Parking Eye lose case - have to pay parking!
Discussion
Terminator X said:
General Fluff said:
Or x hours free then £y per hour. Not rocket science.
£85 per hour?TX.
Obviously £85 is a bit extreme but if the price is set at a suitably high level to deter people from staying past the free period then I can't see why it wouldn't work. Parking Eye will disappear over night so everyone's a winner.
JustinP1 said:
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....
Mr Gopal must have wondered what hit him...especially the cost award at the end!
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.
While I agree innprincipla, its not why these companies operate. They operate to get as much money out of you as possible.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.
In my case I got stung in a station car park. I went into the station and bought a weekly season ticket for the train, and a weekly ticket for parking. My car was in a season ticket bay.
I got a huge fine/charge because in the car park they only class season tickets as 1 month or more.. This was written in 5mm letters at a ticket machine, and on a sign by the entrance placed at 90 degrees to the road (so you can only see it side on). No T&C's were at the ticket office, and its not mentioned on the website where you can also buy tickets.
The conditions also said that by entering the car park I had agreed to them taking my and auctioning it to recover costs, even if I had since left the car park.
Utter
s. 98elise said:
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.
While I agree innprincipla, its not why these companies operate. They operate to get as much money out of you as possible.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.
In my case I got stung in a station car park. I went into the station and bought a weekly season ticket for the train, and a weekly ticket for parking. My car was in a season ticket bay.
I got a huge fine/charge because in the car park they only class season tickets as 1 month or more.. This was written in 5mm letters at a ticket machine, and on a sign by the entrance placed at 90 degrees to the road (so you can only see it side on). No T&C's were at the ticket office, and its not mentioned on the website where you can also buy tickets.
The conditions also said that by entering the car park I had agreed to them taking my and auctioning it to recover costs, even if I had since left the car park.
Utter
s. 9mm said:
98elise said:
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.
While I agree innprincipla, its not why these companies operate. They operate to get as much money out of you as possible.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.
In my case I got stung in a station car park. I went into the station and bought a weekly season ticket for the train, and a weekly ticket for parking. My car was in a season ticket bay.
I got a huge fine/charge because in the car park they only class season tickets as 1 month or more.. This was written in 5mm letters at a ticket machine, and on a sign by the entrance placed at 90 degrees to the road (so you can only see it side on). No T&C's were at the ticket office, and its not mentioned on the website where you can also buy tickets.
The conditions also said that by entering the car park I had agreed to them taking my and auctioning it to recover costs, even if I had since left the car park.
Utter
s. In my case there was no loss at all to the company. I paid for a space, and I used a space. The season bays are never 100% filled, so if anything they made more money that day.
Even though they have a whole car park for season ticket holders which never get filled, they also put a season only row in the often filled normal carpark. It simply makes more money to put some season bays in, and get the £60 files regularly.
Edited by 98elise on Friday 14th March 17:54
98elise said:
Unfortunately this is exactly what they are doing, and are getting away with it.
In my case there was no loss at all to the company. I paid for a space, and I used a space. The season bays are never 100% filled, so if anything they made more money that day.
Even though they have a whole car park for season ticket holders which never get filled, they also put a season only row in the often filled normal carpark. It simply makes more money to put some season bays in, and get the £60 files regularly.
They only get away with it if you let them. If you invite them to stuff their "fine" there's very little they can do about it.In my case there was no loss at all to the company. I paid for a space, and I used a space. The season bays are never 100% filled, so if anything they made more money that day.
Even though they have a whole car park for season ticket holders which never get filled, they also put a season only row in the often filled normal carpark. It simply makes more money to put some season bays in, and get the £60 files regularly.
Edited by hairykrishna on Friday 14th March 18:04
9mm said:
No lawyer here but I'm pretty confident just because you write something on a board doesn't make it a valid contract, let alone enforcable.
On the contrary, a contract in English law doesn't need to be written at all. This case has all of the parts needed for a contract. Lawyers - correct me if I'm wrong, I only have the equivalent of a middling GCSE in contract law. 
Offer - the offer to park on the land made by the sign saying "CAR PARK" with the terms on it.
