Other applications for Penalty Charges rules

[thoughtcriminal]

I've been thinking about this for a while. Obviously the Penalty Charges regime doesn't simply apply to bank charges. It applies to any service where the company providing the service charges you a higher fee when you break the contract that it would normally do when you were acting within the terms of the contract.

 

Potential uses:

 

- Library fines

 

- Video shop late fees (although if they simply charge you the same price for another night's rental, it wouldn't be caught).

 

- University fines (e.g. £25 for taking food into the library)

 

I'm not sure whether library and university fines are charged under an Act of Parliament rather than under a contract, but I'd be interested to find out.

 

Any other fines charged by a statutory body are potentially unenforceable, unless the legislation makes specific provision for fines - e.g. London congestion charging defaults, parking fines and, weirdly, fines for smoking and pulling alarm cords on (privatised) trains and buses.

 

Can anyone think of any other (maybe more useful) examples where the penalty charge rules could help out?

[thoughtcriminal]

I've been thinking about this for a while. Obviously the Penalty Charges regime doesn't simply apply to bank charges. It applies to any service where the company providing the service charges you a higher fee when you break the contract that it would normally do when you were acting within the terms of the contract.

 

Potential uses:

 

- Library fines

 

- Video shop late fees (although if they simply charge you the same price for another night's rental, it wouldn't be caught).

 

- University fines (e.g. £25 for taking food into the library)

 

I'm not sure whether library and university fines are charged under an Act of Parliament rather than under a contract, but I'd be interested to find out.

 

Any other fines charged by a statutory body are potentially unenforceable, unless the legislation makes specific provision for fines - e.g. London congestion charging defaults, parking fines and, weirdly, fines for smoking and pulling alarm cords on (privatised) trains and buses.

 

Can anyone think of any other (maybe more useful) examples where the penalty charge rules could help out?

[Russe11]

- Library fines - these are less than liqudated damages (50p or whatever against them not getting a book back that costs £20 ?)

 

- Video shop late fees (although if they simply charge you the same price for another night's rental, it wouldn't be caught). please tell me case where the rental shop has taken a customer to court to recover such fees, does not need much common sense to apply here

 

- University fines (e.g. £25 for taking food into the library)

wtf 25 for taking food into a library, what do they have ? a place to leave food items before you go in the amongst the books. The fine is a deterrent, has any one ever paid up ? any one with 2 brain sells would contest, if there is a contract and they cannot prove that this covers liqudated damages they they would be wrong in applying this to your account you hold on campus. No contract though and they are correct.

 

I'm not sure whether library and university fines are charged under an Act of Parliament rather than under a contract, but I'd be interested to find out. no otherwise they would be standard across all libraries.

 

London congestion charging defaults, can't take government to county court ?

 

parking fines and clamping, the parking fines (where is the contract ?), clamping... well they are commiting theft as of the 1968 Theft Act, by not allowing you access to your property.

 

weirdly, fines for smoking no contract

 

and pulling alarm cords on (privatised) trains and buses. again no contract ? but if you think a 250 pound is not liquidated damages, then I inform you that if you where to delay a train(stop them running) they the operators are in contracts that mean to the effect that you are talking £0,000s per min.

 

 

The penalty charge law, is contract law it only applies if its a term of the contract. It must represent actual liquidated damages to be enforceble.

[Russe11]

- Library fines - these are less than liqudated damages (50p or whatever against them not getting a book back that costs £20 ?)

 

- Video shop late fees (although if they simply charge you the same price for another night's rental, it wouldn't be caught). please tell me case where the rental shop has taken a customer to court to recover such fees, does not need much common sense to apply here

 

- University fines (e.g. £25 for taking food into the library)

wtf 25 for taking food into a library, what do they have ? a place to leave food items before you go in the amongst the books. The fine is a deterrent, has any one ever paid up ? any one with 2 brain sells would contest, if there is a contract and they cannot prove that this covers liqudated damages they they would be wrong in applying this to your account you hold on campus. No contract though and they are correct.

 

I'm not sure whether library and university fines are charged under an Act of Parliament rather than under a contract, but I'd be interested to find out. no otherwise they would be standard across all libraries.

