'Contractual Parking Charge Notice' - G24

[maxp]

So i've just received a letter through the post notifying me that I have over-stayed (by 26 minutes no less) in a Homebase carpark, and therefore am to pay £70 (£50 if paid within 14 days).

They have a photo of my car going in and out aswell, it all looks very professional.

Im in two minds whether to just pay the £50, or face a barrage of legal threats, letters from debt collectors etc etc.

Thoughts?

[z4chris99]

put it in the bin
spend £50 on coke

[TheTurbonator]

z4chris99 said:

put it in the bin
spend £50 on coke

Before the 1st of October this was fine but it's a little different now. The law changed and now parking firms can chase the registered keeper.

They're now only allowed to recover any lost costs though. So in a free car park that would be £0. If the signs state that it is free for 2 hours but then £50 thereafter, then they may be able to legally chase you for the £50. They're also allowed to charge you a reasonable amount for admin charges.

In short, no one really knows what to do, as no one, as of yet has challenged the new law or a company in a court.

[Caulkhead]

TheTurbonator said:

z4chris99 said:

put it in the bin
spend £50 on coke

Before the 1st of October this was fine but it's a little different now. The law changed and now parking firms can chase the registered keeper.

They're now only allowed to recover any lost costs though. So in a free car park that would be £0. If the signs state that it is free for 2 hours but then £50 thereafter, then they may be able to legally chase you for the £50. They're also allowed to charge you a reasonable amount for admin charges.

In short, no one really knows what to do, as no one, as of yet has challenged the new law or a company in a court.

It was headed 'Contractual Parking Charge Notice'. Unless the law has changed a great deal lately, I fail to see how simply being the registered keeper of a motor vehicle can enter you into a binding legal contract?

[stevensdrs]

Just ignore it and the barrage of threatening letters that will follow. If they take you to court, and that will be a big if, the most you could lose would be the £70 and court costs assuming they can prove their case which is unlikely.

[Mojooo]

Caulkhead said:

It was headed 'Contractual Parking Charge Notice'. Unless the law has changed a great deal lately, I fail to see how simply being the registered keeper of a motor vehicle can enter you into a binding legal contract?

as he said, the law has changed.

[Zeeky]

The law simply allows the parking company to pursue the RK for any civil liability of the driver but it is a prerequisite that the parking company can show the driver is liable to pay.

Ignore the comments on what the parking company can and cannot charge. We do not know without seeing the terms and conditions the driver has purportedly agreed with.

Hopefully those advising the OP not to pay will indemnify him against any costs incurred by not doing so.

[streaky]

Mojooo said:

Caulkhead said:

It was headed 'Contractual Parking Charge Notice'. Unless the law has changed a great deal lately, I fail to see how simply being the registered keeper of a motor vehicle can enter you into a binding legal contract?

as he said, the law has changed.

And has been covered here many, many times in the past 20 months that Caulkhead has been a PHer.

Streaky

[Caulkhead]

streaky said:

Mojooo said:

Caulkhead said:

It was headed 'Contractual Parking Charge Notice'. Unless the law has changed a great deal lately, I fail to see how simply being the registered keeper of a motor vehicle can enter you into a binding legal contract?

as he said, the law has changed.

And has been covered here many, many times in the past 20 months that Caulkhead has been a PHer.

Streaky

I'm not talking about the change to the parking laws - for the registered keeper to be successfully prosecuted there must have been a change to Contract Law for the RK to be held in civil breach of a contract entered into by the driver. No-one has yet been prosecuted in such a way.

[10 Pence Short]

'Prosecuted' for what?

The new law provides a specific circumstance when a Registered Keeper can be held liable for the contract entered into by another driving his or her vehicle.

The PPC must be able to show that the nominal driver would have been subject to the contract and follow the correct procedure as detailed in the legislation for the RK to become liable.

[Caulkhead]

10 Pence Short said:

'Prosecuted' for what?

The new law provides a specific circumstance when a Registered Keeper can be held liable for the contract entered into by another driving his or her vehicle.

The PPC must be able to show that the nominal driver would have been subject to the contract and follow the correct procedure as detailed in the legislation for the RK to become liable.

I am under the impression that this has yet to be tested and that many believe contract law will outweigh the specific law when and if tested?

I don't read every thread on PH so I apologise if this has been covered before.

[10 Pence Short]

The liabilty and route to it is explicit and doesn't need to be 'tested' as such.

You may be confusing the issue with that of an appropriate level of losses where a driver/RK is sued for breach of contract over parking. This is where some believe that PPCs will be unable to sufficiently satisfy a court that fifty pounds or similar is a genuine loss for the breach.

Whether or not they are right is undecided in terms of case authority, though I fall on the side that thinks the higher courts will not find them unreasonable.

[z4chris99]

contract law I believe will trump. it's a private contract between two parties, I.e a cival matter?

yet to be tested of course, but any QC with half a brain will sort it out

[Mojooo]

contract law is common law and will be trumped by statute

if it was that easy why do businesses have to ocmply with all the different consumer laws? if its a private contract why can't they just ignore if both aprties agree? they can't - because statute overrides any other type of law.