Intention to be legally bound - you read the sign and decided to park.
Acceptance - you drive onto the land.
Consideration - you park your car, availing yourself of the service of the car park according to the terms of the offer.
davepoth said:
9mm said:
No lawyer here but I'm pretty confident just because you write something on a board doesn't make it a valid contract, let alone enforcable.
On the contrary, a contract in English law doesn't need to be written at all. This case has all of the parts needed for a contract. Lawyers - correct me if I'm wrong, I only have the equivalent of a middling GCSE in contract law. Offer - the offer to park on the land made by the sign saying "CAR PARK" with the terms on it.
Intention to be legally bound - you read the sign and decided to park.
Acceptance - you drive onto the land.
Consideration - you park your car, availing yourself of the service of the car park according to the terms of the offer.
hairykrishna said:
98elise said:
Unfortunately this is exactly what they are doing, and are getting away with it.
In my case there was no loss at all to the company. I paid for a space, and I used a space. The season bays are never 100% filled, so if anything they made more money that day.
Even though they have a whole car park for season ticket holders which never get filled, they also put a season only row in the often filled normal carpark. It simply makes more money to put some season bays in, and get the £60 files regularly.
They only get away with it if you let them. If you invite them to stuff their "fine" there's very little they can do about it.In my case there was no loss at all to the company. I paid for a space, and I used a space. The season bays are never 100% filled, so if anything they made more money that day.
Even though they have a whole car park for season ticket holders which never get filled, they also put a season only row in the often filled normal carpark. It simply makes more money to put some season bays in, and get the £60 files regularly.
Edited by hairykrishna on Friday 14th March 18:04
I'm now in the fortunate position to be able to choose to use the train, or my car. I use the car out of principal.
The judgment does not set a precedent. The business model, at least of some of these companies, is to 'pass off' their charges as fines similar to LA parking penalties. This inevitably leads to problems when attempting to enforce the charges at court.
It appears to me self-evident that these charges are charges for parking and not for breach of contract. The companies have no other income (other than nominal fees from the occupier).
The arrangement appears to be similar to 'free banking' for current account holders which is largely free but becomes very expensive when the account is overdrawn. These fees subsidise the free banking.
These parking charges are also very high but are necessarily high because most people are parking for free. High charges is the only way to make the arrangement profitable for the parking provider.
It appears to me self-evident that these charges are charges for parking and not for breach of contract. The companies have no other income (other than nominal fees from the occupier).
The arrangement appears to be similar to 'free banking' for current account holders which is largely free but becomes very expensive when the account is overdrawn. These fees subsidise the free banking.
These parking charges are also very high but are necessarily high because most people are parking for free. High charges is the only way to make the arrangement profitable for the parking provider.
ging84 said:
i like this judge
if i'm ever getting sent down for life
i want this judge to be the one to bang the gavel
You're either getting confused with auctioneers or have been looking at too much American TV. if i'm ever getting sent down for life
i want this judge to be the one to bang the gavel
A 'life' sentence in the UK will see you released a lot sooner than over there. Especially in Louisiana.
Great reading!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.
My Gf gets these letters all the time, she can easily go over the time limit in these car parks. So it can catch shoppers out too.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.
General Fluff said:
If you like. If it's clear that's the 'price' then nobody can claim it's a penalty. Have a barrier so people pay on exit, problem solved.
Obviously £85 is a bit extreme but if the price is set at a suitably high level to deter people from staying past the free period then I can't see why it wouldn't work. Parking Eye will disappear over night so everyone's a winner.
Who pays for the barriers as you'd need one on entry and exit? Who pays for the replacement barriers where they get damaged by vandals, by cars etc?Obviously £85 is a bit extreme but if the price is set at a suitably high level to deter people from staying past the free period then I can't see why it wouldn't work. Parking Eye will disappear over night so everyone's a winner.
The reality is that the parking companies have been employed on a lot of occasions because drivers have not been reasonable their parking and therefore genuine users of the car park have been unable to park. There is then a need to enforce parking rules and that enforcement has to be paid for.
If everyone was reasonable there would not be a problem!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff