Meadowhall Retail Park car parking megathread

[newvanandman]

PPCs COMMIT CRIMINAL OFFENCES

 

If you take the time to examine Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 you will be surprised to discover, I’m sure, that the characteristics described, which give the invoice it’s official bearing and suggest that it’s removal may be a crime make the use, issuing and pursuit of funds claimed due because of such, a crime in itself. Note section 40 (d) specifically.

 

The Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:

(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

© falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;

(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

Paragraph (a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise legal) for the purpose of :

(1) of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

(2) of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

It is also provided that a person may be guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

Thus if you receive one of these invoices and it appears to purport to be a PCN or FPN then I strongly suggest that you report the incident to the police. The police are DUTY BOUND to investigate and act. I had to have a ‘debate’ with the local Sgt to have him act on my behalf, however if you are polite and firm then the police should take it on for you.

THE CONTRACT ELEMENT

 

Let’s examine the law that does cover the issuing of these invoices.

 

As I’ve stated earlier the PPC will base it’s claim on the driver having entered into a contract with them. Strictly speaking this is very much the case. Assuming the signage and notice to be sufficient then the driver accept the offer of parking by his actions and is implied to accept the terms and conditions of so doing.

 

You will have three co-mingling defences to reply on in this case.

 

Firstly and most simply �" contractual penalties. When you park in the car park and over-stay or misuse the facilities in some way you breach your contract with the land owner. The terms state you will not overstay or misuse the facilities, these are terms on which your contract for parking is based, thus when you do something contrary to these terms you breach the contract. The common law holds that the remedy for breach of contract is damages. Therefore the land owner is entitled to damages covering the costs incurred as a result of your breaching the contract.

 

Let us examine this �" if you over-stay at a car park then the land owner loses revenue. Thus if parking is £1 an hour and you overstay by an hour then the damage is £1. Any company may argue that you are liable for the time of any attendant who may be involved in the issuing of an invoice. This is nonsense. The fact is that the PPC employ staff to be at the car park for all eventualities. Their job description will involve the issuing and preparation of these invoices, therefore to imply that damages are incurred by the involvement of an employee hired for this express purpose is a quite ridiculous prospect and should be sternly resisted (particularly when the cost of one of these invoices is more than the attendant is paid per day). Alternatively if you park incorrectly and use two bays I would suggest that in all reality the most that could be said to be valid damages is the value of the spaces you have used (so if you obscure a second space then double the cost of your parking). So as you can see actual damages in these cases will be absolutely minimal. Why, therefore, do the PPCs seek to charge the users of the car parks figures like £50 and £70? Simply because people do not know any better than to pay. The principle surrounding this is very similar to that surrounding bank charges. Banks cannot charge their customers extortionate rates for going over their overdraft limits (breaching their contract). The law is exactly the same for Private Parking Companies. Thus should matters progress with the parking company you should use this as the cornerstone of your defence.

 

Contractual penalties are dealt with in the following cases:-

 

The caselaw is well explained by Peter T Barnes of Always Associates in this article.

 

Is it a Penalty? - Alway Associates

 

This is aimed more for commercial parties than consumers but it outlines the principles well. The following is a summary from bankchargeshell.co.uk - Legal cases and common law on the relevant case law as it relates to the circumstances at hand (a more consumer based perspective).

 

Wilson v. Love (1896)

 

A tenant farmer agreed to pay an additional rent of £3 per ton by way of penalty for every ton of hay or straw that he sold off the premises during the last 12 months of the tenancy. The clause was regarded as a penalty because at the time hay was worth five shillings a ton more than straw.

 

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd. (1915)

 

In the particular case, the judges held that the sum specified in the contract was reasonable and was classified as liquidated damages. However, in this case, Lord Dunedin laid down rules which are still applied today in these types of cases:

 

i) The sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could be suffered from the breach �" in other words, if it is "extravagant and unconscionable".

 

ii) If it agreed that a larger sum shall be payable in default of paying a smaller sum, this is a penalty.