 

London congestion charging defaults, can't take government to county court ?

 

parking fines and clamping, the parking fines (where is the contract ?), clamping... well they are commiting theft as of the 1968 Theft Act, by not allowing you access to your property.

 

weirdly, fines for smoking no contract

 

and pulling alarm cords on (privatised) trains and buses. again no contract ? but if you think a 250 pound is not liquidated damages, then I inform you that if you where to delay a train(stop them running) they the operators are in contracts that mean to the effect that you are talking £0,000s per min.

 

 

The penalty charge law, is contract law it only applies if its a term of the contract. It must represent actual liquidated damages to be enforceble.

[xolob]

Should you wish; you can take the Government to the County Court.

 

You enter into a contract with 'bus or train operators when you purchase a ticket.

[xolob]

Should you wish; you can take the Government to the County Court.

 

You enter into a contract with 'bus or train operators when you purchase a ticket.

[Russe11]

Should you wish; you can take the Government to the County Court.

 

You enter into a contract with 'bus or train operators when you purchase a ticket.

 

so a sign saying along the lines of

 

'improper use of this emergency button, may result in a fine MAX£250'

 

can you class that as a term of contract ? note words MAY and MAX.... the amount charged or fined is going to be an amount of the liqudated damages upto a maximum of £250. nothing wrong with that imo.

 

 

IF the banks said the following is a term of contract (about penalties)

 

'If you exceed your overdraft limit you will be charged with an appropriate fee, the fee may be a maximum of £30"

 

of course they would still need to make sure they are only recovering liquidated damages, but if they did I would see it as a fair term as long as they fine/charge me the correct amount.

 

The flat term of saying they will charge you an amount fixed no matter what is wrong, any other way and it would not be making any money, but within the law(can't dwell on that to much ).

[Russe11]

Should you wish; you can take the Government to the County Court.

 

You enter into a contract with 'bus or train operators when you purchase a ticket.

 

so a sign saying along the lines of

 

'improper use of this emergency button, may result in a fine MAX£250'

 

can you class that as a term of contract ? note words MAY and MAX.... the amount charged or fined is going to be an amount of the liqudated damages upto a maximum of £250. nothing wrong with that imo.

 

 

IF the banks said the following is a term of contract (about penalties)

 

'If you exceed your overdraft limit you will be charged with an appropriate fee, the fee may be a maximum of £30"

 

of course they would still need to make sure they are only recovering liquidated damages, but if they did I would see it as a fair term as long as they fine/charge me the correct amount.

 

The flat term of saying they will charge you an amount fixed no matter what is wrong, any other way and it would not be making any money, but within the law(can't dwell on that to much ).

[thoughtcriminal]

You seem pretty dismissive of all my points, and your post comes across as very negative. Sorry if that wasn't your intention. To answer the points you raised:

 

Library fines - these are less than liqudated damages (50p or whatever against them not getting a book back that costs £20 ?)

They aren't losing the book, which costs £20, for ever. If they were, obviously they could charge you £20 as damages. Most library fines are for them losing the book for, say, 2 days because you've brought it back late. As libraries are non-profit making organisations, they can't claim to have lost any profit from this late return, so a genuine pre-estimate of they loss they would suffer (i.e. the level of liquidated damages) is zero. Late fees, rather than book-loss fees, would seem to be unenforceable unless the library has a statutory power to charge the fees.

 

- Video shop late fees (although if they simply charge you the same price for another night's rental, it wouldn't be caught). please tell me case where the rental shop has taken a customer to court to recover such fees, does not need much common sense to apply here

I'd appreciate it if you could try and keep your criticism constructive without taking side-swipes at my intelligence and common sense. I'm not saying any video shop has ever sued anyone. My point was that if you had paid the money to the video shop when they asked for the fine, it would, in theory, have been under a null penalty clause and would, in theory, be recoverable.

