The legal status of Private Parking charges

[BankFodder]

The behaviour of Parking Eye in the Somerfield's case is really a distraction from the main issue which concerns everyone - and that is the issue of the existence and enforceability of any parking contract.

 

Trying to go through the recent Parking Eye judgments in the High Court and the subsequent judgment in the Court of Appeal, (attached below) it seems to me that the court's view is that by parking in a managed car park where the terms of the parking have been adequately been brought to the notice of the driver, there is a contractual obligation to pay the indicated amount after the free parking time has expired.

 

What I gather from the judgment so far is that the discounted amount - the "reduced amount" is the contractual price - even if that price seems to be very high. It is probably enforceable.

However the enhanced amount which is applied in the event that the driver breaches the contract by failing to pay the discounted sum, is probably an unenforceable penalty - because it exists solely to force payment of the initial sum and to discourage breaching of the contract.

Of course the other issue of who has the right to sue for the money is a serious question which affects the enforceability of any contract.

 

The other issues as to whether the parking companies access to DVLA records is unlawful or abusive is an important matter - but if the parking industry starts to behave intelligently and less thugishly about the way they organise their business, I expect that they can overcome this problem.

 

I think that if people want to make effective objections to the implementation of private parking schemes, then those objections have to be made directly to the car park owners such as the retail parks and the supermarkets because at the end of the day, it is they whose reputation is at stake.

 

This is clearly one of the reasons why Somerfields terminated their contract with Parking Eye - because they found that it was losing them customer goodwill and business.

[lamma]

I do not believe that that is a general finding of law, nor that it can be. The facts will be different in each case and the law gets applied to the found facts. Note the use of"found&amp". Does the PPC have sufficient rights to offer parking ? Are they acting as agent to the landowner ? (If so then them suing is fraught with difficulties, not least acting a legal representative !). And do not forget the presumptive nature of courts. That which is not rebutted is admitted. If the PPC avers or is seen to be presuming by words or action that they do have the right to offer parking and/or the right to sue and those matters are not tested then they are presumed "found". These are key matters which should come into any case, small claims or the higher courts. in my opinion. If the PPC is acting as agent, how can they sue ? and any money would be for the landowner not the PPC. The contract between the PPC and the landowner is key. The PPC still needs standing. Small Claims can be a bit haphazard of course, that is its nature. Now I am off to read the Manchester judgement - it may take some time !

Edited October 19, 2012 by lamma

[TBeckett100]

Seems to me that the judgement agrees that the initial charge is enforceable but the increased charge for not paying within 2 weeks is penal and may be unenforceable. Therefore ignoring and letting them pursue you for the penal charge may be best argued in court

[firstclassx]

Seems to me that the judgement agrees that the initial charge is enforceable but the increased charge for not paying within 2 weeks is penal and may be unenforceable. Therefore ignoring and letting them pursue you for the penal charge may be best argued in court

 

until they just starting going after you for the lower charge and add their legal costs...

 

(assuming they have a right to sue)

 

Perhaps the Somerfield judgement more aptly reflects the fact that Somerfield wanted a deterrent, but not one that was overly aggressive and thus was unwilling to continue the arrangement. I imagine every other big name shop will feel the same, wanting a deterrent, but not the legal threats/misrepresentation. It is reasonable to conclude that, like Somerfield, they would be unwilling to take further action beyond issuing a parking ticket.

[Surfer01]

What would the situation be if the you were invited onto the land by the LL, i.e. NHS send you a letter inviting you to attend an appointment at the hospital which is on their land? Surely in a sense this is a "permit" for you to park on the land?

Unfortunately you cannot take your business elsewhere so are "trapped". It is also impractical to expect someone who is disabled to park off the premises and then to walk to the respective department at the hospital which is about 1/2 a mile. They now charge disabled people to park.

[DBC]

This the same situation on retail parks and supermarkets. On the one hand the BPA says (quote) "It’s very easy to avoid a parking ticket: don’t park where you shouldn’t, and pay when you should."

 

But you are being invited on the land to shop at those places ( most of which are free), and what's the definition of "parking where you should't"? does it mean having a wheel just touching a line, or breaching their time limit, even though you might have spent a lot of money in the shop?

