|
Truffles
209 posts
53 months
|
Zeeky said: Where
a driver is liable, in contract or tort (damages for trespass) in respect of parking on land not subject to statutory AAFAIK for there to be a contract, there must be an offer and acceptance. The offer is the sign which says that by parking you agree to accept any penalty stipulated. Why can't I put a notice on the car saying that I do not agree to the contact, in other words I am specifically denying acceptance. Damages for trespass will presumably not be an issue, unless the parking deprived the owner of the carpark from income in renting the parking space to someone else.
|
|
|
Ean218
961 posts
119 months
|
Truffles said: AAFAIK for there to be a contract, there must be an offer and acceptance. The offer is the sign which says that by parking you agree to accept any penalty stipulated. Why can't I put a notice on the car saying that I do not agree to the contact, in other words I am specifically denying acceptance. If you park in those circumstances you have accepted their offer. If you don't wish to accept, don't park there.
|
|
|
ExFiF
18,411 posts
120 months
|
Ean218 said: Truffles said: AAFAIK for there to be a contract, there must be an offer and acceptance. The offer is the sign which says that by parking you agree to accept any penalty stipulated. Why can't I put a notice on the car saying that I do not agree to the contact, in other words I am specifically denying acceptance. If you park in those circumstances you have accepted their offer. If you don't wish to accept, don't park there. Agreed, why do freeloaders think they are being smart, they want to accept part of the offer, in this case benefit from the facilities of parking space, yet don't want to accept they have the responsibility of a part to play on their side of the bargain. As stated many other threads, I really do despise these people, who then often come up with all sorts of crackpot nonsensical pseudo-legal buffoonery to try and get their selfish way. Seems to me, if somebody placed a notice on their car that have refused to accept the terms of the offer, I'd be OK to remove their vehicle from the premises and leave it somewhere for their collection.
|
|
|
Pontoneer
2,569 posts
55 months
|
I think it would be fair and reasonable enough to charge someone who had parked , for example , in your office car park because they didn't want to pay to park elsewhere ( the charge should be enough to be a disincentive against doing it again or against others doing it - therefore slightly more than they might have paid to park elsewhere ) .
Where I think charging is unfair is the scenario where someone parks in a retail park or motorway services customers' car park with a parking limit of , say , two hours and ends up staying three hours because they are shopping/spending money/using the facilities the car park exists to support .
|
|
|
KevinA3DSG32
6,078 posts
149 months
|
I find it interesting to note that section 7 requires the charge notice to be fixed to the stationary car or handed to the person who appears to be in control. I read this to mean that charge notices arriving in the post after the event can still be ignored if no charge notice was issued at the time.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
herewego
5,731 posts
82 months
|
KevinA3DSG32 said: I find it interesting to note that section 7 requires the charge notice to be fixed to the stationary car or handed to the person who appears to be in control. I read this to mean that charge notices arriving in the post after the event can still be ignored if no charge notice was issued at the time. Section 9 gives procedure for requiring the RK to either hand over the driver or pay the bill without having fixed a notice to the car at the time.
|
|
|
ExFiF
18,411 posts
120 months
|
herewego said: KevinA3DSG32 said: I find it interesting to note that section 7 requires the charge notice to be fixed to the stationary car or handed to the person who appears to be in control. I read this to mean that charge notices arriving in the post after the event can still be ignored if no charge notice was issued at the time. Section 9 gives procedure for requiring the RK to hand over the driver or pay the bill without having fixed a notice to the car at the time. Agreed there is a cheeky OR stuck in there, plus the requirement for the right to levy a charge excludes clause 7, at least according to my first read through.
|
|
|
Zeeky
Original Poster
1,717 posts
81 months
|
streaky said: Zeeky said: ...The RK will be no more liable to pay these types of parking charges any more than the driver is now from my reading of the bill. So if your assertion is correct - and I repeat that it isn't - then the legislation will make no difference to liability. Your interpretation of Schedule 3, particularly paragraphs 4 and 5(1)(b) varies from mine, and I should be pleased to hear your reasoning. Streaky If the driver is not liable in contract or tort for the parking charge the registered keeper cannot be either. The RK's liability is dependent, in part, on the driver being liable in the first place. The driver's liability is established according to the law as it was before this legislation. The legislation has no effect on whether or not the driver is liable. Is is that statement that you disagree with? I think an opportunity has been missed to regulate the liability of the driver. Many people are completely unaware whether or not they are liable and pay the charge believing that they are even when they may not be.
