Parking Eye lose case - have to pay parking!
Discussion
PurpleMoonlight said:
While this woman won this case, it should not be forgotten that she is part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Businesses need customers, many of them need parking, her selfish attitude to the concession that the businesses make to permit customers to park for a certain period is likely to lead to paid parking for all of us.
Quite. However the opposite side of the situation is occupied by the likes of Parking Eye etc, with their bullyboy tactics, intimidating letters and ludicrous demands - not to mention bailiff and court order costs - without even getting a court judgement.Businesses need customers, many of them need parking, her selfish attitude to the concession that the businesses make to permit customers to park for a certain period is likely to lead to paid parking for all of us.
I know who I think is the more scummy.
PurpleMoonlight said:
While this woman won this case, it should not be forgotten that she is part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Businesses need customers, many of them need parking, her selfish attitude to the concession that the businesses make to permit customers to park for a certain period is likely to lead to paid parking for all of us.
Whilst you are absolutely correct, and land-owners do need to be able to decide (and enforce) what happens on their land, the least they could do is get the law right in the first place and perhaps not use bullyboy tactics to scare people into paying for non-existant or unenforceable "fines".Businesses need customers, many of them need parking, her selfish attitude to the concession that the businesses make to permit customers to park for a certain period is likely to lead to paid parking for all of us.
The problem is that no one other than with legislative powers has proper effective control of who parks where any more, It's nice to see the parking control operators get a bloody nose, but does not actually solve the problem.
Ultimately no-one wants to employ these guys, but what else can they do?
Ultimately no-one wants to employ these guys, but what else can they do?
PurpleMoonlight said:
The way the interpretation of the law appears to be evolving is that if parking is free, then there can be no loss for overstaying welcome so any charge imposed is a penalty. There is only one remedy for that, which is paid parking for all.
No one would shop in out of town retail parks if that was the situation.surveyor said:
The problem is that no one other than with legislative powers has proper effective control of who parks where any more, It's nice to see the parking control operators get a bloody nose, but does not actually solve the problem.
Ultimately no-one wants to employ these guys, but what else can they do?
Well, they could start by employing better lawyers.Ultimately no-one wants to employ these guys, but what else can they do?
PurpleMoonlight said:
While this woman won this case, it should not be forgotten that she is part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Businesses need customers, many of them need parking, her selfish attitude to the concession that the businesses make to permit customers to park for a certain period is likely to lead to paid parking for all of us.
Did you not read it, she could have parked there for 40 years for free according to the Judge Businesses need customers, many of them need parking, her selfish attitude to the concession that the businesses make to permit customers to park for a certain period is likely to lead to paid parking for all of us.
TX.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Muncher said:
I really can't see that.
The way the interpretation of the law appears to be evolving is that if parking is free, then there can be no loss for overstaying welcome so any charge imposed is a penalty. There is only one remedy for that, which is paid parking for all.What baffles me is this, and it is what the Judge alluded to without being as disrespectful.
It reminds me of the internet meme "You only had one job..." printed over someone with a simple job failing spectacularly.
A layman can be forgiven for not constructing a written contract themselves. However, 100% of the revenue stream of a nationwide company, amounting to millions of pounds comes from 'contracts' entered into from signage.
What baffles me, is along with a lot of these other companies is that they cannot write a blindingly simple contract, and make it stick. It really beggars belief that they are professional contract makers, and professional sign makers - in fact their existence relies on the quality of this, yet, they are incoherent and unlawful, and clearly not run past anyone work their salt who knows anything about contract law.
I say this as the first issue of the Judge was that the signage, and thus the contract was open to fundamental reinterpretation. If this was not part of their case, they would have stood more chance, or even would be given leave to appeal.
There certainly will be much more robust ways to 'police' free car parks and it is certainly possible to have a totally 'open' stance with how supermarkets are contracted so there is a chain of evidence that will support a civil claim.
It just baffles me that Parking Eye don't seem to have worked it out yet....
JustinP1 said:
It just baffles me that Parking Eye don't seem to have worked it out yet....
I agree - you'd think that they might have considered the best way to draft a contract which they are going to seek to rely on repeatedly.However I'm sure that it is only a tiny minority of people who fight these charges and most people just stump-up. In which case ParkingEye probably don't need to worry too much about an embarassing judgment here or there.
If they actually had a strong case they ought to seek a binding decision in the Court of Appeal - the fact that they do not seem inclined to do so speaks volumes to me.
JustinP1 said:
It just baffles me that Parking Eye don't seem to have worked it out yet....
Or maybe they are printed as advised by expensive lawyers.Ambiguity leads to interpretation.
Interpretation can lead to different results depending on who is doing the interpretation, and can be totally contrary to what the basic written words would intimate!
JustinP1 said:
[b]A layman can be forgiven for not constructing a written contract themselves. However, 100% of the revenue stream of a nationwide company, amounting to millions of pounds comes from 'contracts' entered into from signage.
What baffles me, is along with a lot of these other companies is that they cannot write a blindingly simple contract, and make it stick. It really beggars belief that they are professional contract makers[/b], and professional sign makers - in fact their existence relies on the quality of this, yet, they are incoherent and unlawful, and clearly not run past anyone work their salt who knows anything about contract law.
O/T a bit, this never fails to amaze me with govt contracts also, Nimrods, Scottish parliament to name but a couple, quoted £110m and ended up costing £465m and WE paid it?? They then spent a couple of million to work out why it went overspent? Surely the govt can have access to a decent contract lawyer? Glad these scumbag bullyboys got their comeuppance though...What baffles me, is along with a lot of these other companies is that they cannot write a blindingly simple contract, and make it stick. It really beggars belief that they are professional contract makers[/b], and professional sign makers - in fact their existence relies on the quality of this, yet, they are incoherent and unlawful, and clearly not run past anyone work their salt who knows anything about contract law.
Gary
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff