Watchdog tonight

[DBC]

Except most supermarket car-parks are free, and you have no option or opportunity to pay that mythical £100 upfront if you want to stay over three hours. Instead you get a scary looking letter through the post that mimics a council penalty charge.

[green_and_mean]

Except most supermarket car-parks are free, and you have no option or opportunity to pay that mythical £100 upfront if you want to stay over three hours. Instead you get a scary looking letter through the post that mimics a council penalty charge.

 

I'm sure if you offered you could pay it in advance.

[sb118]

I never said they could?

But if the charge for parking over 3 hours is £100 then I cannot see why they cannot charge it. Who has the right to decide whats reasonable you have the option of not parking.

 

Umm, this judge?

[lamma]

There is the not so small matter of can the PPC even make the offer of parking ? does it have landowner or agency rights.

[DBC]

I'm sure if you offered you could pay it in advance.

 

But who do you pay? I am sure the supermarket would not take the money, as they contract out to a PPC. If there is a PPC rep on site, I am sure he would not be empowered to take any money. With no rep, and the site monitored by CCTV, there would no opportunity to pay at all.

 

Just a few years ago some supermarkets had a manned barrier where, on exit, you showed a receipt or token to prove that you had shopped there. What's wrong with that system? It controlled unauthorised parking and didn't alienate the customers.

[Zamzara]

Why do you think they can only claim for 'loss' they are not claiming damages they are claiming a lawfully advertised and imposed charge. If B&Q wish to charge £25 for a days parking why shouldn't they its their car park and its no more of a [problem] than charging £45 for a drill they buy for £5 in China or are you saying I can just walk out with the drill and offer to pay £5 for their loss??

 

I agree in theory but there are a lot of problems with this model of looking at it as well.

 

McDonalds widely advertise their prices, e.g. £1.99 for a certain type of burger, and the additional £100 charge for entering the site is a significant additional term - to put it mildly. This brings the legality of their entire operation into question.

[green_and_mean]

Umm, this judge?

 

I think you will find the opinion of a Judge sitting in the small claims court doesn't make it unlawful. There have also been cases upheld so using your argument its both lawful and unlawful.

[cream70]

[DBC]

The above link should be emailed to all the PPC's asking for their comments!

[pin1onu]

Why do you think they can only claim for 'loss' they are not claiming damages they are claiming a lawfully advertised and imposed charge.

Several reasons

 

Tort is about putting the wronged party in the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. As most B&Q car parks are otherwise free then this meets the criteria of a contract penalty.

 

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Act. If a term puts one party at significant disadvantage and the term has not been individually negotiated it will be deemed unfair.

 

If B&Q wish to charge £25 for a days parking why shouldn't they its their car park and its no more of a [problem] than charging £45 for a drill they buy for £5 in China or are you saying I can just walk out with the drill and offer to pay £5 for their loss??

You're right if they want to charge they can do. However I think its beside the point; the real issue is with them using a company that attempts to obtain money via threats and deception and people's lack of ignorance.

 

If they want to charge for car parking why don't they install barriers on their car park and charge people on the way out instead of trying to obtain money people who may or may not be privy to a contract.

[lamma]

It is always worth checking the planning permission for the car park. Often it is a condition that parking must be free. Also check the business rate they are paying, If someone is making money from it they should be paying a business rate. The PPC may be making money but the rate payer won't be too happy when they have to pay higher rates so that the PPC can benefit.

[DBC]

MET Parking use "Graham White" aka Michael Sobell as their tame solicitor. I'm surprised they don't put him on the next Watchdog to answer all those scurrilous allegations about the company that employs him. . Now that would be a laugh!

[Al27]

never said they could?

But if the charge for parking over 3 hours is £100 then I cannot see why they cannot charge it. Who has the right to decide whats reasonable you have the option of not parking. I don't think steak and chips in Gordon Ramseys restaurant is worth £50+ when I can get the same for a fiver in Weatherspoons but I make the choice not to eat there. If you think Tescos should not charge you £50 for shopping longer than 3 hours shop in Sainsbury no one forces you to park at gun point.

 

They can charge for it. They could attempt to charge £10,000 for it. But they would have real trouble proving the contract was offered and accepted if they were soley relying on signage.

 

By all means charge £100 for the third hour, but a court would find it unlikely such a term would be accepted unless it was actually explained in person and a sign of acceptance such as a signature was obtained.

 

Otherwise it would be likely seen as punative as the intention is clearly to prevent people parking for a third hour.