|
|
|
tank slapper
7,748 posts
152 months
|
The biggest problem with this legislation is that is has not been written with the fact that a significant number of the people who will be enforcing it are downright dishonest in mind. If we were talking about reasonable people then there wouldn't be an issue. What I suspect will happen is that people will end up being chased for invoices for the most minor infringement of the rules, and car parks will be operated with maximising the potential for invoices being issued.
|
|
|
streaky
18,251 posts
118 months
|
Zeeky said: streaky said: Zeeky said: ...The RK will be no more liable to pay these types of parking charges any more than the driver is now from my reading of the bill. So if your assertion is correct - and I repeat that it isn't - then the legislation will make no difference to liability. Your interpretation of Schedule 3, particularly paragraphs 4 and 5(1)(b) varies from mine, and I should be pleased to hear your reasoning. Streaky If the driver is not liable in contract or tort for the parking charge the registered keeper cannot be either. The RK's liability is dependent, in part, on the driver being liable in the first place. The driver's liability is established according to the law as it was before this legislation. The legislation has no effect on whether or not the driver is liable. Has not the legislation passed to the RK the obligation that would be incurred by the driver where a trespass is committed? It appears that previously, landowners have not used this tort - for what ever reason - but that now the potential for its use has been codified. Streaky
|
|
|
Truffles
209 posts
53 months
|
ExFiF said: Agreed, why do freeloaders think they are being smart, they want to accept part of the offer, in this case benefit from the facilities of parking space, yet don't want to accept they have the responsibility of a part to play on their side of the bargain.
As stated many other threads, I really do despise these people, who then often come up with all sorts of crackpot nonsensical pseudo-legal buffoonery to try and get their selfish way.
Seems to me, if somebody placed a notice on their car that have refused to accept the terms of the offer, I'd be OK to remove their vehicle from the premises and leave it somewhere for their collection. Don't get me wrong, I fully with you about inconsiderate parking. I am possibly the only person in the UK who has never received a parking ticket. Since this is SP&L, though, and I work in the legal field, I am interested in legal, as opposed to moral, opinions. I am not sure that parking in such circumstances does imply acceptance of a contract. Someone is offering an opportunity to park somewhere as long as I acccept a contact which involves a possible penalty fine. I then, for the sake of argument, park there, but expressly decline acceptance. It seems to me that there is no valid contract. Ofc, there is still a question of trespass, but that is a different legal issue. Ine question, I suppose, is whether I accept the contract on entry to the car park (in which case I cannot subsequently unilaterally rescind it)
|
|
|
Zeeky
Original Poster
1,717 posts
81 months
|
streaky said: Has not the legislation passed to the RK the obligation that would be incurred by the driver where a trespass is committed?
It appears that previously, landowners have not used this tort - for what ever reason - but that now the potential for its use has been codified.
Streaky Codified only insofar as it applies to the RK. Paragraph 1 makes it clear the RK can only be liable if the driver is also liable. 1(1)This Schedule applies where— (a) the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant landParagraph 4 gives the right to claim parking charges not paid by the driver from the RK. 4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;...Significantly this right - that is, the right against the RK and not the driver - is subject to conditions. So the references to the requirements for liability in tort are only relevant to the RK's liability and not the driver's. As per paragraph 1 the driver must be liable for the RK to be liable. So there are two tests for a successful claim in tort from the RK. The first test is to ensure that the requirements of this legislation have been met. The second test is applied to the driver using the law as it existed prior to this legislation. The legislation allows the RK to defend the claim on procedure in addition to defending the claim on the basis that liability has not been established against the driver. The legislation, in this regard does not apply to the driver. The driver cannot use it in his defence. In practice much of the procedural requirements of this legislation may well be necessary to establish the driver's liability but this legislation does not override the normal rules for establishing that liability. Note that "relevant obligation" is not defined by reference to paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 but simply as "an obligation arising, in any circumstances where there is no relevant contract, as a result of a trespass or other tort committed by parking the vehicle on the relevant land;"
|
|
|
Zeeky
Original Poster
1,717 posts
81 months
|
Truffles said: ...I am not sure that parking in such circumstances does imply acceptance of a contract. Someone is offering an opportunity to park somewhere as long as I acccept a contact which involves a possible penalty fine. I then, for the sake of argument, park there, but expressly decline acceptance. It seems to me that there is no valid contract. Ofc, there is still a question of trespass, but that is a different legal issue.