 

Ford Motor Co. v. Armstrong (1915)

 

In this case, the judges reached the conclusion that the sum to be paid for a breach of the contract was substantial and arbitrary and bore no relation to the potential loss of the other party. It was, therefore, a penalty.

 

Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. (1962)

 

In this case a customer bought a car under a hire purchase agreement. He paid the initial and first payments and then cancelled the agreement. The company tried to recover the sums specified in the contract for canceling the agreement, but the courts held that the sums payable were excessive and constituted a penalty clause. It was, therefore, unenforceable.

 

Murray v. Leisureplay (2004)

 

Mr Murray was sacked by Leisureplay and he claimed three years' salary as per his contract of employment. The courts decided that this clause was a penalty clause and he was not entitled to this level of damages.

 

The important issues to remember here are that consumers are not of comparable bargaining power to the PPCs. The PPCs are large companies with significantly better resources. The consumer needs their services (or else where would they park?). For damages to be justifiable and enforceable by the courts they must be a reflection of actual loss. Consider what we have explained the costs and damages to be to the PPCs and then consider the penalty they seek to impose. While a difference of £60 is not grossly disproportionate in the commercial sense, within the context of the contract between the consumer and the PPC/landowner it certainly is. The most valid case on the circumstances is Dunlop. Please, if you have the chance, take the time to read the case for yourself and familiarise yourself with the facts and conclusions. I strongly recommend using a search facility like Lexis Nexis Butterworths or Westlaw.

 

Secondly there is a piece of little known consumer legislation called the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999).

 

Schedule 2 Indicative and Non-Exhaustive List of Terms which may be Regarded as Unfair

 

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a dis-proportionately high sum in compensation.

 

Thus when PPCs charge £50-£70 for what is a minimal loss on their part, the above regulations will apply.

 

The full schedules can be found on various government sites. Most notably here �"

 

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083

 

Pay also particular attention to section 5, which reads:-

 

“Unfair Terms

5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

 

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

 

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

 

(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.”

 

Schedule 2 mentioned above is at the end of the document and it is well worth reading up on. It will give you a very good feel for the ‘spirit’ of the regulations.

 

The OFT’s site will explain this in simpler language and make the regulations more digestible. I urge you to read this also-

 

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

 

The OFT’s page will also have information regarding making a complaint with them. Something I urge you to consider very carefully. Should you feel you have grounds to complain then do so.

 

Again the regulations will provide you with the basis for a defence against any action taken by a PPC. It will also provide ammunition in your negotiations with them and could well persuade them to dismiss any notions of making a claim.

 

You should also consider making use of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

 

A copy of the Act is available here-

 

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

 

Generally the Act covers agreements made between businesses but it can extend to nearly all forms of contract and interestingly negates clauses in contracts which seek to evade certain specific liabilities.

 

However in this case Section 4 will apply. It states:-

 

“4 Unreasonable indemnity clauses

 

(1) A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

 

(2) This section applies whether the liability in question�"

 

(a) is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred by him vicariously;

 

(b) is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else.”

 

 

Clearly per the Act £50-£70 for parking for a few hours is not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

 

This law should provide three solid avenues by which to have any action against you deflected or halted.

To summarise-

 

It is most important that you know your rights. Please don’t use this guide as a ‘be all and end all’ to the subject. Use it as your starting point. Read around these topics and get to know the law. This is good consumer law for today’s generation and will serve you well in other aspects of your life. Being willing to speak out and stand up to corporate bullies will set you in good stead for the rest of your life.

 

http://www.pepipoo.com

[wizadooo]

Its not very often I feel the need to waste so much time in replying, but I find Offensive comments hard to take on whatever level, surely in such a public domain, contributors should have the common courtesy to refrain from such comments.

