you are bound by the terms of the contract. Whether the are terms are reasonable or not does not concern the law.
However the question as to whether you have actually entered a contract or not is debatable, and and to my knowledge has never been tested in court. The reluctance of the car parking companies to pursue these cases in the courts suggests that they believe they would lose, although this is far from certain. It depends very much on the individual circumstance such as was any payment made for the initial parking, and were the terms of the contract clearly provided when the contract was entered into
|
The law does indeed concern itself with unreasonable/unfair contracts. The Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977) states, inter alia:-
The “reasonableness” test. E+W+N.I.
(1)In relation to a contract term, the requirement of reasonableness for the purposes of this Part of this Act, section 3 of the M6 Misrepresentation Act 1967 and section 3 of the M7 Misrepresentation Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 is that the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.
|
You are indeed correct PP,in fact the act your refer to is superseded by The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
However I was using the phrase "unfair terms" simply to refer to the amount or value of the contract. If I buy a clock from you say and I pay you £100 and later find that I can buy a similar clock for £5 that does not make the contract "unfair" and the contract would still be valid. The law does not concern itself with whether the sum paid is reasonable or not
Similarly if I rent a parking space for £50 an hour and both parties are clear that they are entering into a contract, one to provide the space and me to pay the agreed sum then the law would not be concerned whether or not the deal represents good value for money.
In the case in question however it is far from clear whether such a contract exists in the first place and parking companies are very reluctant to pursue this matter in the courts
|
I was fairly sure that law can involve itself with unfair or opressive terms in a contract and I found this which seems to apply to contract which both parties have entered into but which is unfair to one of them.
Unfair terms in contracts - what is an unfair term?
An unfair term in a contract covered by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCRs) is not binding on you.
Test of fairness
A term is unfair if:
* Contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers.
'Good faith' means that traders must deal fairly and openly with you.
Although standard terms may be drafted to protect commercial needs, they must also take account of your interests and rights by going no further than is necessary to protect those legitimate commercial interests.
|
>> If you have entered into a contract then you are bound by the terms of the contract.
Quite right.
>> Whether the are terms are reasonable or not does not concern the law.
However, an automatic charge of £X for breach of contract is not "on", is it.
|
No
BUT . . .
Nor would I would not have put myself in the position of being asked for it, I would have paid (and have in the past) paid the fee for parking over 2 hours.
If you thought the charge was unreasonable why did you choose to use the car park for that long?
The whole point here is that you admit you could have paid at the time but chose not to, now you are objecting to the consequences.
A restaraunt will take your name and address, a garage will take details if you cannot pay for fuel (seen it done) but all of these rely on people being trustworthy and admitting at the time that they had not got the means to pay with them and agreeing to pay later, something you did not do.
Guillable - no. Take care over the creditworthiness and trustworthiness of clients - yes.
|
...The whole point here is that you admit you could have paid at the time but chose not to, now you are objecting to the consequences...
IJWS14,
There are a lot of posts on this thread, and I don't expect anyone to read every dot and comma.
I have never admitted I could have paid at the time, it didn't occur to me I had over-stayed, I wasn't keeping track of the time, although I accept I was there for the time stated, if that's what they say.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, there was no parking ticket on the car when I returned, so the first I knew of the situation was when the letter arrived a couple of weeks later.
Eighty pounds is not a reasonable charge for parking for 46 minutes, nor is there is any contract or prior agreement on my part to pay that amount.
Creditworthiness is irrelevant, this is not a transaction in which credit is involved.
Trustworthiness is also irrelevant, I am not being trusted by the company with anything.
By mentioning these two things, you are going down the same route as the company, but for different reasons.
Their reason is to somehow bully, frighten, or cajole me into paying their speculative demand for a ridiculous amount of money.
It is to my credit - in the general rather than financial meaning of the word - that I will not be intimidated in this way.
I am in the happy position of not owing anyone a penny, any financial commitment I take on, I meet.
|
>> I am in the happy position of not owing anyone a penny, any financial commitment
>> I take on, I meet.
>>
The title of the thread shows this statement to be wrong.
I leave you and what conscience you have to think about it.
|
...I leave you and what conscience you have to think about it...
IJWS14,
Are you seriously telling me not paying this outrageous demand should trouble my conscience?
I'm starting to think this is a wind-up, or do you have shares in this shyster outfit?
The only thing that troubles me a little is the thought of other people in my position being bullied into parting with their money.
...I am in the happy position of not owing anyone a penny, any financial commitment.I take on, I meet...
The above statement is true, you are in no position to say it is not.
I have no commitment to this company.
Their demand for money is rather like your comments about me - just a load of hot air with no basis in fact.