Ine question, I suppose, is whether I accept the contract on entry to the car park (in which case I cannot subsequently unilaterally rescind it) If you communicate your intentions to the 'creditor' prior to parking you are likely to be correct. If not it appears as though you have accepted the contract by parking - conduct- and your un-communicated notice is irrelevant.
|
|
|
ExFiF
18,411 posts
120 months
|
tank slapper said: The biggest problem with this legislation is that is has not been written with the fact that a significant number of the people who will be enforcing it are downright dishonest in mind. If we were talking about reasonable people then there wouldn't be an issue. What I suspect will happen is that people will end up being chased for invoices for the most minor infringement of the rules, and car parks will be operated with maximising the potential for invoices being issued. Truffles said: I am not sure that parking in such circumstances does imply acceptance of a contract. Someone is offering an opportunity to park somewhere as long as I acccept a contact which involves a possible penalty fine. I then, for the sake of argument, park there, but expressly decline acceptance. It seems to me that there is no valid contract. Ofc, there is still a question of trespass, but that is a different legal issue.
Ine question, I suppose, is whether I accept the contract on entry to the car park (in which case I cannot subsequently unilaterally rescind it) Tank slapper makes a good point; however considering myself a reasonable person, if one drove into a car park, stopped the vehicle in a space, and then having had opportunity to read the terms and conditions, one then immediately removed said vehicle from car park that would seem common sense to be a complete repudiation of the terms of the contract. If however the vehicle was not removed, then that would seem to be acceptance. The length of the interval between entry and exit is now of importance however. Unfortunately common sense is not so common as it used to be, and there is plenty of evidence of people being blocked in and subsequently clamped simply for entering a space in order to turn round or due to a wrong turning. Therefore this could be the sort of thing that is in tank slapper's mind. Of course in such a circumstance the devil is in the detail, will there be evidence of the driver having had opportunity in this case to read the T&Cs, or will a notice be placed on thevehicle while stationary, and so on?
|
|
|
scdan4
471 posts
29 months
|
So now the registered keeper has a duty to reveal who was in control / charge of the car at the time, or pay it themselves
The parking sharks will send the bill to the driver, OR the registered keeper, and then chase it using civil court means.
So, if the reg keeper says that it was a foreign national, with a foreign national license and address - what will the parking sharks do then?
(assuming that the reg keeper is telling fibs - the parking company will have to prove that and then take the reg keeper to court? (which seems like a lot of hassle for those chasing a quick buck). I assume there will be no burden on the reg keeper to prove it at a stage before small claims and if it ever makes it that far (unlikely i would assume) then you can just say "well, they were, I can't be arsed to prove it" with no criminal (PCOJ etc) repercussions but maybe (probably) a bigger fine. If a foreign resident national were to also send in a postcard saying "yep - it was me" you're more than likely to get away with it.
It used to be a speeding ticket dodge i believe (never used it) but seems appropriate here? (apart from the glaring flaw I have obviously missed)
I've not had a parking ticket for 5 years and don't intend to start now - genuinely just wondering if this would work?
|
|
|
Zeeky
Original Poster
1,717 posts
81 months
|
There is a time limit on not being able to pursue the RK because the driver is known. The 'creditor' doesn't have to pursue the driver in the courts at all even if he knows who it is.
(b) ...[ the 'creditor'] is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver
because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and
a current address for service for the driver.
(2)Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.
|
|
|
orangesrule
220 posts
17 months
|
What would happen for example if i believed the parking charges were unreasonable.
i.e. at the local hospital, you can park for 15 minutes free. If you wish to stay longer you have to pay for parking. However the minimum period you can buy is 2 hours at £2.20. Not much i know, but if you are visiting everyday for an hour, it seems unreasonable not to have the option to pay for an hours parking. Especially when you can buy up to 3hours, and 4 hours, for £1.10 more for the respective additional hour.
|
|
|
Methuselah
122 posts
36 months
|
Will it be able to be applied retroactively ? (god i hope not)
|
|
|
AJI
2,018 posts
86 months
|
Methuselah said: Will it be able to be applied retroactively ? (god i hope not) I don't think such new legislation can be directed at events prior to their introduction.
|
|
|
DazedandConfused
73 posts
36 months
|
I have created a separate topic about my specific situation but have since found this one already 'live' - three questions:
1) Is this now enacted (I know the protection of freedoms bill generally is but there seems to be a dispute as to the relevant clause is now law)?
2) It seems to be saying that private parking companies will have the right to claim parking charges not paid by the driver from the RK. In my scenario this amount is £0 as the first 2 hours are free - does this mean that they can't claim or can they look for the £90 they think is appropriate?
3) Even in another scenario e.g ordinary pay and display £x per hour - if that's how the law is written - wouldn't they only be able to go after the actual charges that weren't paid as per contract law - ie. not allowed to go for penalty charges?
|
|