 

- University fines (e.g. £25 for taking food into the library)

wtf 25 for taking food into a library, what do they have ? a place to leave food items before you go in the amongst the books. The fine is a deterrent, has any one ever paid up ? any one with 2 brain sells would contest

 

Has anyone with 2 brain 'sells' ever paid up? Quite a few of them. Quite simply, because if you refuse to pay any money the University thinks you owe it, it won't let you graduate. If a company says you owe it money, they have to sue you. If a University says you owe it money, you'd have to take *it* to court to be allowed to graduate. In that case, it's much easier just to pay the charge. Given the cost and risk involved in going to court for an order for specific performance, and the risk to you if you don't graduate in time, it's just not worth it over £25.

 

, if there is a contract and they cannot prove that this covers liqudated damages they they would be wrong in applying this to your account you hold on campus. No contract though and they are correct.

If there was no contract, what would be their cause of action against you? How would they be able to argue you had agreed at some point to pay the fine? How, given that, could they be correct? It's an interesting line of reasoning. Maybe you'd like to expand on it, because at the moment I'm not clear on where you're going with it.

 

The question about the statutory authority was whether, in fact, the fine wouldn't be handed down under a simple contract, but under the University Regulations which, somehow, through the University's Royal Charter or the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 have statutory authority. In this case, the whole penalty clause argument goes out of the window in the same way as it does with parking fines.

 

 

I'm not sure whether library and university fines are charged under an Act of Parliament rather than under a contract, but I'd be interested to find out. no otherwise they would be standard across all libraries.

 

The question isn't whether the levels are set by statute, but whether the power to charge them in the first place is. If the power to charge them comes from statute rather than the contract itself, each individual library could decide how much it wanted to charge, and be exempt from the penalty clause rules, because they only apply to contracts.

 

London congestion charging defaults, can't take government to county court ?

I think you're referring to Crown immunity, but you're so vague that I can't be sure. First, in most circumstances, you can sue the Government (i.e. the Crown) in the County Court. Second, if you were suing for london congestion charging, you'd sue the Greater London Authority, which is a statutory corporation. This means that it wouldn't be covered by Crown immunity even if it was relevant here.

 

 

parking fines and clamping, the parking fines (where is the contract ?),

 

Exactly my point - which is why the fines would be unenforceable unless they have a statutory authority that lets them do it. What's possibly more interesting is the 'civil penalty notices' that people like NCP will issue for, say, parking outside a marked bay, or parking in a disabled space. I think there's a good case for saying these are unenforceable.

 

weirdly, fines for smoking no contract

 

Well, not exactly - you have a contract because you've got on the train/bus and paid for a ticket. My point was that they don't suffer any financial loss as a result of you smoking, so they've got no right to damages. Normally, that means anything they charged you would be unlawful because of the penalty charge rules, but the statute law is interesting because it allows them to charge you even though they've suffered no loss.

 

 

and pulling alarm cords on (privatised) trains and buses. again no contract ? but if you think a 250 pound is not liquidated damages, then I inform you that if you where to delay a train(stop them running) they the operators are in contracts that mean to the effect that you are talking £0,000s per min.

 

Again.... contract! Offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations are all there, so a contract must be there. Unless you're fare-dodging, of course, in which case it gets slightly trickier but a contract could still exist. I take your point ("I inform you..." why do you have to sound so antagonistic all the time? Life isn't a letter of claim!) that the train companies might be able to recover more damages in this case if there wasn't a liquidated damages clause, although I think 5-figure sums per minute could be an exaggeration. It's just interesting that because of statute, even if they didn't have those contracts to honour, they are a private company which can impose fines where they've suffered no loss, which is unusual.

[thoughtcriminal]

You seem pretty dismissive of all my points, and your post comes across as very negative. Sorry if that wasn't your intention. To answer the points you raised:

 

Library fines - these are less than liqudated damages (50p or whatever against them not getting a book back that costs £20 ?)

They aren't losing the book, which costs £20, for ever. If they were, obviously they could charge you £20 as damages. Most library fines are for them losing the book for, say, 2 days because you've brought it back late. As libraries are non-profit making organisations, they can't claim to have lost any profit from this late return, so a genuine pre-estimate of they loss they would suffer (i.e. the level of liquidated damages) is zero. Late fees, rather than book-loss fees, would seem to be unenforceable unless the library has a statutory power to charge the fees.