I think there's a recruitment section on their website.
Why not take a look? You might fit right in.
|
|
OP could NOT have paid at the time! It was not a Pay & Display Park, it was a 2 hours free park. He overstayed, didn't get a charge notice at the time but thru the post some days later.
|
>> They want £80 for breach of the contract that you entered into when you parked.
Hm. Are you sure they don't in fact want the £80 for damages incurred due to the breach of contract?
|
|
Are these tickets the same as those issued at many hospitals?
|
...Are these tickets the same as those issued at many hospitals?...
Could be.
The company's website, which makes them look almost respectable, mentions contracts with health trusts.
www.cp-plus.co.uk/
|
|
While tickets in supermarkets can be ignored, to some extent, clamping can't. I saw a car clamped in an Aldi Car park yesterday; nothing to do about that except pay, so far as I can see.
|
I saw a
>> car clamped in an Aldi Car park yesterday; nothing to do about that except pay,
>> so far as I can see.
>>
I would come back after hours, with a circular saw (of some description) and two big burly mates - then lets see who has clamping rights!
Last edited by: Redviper on Wed 20 Oct 10 at 16:06
|
|
I understand that if you can get the clamp off without damaging it there's not much anyone can do. Apparently there are ways and means...
|
|
I'm led to believe that (most) wheel clamps won't fit on tyres wide than 225 or wheels bigger than 17". So all you need is a set of blinged up extra wide wheels on your motor and you can't get clamped. Not tried this and there is a risk it's an urban myth.
|
|
Something to do with jacking the car up and the deflating the tyre after which the clamp can be removed, allegedly
|
...jacking the car up and the deflating the tyre...
I saw this done when the Denver Boot was introduced in London in the 1980s.
It was a Ford Sierra and the owner was able to loosen the wheel nuts by poking an open-ended spanner behind the metal part of the boot covering the hub.
Took a while, but he got all the nuts off.
Deflating the tyre enabled him to split the clamp from the wheel and tyre.
|
|
This subject came up again in HJ's column last Saturday. His comment was that replying to a demand for £80 with an apology and a cheque for £5 "in reasonable compensation for my minor breach of contract" would make it virtually impossible for the car park enforcers to take matters any further. If that's true, it might be worth it get them off your back.
|
"This subject came up again in HJ's column last Saturday. His comment was that replying to a demand for £80 with an apology and a cheque for £5 "in reasonable compensation for my minor breach of contract" would make it virtually impossible for the car park enforcers to take matters any further. If that's true, it might be worth it get them off your back."
I've been following this subject in a thread on "the other place" and there seems to be a difference of opinion between HJ himself and LucyBC, the resident lawyer, who recommends not responding to parking companies' demands.
The issue seems to centre on the idea that, however attractive the payment of a token amount might be from a moral point of view, responding in any way would constitute some kind of admission of liability, in the unlikely event that the parking company did actually decide to take things further.
|
|
Yes, I see the point. But with timed ANPR evidence, it seems to me that the admission of liability argument is a bit irrelevant. It's clear that private parking companies can't impose a punitive fine (only the courts, police or local authority can do that). I wonder whether HJ knows of any actual cases where his suggested response has ended the matter.
|
I don't think the establishing of liability is irrelevant - by admission or otherwise.
Timed ANPR records simply prove that a vehicle entered a car park at a particular moment. They don't prove who was driving. All the parking company can do is obtain the keeper's name and address from DVLA.
At this point the parking company has absolutely no case.
If the keeper subsequently pays some money that might be seen as an admission of liability and give the parking company a bit of grip if they wished to take further steps.
That is the first part of the difficulty the parking company has in making its case stick legally.
The second is establishing that a contract has been entered into - and here we get into discussions as to whether signs were clear etc.
The third issue, as you say, is over the large amount of money being demanded. If it is intended as a fine then that is illegal without establishing guilt (see above) and if it is not intended as a fine then a large amount would not be seen by a court as a reasonable charge for the extra time parked nor a reasonable amount for any damages claimed - indeed, what damages could a parking overstay give rise to?
Although there's a little (conscience-driven) bit of me that says one should take the consequences for one's mistakes and offer a small amount for overstaying (£5 tops), I think this is just not sensible.
Last edited by: ChrisPeugeot on Thu 21 Oct 10 at 18:26
|
>>Timed ANPR records simply prove that a vehicle entered a car park at a particular moment. They don't prove who was driving.
True Chris, and I did think about that. If you want to play the "I wasn't driving at the time, can't remember who was, not telling you anyway and you can't prove it" game, so be it.