[dpick]

Hi I think that the recent VCS cases could have a bearing of this as in both cases their was the case that they did not have the right to sue only the land owner. Also the case at the upper Tax Tribunal is I believe binding in case law.

 

dpick

[Surfer01]

This the same situation on retail parks and supermarkets. On the one hand the BPA says (quote) "It’s very easy to avoid a parking ticket: don’t park where you shouldn’t, and pay when you should."

 

But you are being invited on the land to shop at those places ( most of which are free), and what's the definition of "parking where you should't"? does it mean having a wheel just touching a line, or breaching their time limit, even though you might have spent a lot of money in the shop?

 

With a retail outlet you have the choice of using the car park or not and in most cases you do not receive a personal invitation? With NHS you have no choice except to use their car park!

[themagician]

does any of the facts and representations of these parking problems ,apply also the same law and facts attached to parking in motorway services and over staying the time limit on their premises ??.

even as far as statutory tachagraph "law"rest periods,neccessitating in overnight stay.

[Old Snowy]

does any of the facts and representations of these parking problems ,apply also the same law and facts attached to parking in motorway services and over staying the time limit on their premises ??.

even as far as statutory tachagraph "law"rest periods,neccessitating in overnight stay.

Could you explain your question a little more clearly?

[Surfer01]

Could you explain your question a little more clearly?

They are asking about parking tickets because they have to spend time at a service area due to the laws regarding HGV driving hours.

[DBC]

In other words the government tells you in those large illuminated signs on the motorway not to drive when you are tired and when you do the right thing the PPC leeches try and con money out of you.

[instrumentsofjoy]

In other words the government tells you in those large illuminated signs on the motorway not to drive when you are tired and when you do the right thing the PPC leeches try and con money out of you.

 

Save the paperwork but otherwise ignore. They can then try all they like. And tell all your friends.

[Old Snowy]

They are asking about parking tickets because they have to spend time at a service area due to the laws regarding HGV driving hours.

Thanks. Clearly I have my "prat" head on today

[themagician]

so is that a yeh! or neh!

[Aretnap]

The fact that you have to take a rest period wouldn't give you a right to free parking in a car park of your choice - if you didn't like the price a particular car park charged, you could always go somewhere else to take your break.

 

I suspect that the £8 or whatever it is that service stations charge for stays of more than 2 hours (presumably it's more for HGVs) would be enforceable (by the service station itself, if not by the PPC). The fact that we might think it's a bit pricey doesn't mean that it's not a genuine fee for parking. The £80 or whatever they attempt to sting you for if you don't pay the £8 is clearly a penalty charge though, and would probably not be enforceable, though the court might still find that you should have paid the original £8, as they did in the Smith v Parking Eye case.

[anon55]

does any of the facts and representations of these parking problems ,apply also the same law and facts attached to parking in motorway services and over staying the time limit on their premises ??.

even as far as statutory tachagraph "law"rest periods,neccessitating in overnight stay.

 

 

This is a big bone of uproar in our transport company, as it has been pointed out time after time they are NOT fines only invoices, for clarification all, we collect them, but as the RK ie our company gets the 'Invoices' they are passed to Accounts for payment , it also states in our drivers handbook that we must pay to park on MSA'S I,along with others have tried to get the Company to stop paying, the reason they pay is, as a company they must keep records by law, unlike us, a private driver, so the only way it can be stopped is by us telling the company to tell the PPC'S who is the driver, which may or may not be correct, but that's how the company I work for does it, now the difficulty I have personally is the passing of my data to a 3rd party without my say so, any thoughts please

[steveod]

The behaviour of Parking Eye in the Somerfield's case is really a distraction from the main issue which concerns everyone - and that is the issue of the existence and enforceability of any parking contract.

 

Trying to go through the recent Parking Eye judgments in the High Court and the subsequent judgment in the Court of Appeal, (attached below) it seems to me that the court's view is that by parking in a managed car park where the terms of the parking have been adequately been brought to the notice of the driver, there is a contractual obligation to pay the indicated amount after the free parking time has expired.

 

What I gather from the judgment so far is that the discounted amount - the "reduced amount" is the contractual price - even if that price seems to be very high. It is probably enforceable.