 

- Video shop late fees (although if they simply charge you the same price for another night's rental, it wouldn't be caught). please tell me case where the rental shop has taken a customer to court to recover such fees, does not need much common sense to apply here

I'd appreciate it if you could try and keep your criticism constructive without taking side-swipes at my intelligence and common sense. I'm not saying any video shop has ever sued anyone. My point was that if you had paid the money to the video shop when they asked for the fine, it would, in theory, have been under a null penalty clause and would, in theory, be recoverable.

 

- University fines (e.g. £25 for taking food into the library)

wtf 25 for taking food into a library, what do they have ? a place to leave food items before you go in the amongst the books. The fine is a deterrent, has any one ever paid up ? any one with 2 brain sells would contest

 

Has anyone with 2 brain 'sells' ever paid up? Quite a few of them. Quite simply, because if you refuse to pay any money the University thinks you owe it, it won't let you graduate. If a company says you owe it money, they have to sue you. If a University says you owe it money, you'd have to take *it* to court to be allowed to graduate. In that case, it's much easier just to pay the charge. Given the cost and risk involved in going to court for an order for specific performance, and the risk to you if you don't graduate in time, it's just not worth it over £25.

 

, if there is a contract and they cannot prove that this covers liqudated damages they they would be wrong in applying this to your account you hold on campus. No contract though and they are correct.

If there was no contract, what would be their cause of action against you? How would they be able to argue you had agreed at some point to pay the fine? How, given that, could they be correct? It's an interesting line of reasoning. Maybe you'd like to expand on it, because at the moment I'm not clear on where you're going with it.

 

The question about the statutory authority was whether, in fact, the fine wouldn't be handed down under a simple contract, but under the University Regulations which, somehow, through the University's Royal Charter or the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 have statutory authority. In this case, the whole penalty clause argument goes out of the window in the same way as it does with parking fines.

 

 

I'm not sure whether library and university fines are charged under an Act of Parliament rather than under a contract, but I'd be interested to find out. no otherwise they would be standard across all libraries.

 

The question isn't whether the levels are set by statute, but whether the power to charge them in the first place is. If the power to charge them comes from statute rather than the contract itself, each individual library could decide how much it wanted to charge, and be exempt from the penalty clause rules, because they only apply to contracts.

 

London congestion charging defaults, can't take government to county court ?

I think you're referring to Crown immunity, but you're so vague that I can't be sure. First, in most circumstances, you can sue the Government (i.e. the Crown) in the County Court. Second, if you were suing for london congestion charging, you'd sue the Greater London Authority, which is a statutory corporation. This means that it wouldn't be covered by Crown immunity even if it was relevant here.

 

 

parking fines and clamping, the parking fines (where is the contract ?),

 

Exactly my point - which is why the fines would be unenforceable unless they have a statutory authority that lets them do it. What's possibly more interesting is the 'civil penalty notices' that people like NCP will issue for, say, parking outside a marked bay, or parking in a disabled space. I think there's a good case for saying these are unenforceable.

 

weirdly, fines for smoking no contract

 

Well, not exactly - you have a contract because you've got on the train/bus and paid for a ticket. My point was that they don't suffer any financial loss as a result of you smoking, so they've got no right to damages. Normally, that means anything they charged you would be unlawful because of the penalty charge rules, but the statute law is interesting because it allows them to charge you even though they've suffered no loss.

 

 

and pulling alarm cords on (privatised) trains and buses. again no contract ? but if you think a 250 pound is not liquidated damages, then I inform you that if you where to delay a train(stop them running) they the operators are in contracts that mean to the effect that you are talking £0,000s per min.

 

Again.... contract! Offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations are all there, so a contract must be there. Unless you're fare-dodging, of course, in which case it gets slightly trickier but a contract could still exist. I take your point ("I inform you..." why do you have to sound so antagonistic all the time? Life isn't a letter of claim!) that the train companies might be able to recover more damages in this case if there wasn't a liquidated damages clause, although I think 5-figure sums per minute could be an exaggeration. It's just interesting that because of statute, even if they didn't have those contracts to honour, they are a private company which can impose fines where they've suffered no loss, which is unusual.