It seemed to me that HJ's suggestion passed the test of reasonableness and honesty. Again, I would be interested to know if there is precedent for this approach actually working - or does it, as you fear, only make matters worse??
At the moment, we are all just playing armchair lawyers.
|
"It seemed to me that HJ's suggestion passed the test of reasonableness and honesty."
- I agree.
"Again, I would be interested to know if there is precedent for this approach actually working - or does it, as you fear, only make matters worse??"
- Yes, spot-on. That is absolutely the point.
"...we are all just playing armchair lawyers."
- Too right! I own up! :-))
|
>> Timed ANPR records simply prove that a vehicle entered a car park at a particular
>> moment. They don't prove who was driving. All the parking company can do is obtain
>> the keeper's name and address from DVLA.
Does the parking company hold a picture of the vehicle, or just a record of the registration number?
If the latter, then the only record they have is that 'a' vehicle showing your registration number entered, and left, the car park.
May be interesting to ask for photographic evidence showing your vehicle........
|
...May be interesting to ask for photographic evidence showing your vehicle...
They say they have photographic evidence, and there is a weblink on the demand to view it.
I haven't bothered for two reasons:
1. I admit I was there, so what's the point?
2. My chosen stance is to ignore all communication, looking at my pic would conflict with that.
|
...But we could all look...
I expect the viewer has to enter the reference number on their bill.
Not that there's anything to stop the company openly publishing the pic if they want to.
|
>> But with timed ANPR evidence
Have fun! Reverse into the car park, past the cameras Reverse out, if you like. Go in normally, and obscure your number plate as you go out (don't forget to remove your cloaking device ASAP after!). All sorts of possibilities exist with printed paper numberplates! Rebel! Defy the Miniluv!
|
|
Iffy, just make sure you let us know the eventual outcome.
|
...Iffy, just make sure you let us know the eventual outcome...
I intend to, but I reckon threatening letters will be arriving periodically for months.
|
>> I intend to, but I reckon threatening letters will be arriving periodically for months.
>>
You could return one adorned with "not known at this address".
|
|
You could buy one of thoses gizmos that compresses old newspapers into "logs" and use the letters to warm your house.
|
...that compresses old newspapers into "logs"...
I bought one years ago.
You had to soak the newspapers first, which made an inky mess of the sink and bowl.
The compression was feeble and the ram handles bent when I applied a bit of pressure to them.
And I reckon the logs must be illegal in a smokeless zone.
|
Reading these sort of threads really starts to annoy me nowadays.
So Iffy overstayed his parking at a crappy service station (I've visited it, and its a filthy dump) - in what ridiculous universe does this warrant any kind of fine? A trivial infringement of some self-made rules and they make it into a money spinning scam.
Theres far too much of this going on. Overstay on a meter and its a £60 for your 'offence' - and as this thread shows some people seem happy to accept it. Personally I can't see how parking can ever warrant fines like this unless you're actually parked dangerously/blocking access etc.
Fight them Iffy!
|
Well said, Snakey. I'm in a similar position to Iffers...I get a real bill, I pay it. I owe no-one. The difference at the moment between us, which will soon disappear, is that I've been through this ' invoice ' rip -off and seen it through to the end, which was only bitter for them !
As Iffy says, it's not people like us who need to worry, it's always elderly or vulnerable folk who cough up without a fught. I take delight in trying to contact those in our local paper who have become victims and explain the law to them. Sadly, sometimes it's too late and they've paid.
These clowns make their money by intimidation and fear, presenting the invoice as though it's come from the police or the courts.
They can stuff it for me !
Ted
|
|
You dont have to fight them. You dont have to do anything. All you do is just ignore them.
|
...You dont have to do anything...
That's what I like about this fight.
If I had to do something, there might come a point where I would pay just to save all the bother.
Remember the Great Mouldy Shower Saga? (Collective groan from the forum.)
I was thinking about letting it drop when the hotel made their offer to settle.
|
"the Great Mouldy Shower Saga?"
I'm waiting for the film.
John
|
I missed the outcome on that one Iffy, but well done. Fair dos for being the forum Guinea Pig on this and fighting it albeit passively.
In respect of Snakey's comment about the universe all I can say is that Douglas Adams foresaw the way this country was going and we all thought it was so funny- then.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Fri 22 Oct 10 at 18:15
|
I presume from the comments that most of you would walk out of the newsagent without paying for your newspaper if he had nipped out the back - after all it is just the same, breach of contract, although treated as theft.
After all the newsagent only suffers the loss of the cost price of the paper and the fine when you go to court for shoplifting is totally unreasonable since it is way more than the cost of the newspaper . . . .
|
You seem to be totally missing the point IJWS, which really is unusual for you and makes it appear that you condone the unscrupulous way these people operate.
