alchresearch Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 It's really quite simple, It certainly is: 1) Don't park at the retail park if you're not shopping there. 2) Read the sign if you do park there. 3) If you can't agree to the conditions don't park there, or just deal with the letters that follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkley Dave Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 You couldn't argue that they are holding you hostage. They are holding your goods, not yourself. You could easily exit the car park without your car. That's not the argument. If they have a barrier (Malin Bridge, Midland Station) then you pay the parking charge. Perfectly legal and as far as I know there is no objection to that. The speculative invoices sent out by these firms are penalty charges. People pay them believing a private company can issue "fines". They can't and that is why you shouldn't pay them. They don't have barriers because they make less money that way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 It certainly is: 1) Don't park at the retail park if you're not shopping there. 2) Read the sign if you do park there. 3) If you can't agree to the conditions don't park there, or just deal with the letters that follow. Yes deal with them by filing them under B1N! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand_dollars Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 These demands for parking charges (I deliberately haven't put 'fines') play on our moral standards where we accept punishment for doing something wrong. If these charges are non enforceable why are they allowed to keep sending them out? I've told my son about this thread and the comments people are making advising him to ignore it but understandably he's apprehensive that the charges will go up and will escalate to hundreds of pounds. I can see why this company are making so much money! They are useful when one runs out of Andrex :hihi::hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Only if you get a signature. Reading a sign is not a contract There's a lot of legal mistakes in this sort of thread, and this is one of them. Implied notice in contracts is perfectly acceptable - implied via methods such as generally accepted practice, continued dealings between the parties, implied by the Courts and so on. I should add this is more typical in acceptance of contract terms, rather than whole contracts, but the theory is still there, and is arguable. It is possible to create a contract in this way, save for the fact that if it's a free car park (which the retail park is), there can be no consideration for the contract and it's not valid. Then we move onto the penalty clause issue, which is actually under the Unfair Contract Terms Act. Edited July 23, 2012 by Moosey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalman Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 It certainly is: 1) Don't park at the retail park if you're not shopping there. 2) Read the sign if you do park there. 3) If you can't agree to the conditions don't park there, or just deal with the letters that follow. I would shorten that to: 1) Don't park at the retail park Which is what I've done since they started employing the parking firm to enforce their time limit - avoid the place completely because I refuse to give my custom to places that give business to these scam merchants. If more people did the same we might see some of these places getting rid of these companies. Same goes for Staples car park in town, Lidl at Stocksbridge, the car park behind Dunelm at Hillsborough and any number of other locations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 It would be business suicide but yeah they could. G24 couldn't though. I can't see how it would affect their business at all. Their business is related to the shops there. They gain nothing by having or allowing cinema goers to park where they shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Yes, absolutely. The owner of the car park can legally charge you for the amount they lost because of you taking up the parking space, or alternatively thy could claim damages for trespassing. Land owners should be able to do this - after all, it's their land The issue is that it's an unrelated company which is claiming an unconnected amount of money for themselves which they are not legally entitled to. The land owner forms a contract with a 3rd party to administer charging people for parking spaces. It's not uncommon that a 3rd party is involved in a transaction. I have seen a judgement that on a technical point said that the claimant couldn't win because it wasn't their car park though. It would be like you driving off of BP's forecourt without paying for the petrol and me turning up at your door for a completely different amount of money despite having nothing to do with it. If you were contracted as a 3rd party to take the money from me at the pump and pass it on to the pump owner, then the pump owner could sue you and you could sue me for the failure to pay. You could also reasonably add on your costs. The question would come, if there was a big sign up saying "if you don't pay for your fuel now, pay double in 1 week", so after 1 week has passed and I still haven't paid, you sue me for twice the amount I would originally have paid. It's not a penalty, it's the amount lost under the deferred payment clause of the 'contract' formed when I drove away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martyn1949 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I know there are lots of threads about this subject but I just wanted some up to date information please..... This morning my son received a 'contractual parking charge notice' for parking too long at Meadowhall Retail Park. The charge is for £50 but 'a reduced amount of £25 will be accepted' if he pays within 14 days. This is the first ticket he's had (and I'm sure he's learnt from this!) but all the previous threads on this subject suggest that this fine isn't enforceable and if he ignores it the fine will go away. Is that still correct? Thanks a lot OK, first thing is - this is not a fine - it's an invoice from a commercial company - and it will be addressed to the Registered Keeper, demanding to know who the driver was. They can ONLY invoice the DRIVER, not the registered keeper, and the registered keeper is under no legal obligation to tell them who was driving.... just write back as registered keeper, dsaying you cannot remember who was driving on that occasion. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 It's really quite simple, if the charge for overstaying is greater than their actual loss then it is a penalty clause. That's not simple at all. There is no actual loss of anything for an overstay if the car park is quiet. In a free car park there is no loss so no enforceable charge. It isn't a free car park if it says that staying for >2hrs will incur a £25 charge. It's a free for 2 hrs and then £25 thereafter car park. In a car park which charges for parking then any charge should be proportional to the length of time of the overstay. So an overstay of 5 min in a car park at £1/hr should attract a fee of 8.3p. If the car park charges £1/hr yes, but what if it charges £1/hr for 2 hrs and then £10/hr thereafter? A perfectly legitimate charge scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now