[Russe11]

No offence ment, but offence taken

 

Library fines - these are less than liqudated damages (50p or whatever against them not getting a book back that costs £20 ?)

They aren't losing the book, which costs £20, for ever. If they were, obviously they could charge you £20 as damages. Most library fines are for them losing the book for, say, 2 days because you've brought it back late. As libraries are non-profit making organisations, they can't claim to have lost any profit from this late return, so a genuine pre-estimate of they loss they would suffer (i.e. the level of liquidated damages) is zero. Late fees, rather than book-loss fees, would seem to be unenforceable unless the library has a statutory power to charge the fees.

 

Thank you, just remembered to renew all the books on banking law and county courts, due the 27th. I will ask on what grounds (they still have on my account a 50p charge for returning Jimmy White autobiography back one day late a few years ago), the law they enforce these fines where applied to the account in my name. Probally having to get over the first hurdle of finding somone who understands what i'm asking for.

 

 

 

- Video shop late fees (although if they simply charge you the same price for another night's rental, it wouldn't be caught). please tell me case where the rental shop has taken a customer to court to recover such fees, does not need much common sense to apply here

 

I'd appreciate it if you could try and keep your criticism constructive without taking side-swipes at my intelligence and common sense. I'm not saying any video shop has ever sued anyone. My point was that if you had paid the money to the video shop when they asked for the fine, it would, in theory, have been under a null penalty clause and would, in theory, be recoverable.

 

The reason I responded like this is ... I asked for a account/membership at a local blockbuster, but as there where fines outstanding under another name at the same address they said NO (seem to run there own credit reference service), however it did not take long to establish that these fines could not be related to my self in anyway and they promptly said YES. If there was any grounds for them actually charging late returns then they would enforce them thus not allowing me a card. Its a deterrant to stop you holding on to the property longer than the contract states or keeping it. They usually charge you for the equivelent of the extra time renting it, this is liquidated damages as they would claim another customer would of rented the product and they would of had the equivelent revenue. Therefore I say they are correct in doing so.

 

- University fines (e.g. £25 for taking food into the library)

wtf 25 for taking food into a library, what do they have ? a place to leave food items before you go in the amongst the books. The fine is a deterrent, has any one ever paid up ? any one with 2 brain sells would contest

Has anyone with 2 brain 'sells' ever paid up? Quite a few of them. Quite simply, because if you refuse to pay any money the University thinks you owe it, it won't let you graduate. If a company says you owe it money, they have to sue you. If a University says you owe it money, you'd have to take *it* to court to be allowed to graduate. In that case, it's much easier just to pay the charge. Given the cost and risk involved in going to court for an order for specific performance, and the risk to you if you don't graduate in time, it's just not worth it over £25.

 

I don't think UNIs have much grounds for recovering an amount owed, however I can see they win by saying well we won't graduate you etc etc.

I left a course for which I still owed in tutition fees basically the whole amount, they 'passed the debt over' sent through a bullshit pre-court notifiaction saying within 10 days blah blah, I called the supposed agency number, it was the payments office of the institution(I had to laugh)... I said along the lines of can I speak to such and such about this money, never got anywhere, still waiting years later for my summons. If uni's etc are so desperate for money ? why are they not making people pay ?.

 

if there is a contract and they cannot prove that this covers liqudated damages they they would be wrong in applying this to your account you hold on campus. No contract though and they are correct.

 

If there was no contract, what would be their cause of action against you? How would they be able to argue you had agreed at some point to pay the fine? How, given that, could they be correct? It's an interesting line of reasoning. Maybe you'd like to expand on it, because at the moment I'm not clear on where you're going with it.

 

The question about the statutory authority was whether, in fact, the fine wouldn't be handed down under a simple contract, but under the University Regulations which, somehow, through the University's Royal Charter or the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 have statutory authority. In this case, the whole penalty clause argument goes out of the window in the same way as it does with parking fines.

 

I'm not sure whether library and university fines are charged under an Act of Parliament rather than under a contract, but I'd be interested to find out. no otherwise they would be standard across all libraries.