They word their threats, design their paperwork and use bullying tactics to take huge amounts of money from people less aware than those of us on this forum.
I know of a lorry driver who pulled into an MSA after driving for four hours and desperately wanted to go to the toilet. The lorry park was completely full and the next service area was over 30 minutes away. He parked for 5 minutes in an [b]empty[/b] coach park with 8 other empty spaces and was clamped in that time. Cost around £240 to get it removed.
Do you agree with that?
I did a trailer change in the services at Ferrybridge. It took just 9 minutes as was documented on the parking ticket. While we were doing it the attendant walked past and said Hello, but a week later we received two £80 demands for payment for 'carrying out a commercial activity'.
What was the charge then, we asked, and was told we had to pay for two 24 hour parking tickets at £22.50 each to be allowed to do this for nine minutes. Why didn't the attendant mention that at the time?
Is that fair, do you agree with that?
These people make huge profits from the MSA's up and down the country on a daily basis by bullying and purporting to have the law on their side which they do not have.
I don't think anyone should have a scrap of conscience about playing them at their own game, do you?
Pat
|
I notice IJWS hasn't answered the above questions yet.
Pat
|
I've decided to charge £40 to anyone who reads my posts. By reading them you have entered into a contract.
I presume from the comments that I'll make at least £40. (My email is in my profile IJWS14)
|
|
your posts are not worth 4p let alone 40 quid.
|
|
So that people get value for money I'm going to split this thread into two volumes shortly, it's a nightmare to read on a smart-phone.
|
>> So that people get value for money I'm going to split this thread into two
>> volumes shortly, it's a nightmare to read on a smart-phone.
>>
Phones ar for talking through, thats your problem. :-)
|
No - I have not entered into a contract with you, and I can prove it in court if you wish.
Now there is no chance of IFFY saying the same thing to the parking company because he knows he has entered into a contract
|
...because he knows he has entered into a contract...
Iffy thinks quite the reverse.
Parking in an area surrounded by a few poxy signs does not a contract make, in the same way as writing to someone demanding £80 does not establish a civil debt.
IJWS,
If I ever see your car parked, I'm going to put up a sign next to it: 'All Persons Parked Here Must Jump Into The Nearest River'.
And when you don't, I'm going to berate you on here for being untrustworthy and lacking in conscience.
By the way, let us have your address, I could do with £80 for nowt, I've got a bill to pay.
|
>> ...because he knows he has entered into a contract...
>>
>> Iffy thinks quite the reverse.
>>
>> Parking in an area surrounded by a few poxy signs does not a contract make,
It does, you know.
>> in the same way as writing to someone demanding £80 does not establish a civil
>> debt.
Not sure what that means.
|
|
Legal opinion, posted elswehere, suggests that one has entered into a contract, just by by parking Whether it is enforceable is the crux of the matter
|
...in the same way as writing to someone demanding £80 does not establish a civil
>> debt. Not sure what that means...
FT,
There is no debt, I have not agreed to pay this company anything.
They cannot establish a debt merely by writing to me saying 'you owe us £80'.
Most contracts have a written basis, there is nothing between me and the parking company.
They might stand a feint chance if they sent an invoice saying you parked for two hours and 46 minutes, and the 46 minutes is chargeable at £8, or whatever it is.
But they don't do that, because they are not trying to collect a reasonable sum for the parking, they are trying to screw money out of me.
|
|
Iffy - I am 100% with you on your course of action and I would do the same. I am just being a Devil's Advocate amd mention that it has been stated, in another forum, that the act of parking implies acceptance of a contract, however dodgy!
|
>> Most contracts have a written basis, there is nothing between me and the
>> parking company.
If there was signage that one would reasonably have seen, then a contract existed between you and the company.
|
>> If there was signage that one would reasonably have seen, then a contract existed between
>> you and the company.
There undoubtedly was, but contract law does not allow penalty charges, you can only recover losses, nothing else. You could make a [weak?] argument that the service station may have lost a little custom if the car park was busy and people decided not to stop, and a charge of perhaps £5 might be reasonable and indeed enforceable. You could even argue that their 24 hour charge should be recovered. £80, however, is disproportionate and the parking companies know it, hence they never, ever take these matters to court because they would almost certainly lose.
Some may remember that my car was involved in a similar situation, except the driver was absolutely and clearly in the wrong. I did not respond to the letters or pay the £100 'fine' as I felt that there had been no loss. The car *should* have been towed, and the driver *should* have had to pay for recovery, as that way the inconvenience to other car park users would have been mitigated. The car park co. chose not to tow, instead just trying to profit from the situation. Hence no money for them.
|
>> >> If there was signage that one would reasonably have seen, then a
>> >> contract existed between you and the company.