However the enhanced amount which is applied in the event that the driver breaches the contract by failing to pay the discounted sum, is probably an unenforceable penalty - because it exists solely to force payment of the initial sum and to discourage breaching of the contract.

Of course the other issue of who has the right to sue for the money is a serious question which affects the enforceability of any contract.

 

The other issues as to whether the parking companies access to DVLA records is unlawful or abusive is an important matter - but if the parking industry starts to behave intelligently and less thugishly about the way they organise their business, I expect that they can overcome this problem.

 

I think that if people want to make effective objections to the implementation of private parking schemes, then those objections have to be made directly to the car park owners such as the retail parks and the supermarkets because at the end of the day, it is they whose reputation is at stake.

 

This is clearly one of the reasons why Somerfields terminated their contract with Parking Eye - because they found that it was losing them customer goodwill and business.

 

 

Well, in Bristol City V HMRC the court ruled that where the parking area is a "PAY AND DISPLAY", such as a lot of the supermarkets use and you need to buy a ticket and then they refund you so that up to 3

hours parking is "free", that the contract is only formed on purchase of the p&d ticket/voucher, and any payment for breach of the t&cs is a penalty. so if a p&d ticket is not purchased then no contract is formed IMO and the landowner can only sue under tort of trespass, but if a p&d ticket is purchased even if for the "free" period and any of the t&cs attached to that contract thus formed are breached, then amounts charged are penalties.

 

Unless the ruling in this case have been over-ruled by these subsequent court cases?

[instrumentsofjoy]

What would the situation be if the you were invited onto the land by the LL, i.e. NHS send you a letter inviting you to attend an appointment at the hospital which is on their land? Surely in a sense this is a "permit" for you to park on the land?

Unfortunately you cannot take your business elsewhere so are "trapped". It is also impractical to expect someone who is disabled to park off the premises and then to walk to the respective department at the hospital which is about 1/2 a mile. They now charge disabled people to park.

 

Err......it isn't necessary to park on hospital land to take up an appointment. (Unless the appointment says "You should come by car and leave it in a car park")

 

One of the major hospitals in my city is not especially easy to get to by public transport. But going there by car is not compulsory either!

 

The question of disabled people is slightly different - you can discriminate against them.

[Surfer01]

Err......it isn't necessary to park on hospital land to take up an appointment. (Unless the appointment says "You should come by car and leave it in a car park")

 

One of the major hospitals in my city is not especially easy to get to by public transport. But going there by car is not compulsory either!

 

The question of disabled people is slightly different - you can discriminate against them.

 

Please explain how I can attend hospital if I live in a rural area with a bus service twice a day and the fact that I cannot walk without elbow crutches and then only for about 50m before having to stop and rest? It would take me all day to attened one appointment! In addition, due to back problems public transport is very uncomfortable and a taxi fare is out of the question. I would also take the opportunity to remind you that in essence the taxpayer paid for the land on which the hospital is situated.

[DBC]

There lies the rub. So many hospitals have been left with large "Private Public Partnership Deal" debts that the only way they can try and balance their books is by extortionate car-parking charges

[Surfer01]

The other hospital near us but in another town allows free parking for the 1st 2 hours and I think this is fair for all!

[instrumentsofjoy]

Please explain how I can attend hospital if I live in a rural area with a bus service twice a day and the fact that I cannot walk without elbow crutches and then only for about 50m before having to stop and rest? It would take me all day to attened one appointment! In addition, due to back problems public transport is very uncomfortable and a taxi fare is out of the question. I would also take the opportunity to remind you that in essence the taxpayer paid for the land on which the hospital is situated.

 

My mother-in-law (RIP) was in a similar position and she had to travel 70 miles in rural Scotland with not even one bus!! Locally there was a volunteer scheme to help people exactly in your position. If there isn't one in your area - how about encouraging someone to set one up?

 

In addition I would get in touch with the Hospital Administration - I believe there are schemes already in existence which can help.

[dpick]

Hi my brother used to have his car as (for a better word) a hospital taxi and was paid a mileage allowance but this became a no goer when the allowance stopped reflecting the actual cost of running the car etc. Now that hospital has no hospital taxi's.

 

dpick

[greasmonkey]

we have a voluntary car transport scheeme for hospital trips but it cost you £39 to be taken