 

The question isn't whether the levels are set by statute, but whether the power to charge them in the first place is. If the power to charge them comes from statute rather than the contract itself, each individual library could decide how much it wanted to charge, and be exempt from the penalty clause rules, because they only apply to contracts.

 

I'm sure if this was the case some legal rebel on the student union would or had the situation looked at. Was the £25food fine made up or does it actually exsist ? I would be under the impression that they do not come from a statute. Most uni's contact out there car parks to clampers from my experience.

 

London congestion charging defaults, can't take government to county court ?

I think you're referring to Crown immunity, but you're so vague that I can't be sure. First, in most circumstances, you can sue the Government (i.e. the Crown) in the County Court. Second, if you were suing for london congestion charging, you'd sue the Greater London Authority, which is a statutory corporation. This means that it wouldn't be covered by Crown immunity even if it was relevant here.

 

Since as I understand it the congestion charge is a law, the penalty is for braking the LAW, not a breech of contract. The congestion charge in many peoples veiw is a money making scheme. They do however charge you just a small amount for a late payment, but you are penalised further if you fail to pay the day after before 6 or along those lines, this part may have scope.

 

parking fines and clamping, the parking fines (where is the contract ?),

 

Exactly my point - which is why the fines would be unenforceable unless they have a statutory authority that lets them do it. What's possibly more interesting is the 'civil penalty notices' that people like NCP will issue for, say, parking outside a marked bay, or parking in a disabled space. I think there's a good case for saying these are unenforceable.

 

statute authority, much like the clampers..... the clampers however you can counter claim theft(most times they backdown), I hear its the only legal way(sawing off a clamp with a petrol saw and you have damaged their property )

 

weirdly, fines for smoking no contract

 

Well, not exactly - you have a contract because you've got on the train/bus and paid for a ticket. My point was that they don't suffer any financial loss as a result of you smoking, so they've got no right to damages. Normally, that means anything they charged you would be unlawful because of the penalty charge rules, but the statute law is interesting because it allows them to charge you even though they've suffered no loss.

 

if its statute law, this means liqudated losses clause still applies? I don't have a clue. I would assume its a fine and they can impose it full stop, but its not a fixed law breaking fine, so the amount you get fined is decided on seriousness of breech nothing to do with losses. I can only assume :?

 

and pulling alarm cords on (privatised) trains and buses. again no contract ? but if you think a 250 pound is not liquidated damages, then I inform you that if you where to delay a train(stop them running) they the operators are in contracts that mean to the effect that you are talking £0,000s per min.

Again.... contract! Offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations are all there, so a contract must be there. Unless you're fare-dodging, of course, in which case it gets slightly trickier but a contract could still exist. I take your point ("I inform you..." why do you have to sound so antagonistic all the time? Life isn't a letter of claim!) that the train companies might be able to recover more damages in this case if there wasn't a liquidated damages clause, although I think 5-figure sums per minute could be an exaggeration. It's just interesting that because of statute, even if they didn't have those contracts to honour, they are a private company which can impose fines where they've suffered no loss, which is unusual.

 

much of a shock to a company that I used to work for when they got fined a massive 6 figure sum because they caused a fire which 'stopped the line' for few hours, as i'm sure you have experienced train delays, they have the knock on effect and time frame windows(cargo trains)

[Russe11]

No offence ment, but offence taken

 

Library fines - these are less than liqudated damages (50p or whatever against them not getting a book back that costs £20 ?)

They aren't losing the book, which costs £20, for ever. If they were, obviously they could charge you £20 as damages. Most library fines are for them losing the book for, say, 2 days because you've brought it back late. As libraries are non-profit making organisations, they can't claim to have lost any profit from this late return, so a genuine pre-estimate of they loss they would suffer (i.e. the level of liquidated damages) is zero. Late fees, rather than book-loss fees, would seem to be unenforceable unless the library has a statutory power to charge the fees.

 

Thank you, just remembered to renew all the books on banking law and county courts, due the 27th. I will ask on what grounds (they still have on my account a 50p charge for returning Jimmy White autobiography back one day late a few years ago), the law they enforce these fines where applied to the account in my name. Probally having to get over the first hurdle of finding somone who understands what i'm asking for.