 

If they really did want to charge £10,000 and a contract was offered and accepted it's still likely they would have problems though. A contract still has to be fair and issues of unjust enrichment would come into play. They'd have to fight such a case in courts higher than small claims and throw thousands at it though.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Al27

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

It is not really the scale of the charges that is the issue and they can be perfectly lawful. It's the method of purported enforcement that is the problem.

 

If you have ever had the misfortune to stay in an airport short stay car park for a period of time when a long stay car park would have been better you will know how costly that can be but is perfectly lawful.

 

For a punitive measure to have a chance of being found unlawful you must show that its objective is punishment rather than persuading against.

[Zamzara]

And the intentions of the parties.

 

In a case where parking is offered for £25 an hour the parties intened to be bound by this: the driver intends to be charged and the company intends to offer the parking.

 

The PPC situation is different as neither party has any such intention at the point of formation of the contract. The driver does not intend to be charged and the PPC does not intend to become bound to offer parking upon acceptance, and their subsequent correspondence is almost always clear that the parking was not offered and was not welcome.

[DBC]

And the intentions of the parties.

 

In a case where parking is offered for £25 an hour the parties intened to be bound by this: the driver intends to be charged and the company intends to offer the parking.

 

The PPC situation is different as neither party has any such intention at the point of formation of the contract. The driver does not intend to be charged and the PPC does not intend to become bound to offer parking upon acceptance, and their subsequent correspondence is almost always clear that the parking was not offered and was not welcome.

That strengthens my argument above regarding the absence of any facility (machine or human) to pay for "extra" time in such places as supermarket car-parks.

[filthysurfer]

I notice there's a rather woolly reply to a letter in the Sunday Times 'In Gear' section re: PPCs today too. Question number four Car clinic A good responce in the comments though.

[DBC]

I notice there's a rather woolly reply to a letter in the Sunday Times 'In Gear' section re: PPCs today too. Question number four Car clinic A good responce in the comments though.

 

It was all going OK until the last paragraph when they advised the motorist to contact the PPC and supermarket because of "extenuating circumstances". This was after saying earlier on that these charges are unenforceable and (in effect) not worth the paper they are written on.

[lamma]

"if you do go to court and lose, you will not be liable for its legal costs, says Clive Wolman, a barrister specialising in commercial law. " He needs to read up on CPR and the small claims court doesn't he ? Appalling 'advice' from a barrister. PART 27 - THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK - Ministry of Justice

[Al27]

I saw it too.

 

Everybody write to them - they do print letters referring to past comments.

[DBC]

I emailed the Watchdog clip to Met Parking and received this reply:-

 

Good Morning,

 

Thank you for your email received on the 08/05/2010.

 

We are aware that both McDonald’s and MET Parking have been featured on Watchdog. If you have an appeal you would like us to deal with you may send through your Parking charge notice number.

Kind Regards,

Sara | Assistant Customer Service Manager

 

MET Parking Services Ltd

 

PO Box 64168, London WC1A 9DE

 

T 0845 370 8004 | F 0845 370 8002

 

Web Welcome to MET Parking Services - MET Parking Services

 

I have just phoned Sara and asked about the programme and for her comments on it. She seemed to beleive that they are not doing anything wrong and that everything is covered by contract law which the motorist "knowingly enters into" when they drive into the car-park.

 

I then asked her whether they ever take anyone to court. She said that they have been requested by their various clients not to take anyone to court but that might change in the light of the TV programme.

 

I asked her if she was aware that they would certainly lose if a case ever went to court, she would not comment on that.

 

All in all a very interesting conversation.

[Al27]

Good work!

 

Interesting about the client aspect. We know these companies gain clients by lying and stating they take people to court all the time, but it's also worth noting that McDonalds have always known full well the charge are bunkum. No way they would want to be implicated in any court action.

 

Maybe McDonalds need reminding of Ferguson v British Gas 2009.

[DBC]

I also asked if she was aware that they can only go after the driver and not the registered keeper. She said she was, this is why they "invite" the RK to tell who the driver was. I then said that no one is obliged to disclose this information, but she would not comment on that.

[lamma]

her failure to rebut is an admission. as if we needed it

[Michael Browne]

I've had a ticket from MET/McDonalds which up to now I've ignored, but have now replied to them with an A4 sheet of paper, printed with just the Watchdog Youtube link, which I then folded into a paper aeroplane and put in an envelope.

 

Hope they get the message