>>
>> There undoubtedly was, but contract law does not allow penalty charges,
>> you can only recover losses, nothing else.
That is why the OP mentioned that the place was "never busy", and why I said in the first reply "Did your parking cause them a loss?"
>> You could make a [weak?] argument that the service station may have
>> lost a little custom if the car park was busy and people decided not to
>> stop, and a charge of perhaps £5 might be reasonable and indeed enforceable.
Indeed.
|
"There undoubtedly was, but contract law does not allow penalty charges, you can only recover losses, nothing else."
True, but does a graduated set of charges constitute a penalty charge? If you park in a car park where the clearly displayed charges, to which you tacitly agree by parking your car, are £1 for the first hour £3 for the second hour and £20 per hour thereafter does the £20 per hour constitute a penalty charge? I suspect that it does not and simply constitutes the freely agreed consideration of the contract. The law does not look to see that you have value for money under a contract. If I buy a hat for £200 and later find it only worth £10 I cannot argue that the contract is invalid.
Similarly if Iffy has actually freely entered a contract to park his car where the charges are £80 after two hours it would seem that such a contract could well be enforceable. The bigger question in my mind is whether such a contract was actually made in the first place.
Of course where the parking companies are totally our of order is implying that the matter is anything more than a civil breach of contract and issuing "parking tickets" and otherwise threatening behaviour.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 26 Oct 10 at 14:10
|
|
CGN, that argument falls down as there is normally a 24 hour rate of about £24 at these places. You could fairly reasonably argue that £24 is their 'loss'. The £80 is therefore, in my mind, a penalty.
|
|
If it indeed shows a daily rate of £24 then I would agree that their loss would be £24 plus a reasonable admin fee
|
|
Daily rate is £24 but first 2 hours are free so that conveniently works out at £1 per hour. OP "overstayed" by under an hour so £1 looks like the notional "loss" - not that OP plans to pay it and good on him!
|
Depends if rate is £24 or "£24 per day or part thereof"
Incidentally I note on Moto's website that it states that
"It is not our intention to charge drivers who marginally exceed the parking restrictions, nor charge those who have slightly overstayed whilst significantly patronizing our facilities."
|
|
A newspaper has a finite and stated value. A 30 minute overstay in a free car park has a value of some sort but it isn't £85.
|
|
It's a totally disproportionate response to a trivial incident. Totally unfair and uncalled for.
|
|
Lighten up PU, he's only teasing you about your phone ;-)
|
|
hahahaha ! See how easy it is to get confused at my age ! :-)
|
>> hahahaha ! See how easy it is to get confused at my age ! :-)
>>
And me, I keep contraptions simple and with usually only one or two functions these days.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 25 Oct 10 at 11:20
|
Sorry IJ, I disagree. So does the law. Nicking a paper is presumably a criminal offence and could see you transported to the colonies. The law has no interest in Iffy's case. You'll have to try harder to presuade me.
John
|
>> walk out of the newsagent without paying for your newspaper if he had nipped
>> out the back - after all it is just the same
No, it isn't.
>>breach of contract
No, it isn't.
>> although treated as theft.
It could be.
|
Rather than giving the OP a fine for staying at a service area for more than two hours, they should give him a medal!
If anything is criminal about service areas it's the prices they charge. Even the fast food outlets charge more than in their regular restaurants.
|
Just to cover the theft point.
Theft is the intention to permanently deprive the owner of property.
This being the law, 'property' has quite a wide definition and can include money.
It can't, however, include some notional loss caused by a trespass.
These are civil matters, so if there is anything in law about this case, it is civil law.
Hence the company tries to establish a debt against me, but they can't do that simply by writing a letter demanding £80.
If they could, cases such as mine would be clogging up the county courts.
The best intelligence seems to be that none of these demands has ever reached a court.
To me, it is obvious why.
The parking companies know they would struggle to establish any liability against the driver, and if they did, it would be for a reasonable amount for the time over-stayed.
And we all know reasonableness is the one thing they are not interested in.
Last edited by: Iffy on Mon 25 Oct 10 at 14:28
|
Following on from that, me ole pal, if by some freak of chance they ever got you as far as the court corridor. Presumably you could, at that stage, offer to settle out of court....perhaps £2.00. They can't claim a penalty, anyway.
If they knew they wouldn't get any more from the hearing then they would accept.
It would have put them to a lot of expense to get that far.....and they couldn't claim costs against you.
Ted
|
Could pay - won't pay - FotheringtonTomas