 

 

 

- Video shop late fees (although if they simply charge you the same price for another night's rental, it wouldn't be caught). please tell me case where the rental shop has taken a customer to court to recover such fees, does not need much common sense to apply here

 

I'd appreciate it if you could try and keep your criticism constructive without taking side-swipes at my intelligence and common sense. I'm not saying any video shop has ever sued anyone. My point was that if you had paid the money to the video shop when they asked for the fine, it would, in theory, have been under a null penalty clause and would, in theory, be recoverable.

 

The reason I responded like this is ... I asked for a account/membership at a local blockbuster, but as there where fines outstanding under another name at the same address they said NO (seem to run there own credit reference service), however it did not take long to establish that these fines could not be related to my self in anyway and they promptly said YES. If there was any grounds for them actually charging late returns then they would enforce them thus not allowing me a card. Its a deterrant to stop you holding on to the property longer than the contract states or keeping it. They usually charge you for the equivelent of the extra time renting it, this is liquidated damages as they would claim another customer would of rented the product and they would of had the equivelent revenue. Therefore I say they are correct in doing so.

 

- University fines (e.g. £25 for taking food into the library)

wtf 25 for taking food into a library, what do they have ? a place to leave food items before you go in the amongst the books. The fine is a deterrent, has any one ever paid up ? any one with 2 brain sells would contest

Has anyone with 2 brain 'sells' ever paid up? Quite a few of them. Quite simply, because if you refuse to pay any money the University thinks you owe it, it won't let you graduate. If a company says you owe it money, they have to sue you. If a University says you owe it money, you'd have to take *it* to court to be allowed to graduate. In that case, it's much easier just to pay the charge. Given the cost and risk involved in going to court for an order for specific performance, and the risk to you if you don't graduate in time, it's just not worth it over £25.

 

I don't think UNIs have much grounds for recovering an amount owed, however I can see they win by saying well we won't graduate you etc etc.

I left a course for which I still owed in tutition fees basically the whole amount, they 'passed the debt over' sent through a bullshit pre-court notifiaction saying within 10 days blah blah, I called the supposed agency number, it was the payments office of the institution(I had to laugh)... I said along the lines of can I speak to such and such about this money, never got anywhere, still waiting years later for my summons. If uni's etc are so desperate for money ? why are they not making people pay ?.

 

if there is a contract and they cannot prove that this covers liqudated damages they they would be wrong in applying this to your account you hold on campus. No contract though and they are correct.

 

If there was no contract, what would be their cause of action against you? How would they be able to argue you had agreed at some point to pay the fine? How, given that, could they be correct? It's an interesting line of reasoning. Maybe you'd like to expand on it, because at the moment I'm not clear on where you're going with it.

 

The question about the statutory authority was whether, in fact, the fine wouldn't be handed down under a simple contract, but under the University Regulations which, somehow, through the University's Royal Charter or the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 have statutory authority. In this case, the whole penalty clause argument goes out of the window in the same way as it does with parking fines.

 

I'm not sure whether library and university fines are charged under an Act of Parliament rather than under a contract, but I'd be interested to find out. no otherwise they would be standard across all libraries.

 

The question isn't whether the levels are set by statute, but whether the power to charge them in the first place is. If the power to charge them comes from statute rather than the contract itself, each individual library could decide how much it wanted to charge, and be exempt from the penalty clause rules, because they only apply to contracts.

 

I'm sure if this was the case some legal rebel on the student union would or had the situation looked at. Was the £25food fine made up or does it actually exsist ? I would be under the impression that they do not come from a statute. Most uni's contact out there car parks to clampers from my experience.

 

London congestion charging defaults, can't take government to county court ?

I think you're referring to Crown immunity, but you're so vague that I can't be sure. First, in most circumstances, you can sue the Government (i.e. the Crown) in the County Court. Second, if you were suing for london congestion charging, you'd sue the Greater London Authority, which is a statutory corporation. This means that it wouldn't be covered by Crown immunity even if it was relevant here.

 

Since as I understand it the congestion charge is a law, the penalty is for braking the LAW, not a breech of contract. The congestion charge in many peoples veiw is a money making scheme. They do however charge you just a small amount for a late payment, but you are penalised further if you fail to pay the day after before 6 or along those lines, this part may have scope.

 

parking fines and clamping, the parking fines (where is the contract ?),

 

Exactly my point - which is why the fines would be unenforceable unless they have a statutory authority that lets them do it. What's possibly more interesting is the 'civil penalty notices' that people like NCP will issue for, say, parking outside a marked bay, or parking in a disabled space. I think there's a good case for saying these are unenforceable.

 

statute authority, much like the clampers..... the clampers however you can counter claim theft(most times they backdown), I hear its the only legal way(sawing off a clamp with a petrol saw and you have damaged their property )

 

weirdly, fines for smoking no contract

 

Well, not exactly - you have a contract because you've got on the train/bus and paid for a ticket. My point was that they don't suffer any financial loss as a result of you smoking, so they've got no right to damages. Normally, that means anything they charged you would be unlawful because of the penalty charge rules, but the statute law is interesting because it allows them to charge you even though they've suffered no loss.

 

if its statute law, this means liqudated losses clause still applies? I don't have a clue. I would assume its a fine and they can impose it full stop, but its not a fixed law breaking fine, so the amount you get fined is decided on seriousness of breech nothing to do with losses. I can only assume :?

 

and pulling alarm cords on (privatised) trains and buses. again no contract ? but if you think a 250 pound is not liquidated damages, then I inform you that if you where to delay a train(stop them running) they the operators are in contracts that mean to the effect that you are talking £0,000s per min.

Again.... contract! Offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations are all there, so a contract must be there. Unless you're fare-dodging, of course, in which case it gets slightly trickier but a contract could still exist. I take your point ("I inform you..." why do you have to sound so antagonistic all the time? Life isn't a letter of claim!) that the train companies might be able to recover more damages in this case if there wasn't a liquidated damages clause, although I think 5-figure sums per minute could be an exaggeration. It's just interesting that because of statute, even if they didn't have those contracts to honour, they are a private company which can impose fines where they've suffered no loss, which is unusual.

 

much of a shock to a company that I used to work for when they got fined a massive 6 figure sum because they caused a fire which 'stopped the line' for few hours, as i'm sure you have experienced train delays, they have the knock on effect and time frame windows(cargo trains)

[BankFodder]

The Bank Action Group is working on a system of fees in respect of posting on the wrong thread or hijacking other people's threads. It may require manual intervention but we will not be able to disclose our fee rationale as it will be commercially sensitive.

However we take the view that our charges will be fair and reasonable

[BankFodder]

The Bank Action Group is working on a system of fees in respect of posting on the wrong thread or hijacking other people's threads. It may require manual intervention but we will not be able to disclose our fee rationale as it will be commercially sensitive.

However we take the view that our charges will be fair and reasonable

[BankFodder]

[11th day - no cigarettes (well, ok 3 today with beer and out at a quiz night - bah!)]

 

I think that you have to reset the counter. Sorry!

[BankFodder]

[11th day - no cigarettes (well, ok 3 today with beer and out at a quiz night - bah!)]

 

I think that you have to reset the counter. Sorry!

[Bookworm]

However we take the view that our charges will be fair and reasonable

 

Furthemore, according to a new letter from Abbey, if you need to get a solicitor or other 3 rd party [could that be BAG, I wonder?], we will not be liable for your costs.

 

8)

[Bookworm]

However we take the view that our charges will be fair and reasonable

 

Furthemore, according to a new letter from Abbey, if you need to get a solicitor or other 3 rd party [could that be BAG, I wonder?], we will not be liable for your costs.

 

8)

[Russe11]

thats two breechs of contract now, BankFodder

 

£70 will be deducted on the 15 march 06

 

IN RESPECT OF UNAUTHORISED POSTING FEES

 

[Russe11]

thats two breechs of contract now, BankFodder

 

£70 will be deducted on the 15 march 06

 

IN RESPECT OF UNAUTHORISED POSTING FEES

 

[thoughtcriminal]

This topic was closed on 03/05/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group