 

Whilst I will refrain from being abusive in reply to your limited vocabulary, it is worth pointing out that nowhere in my posts have I mentioned the parking offence, I was merely pointing out that Public Car Parks CAN be considered Roads under the Road Traffic Act. Something which you disagreed with ! If you read your latest attack, you will notice that you contradict yourself, agreeing that the car park could indeed be a Road for serious Offences. As I have stated, they were merely examples. (Cant believe it ) You will notice a pattern develop......

 

It is worth noting that you choose to ignore the more relevant parts of the post which refer to Roads and Highways, neither of which you mention, strange but true !

 

I will not embellish you much further other than to say, if you study the Road Traffic Act 1988 you will find some surprising examples of what a Road can be ! (What about the aisles of a Department store, when for example a Fork Lift Truck is Loading Shelves ? - Food for thought). I bet you dont like that one.....if only you could park IN B&Q, you could risk leaving your car, without running the wrathe of the sneaky clampers, enforcing legitimate restrictions on Private Car Parks (just to clarify Public Places during opening hours).

 

The reference above to serious offences is from a site covering such examples and not conclusive. Needless to say I am not an Idiot, and have a good grasp of the fundamental aspects of Road Traffic Law in a professional capacity. All of the examples I have given can be backed up with Stated Cases which have been proven in a Court of Law, clearly as you have written, you feel you are above it, so its not worth going into particulars.

 

It is interesting to note you haven't retracted any of your earlier failings, for example when you state `its not a Road unless its adopted`.......clearly proven wrong with FACT. To be fair if I were sad enough or interested enough to examine your posts in detail, I'm sure it would be like playing battleships. The sections you cut and paste have some credibility, however, the childish jibes and misguided opinion do not contribute to the discussion in any way. Yes, you are entitled to opinion, but please be graceful enough to know when you are wrong !! If you read your posts back, the parts crafted from your narrow mind, it shouldn't be too hard for you to find numerous examples of being WRONG !

 

I must concede to your better judgment, obviously, having the experience of an apology from a Local Council in relation to a parking matter, you are clearly a Traffic Law wiz, in fact from your tone I take it you are a master in most things, we can all cut and paste articles onto a Discussion Forum, does that necessarily mean we have understood what it means ? I think not........I could go on, but have neither the inclination nor enthusiasm to humour you any further.

 

You are clearly a master a crafting letters to complain against your parking offences, unfortunately the intricacies of the Road Traffic Act appear to have you baffled !

 

Suffice to say I am in Ore of your knowledge ! Life is too short..........

[wizadooo]

It wasn't Asda that apologized it was the council as they employ traffic wardens not Asda.

 

........and a car park is not a road, any road is only a road if it is 'adopted'.

 

 

just in case you forgot what you said, I know maybe you shouldnt be so hasty next time, pause for thought, its so good for the mind..........

[Magilla]

Advising people to pervert the course of justice could land both you, and they, in jail.

 

Fortunately I haven't done so......

 

Perversion of the course of justice takes the form of one of three acts:

 

* Fabrication or disposal of evidence

* Intimidating a witness or juror

* Threatening a witness or juror

 

Not volunteering information you are not legally obliged to, or advising someone not to is NOT a perversion of the course of justice! You can't pervert the course of justice in relation to evidence that has never existed in the first place!

 

I haven't advised them to dispute, fabricate or dispose of any evidence, merely check that some exists at all and not volunteer their own.

 

If the *prosecutor* has no conclusive evidence, there is no case to answer!

 

It's also against forum rules.

 

"IT" may be, but my advice certainly isn't!

 

We already KNOW that the OP knows who was driving. They told us.

 

We are not the prosection, or under oath in a court of law, they haven't told the parking company and they are not legally obliged to.

 

If the parking company doesn't have "their own" evidence then there is no offence.

 

Clearly you're confused about the difference between the terms "morally" and "legally".

[Cyclone]

You can say what you want, fact is I've parked all over the place in the UK and never paid any fine or FEE and I've chopped off two Denver Boots, naughty I know, but who can prove anything if the car isn't there any more:D

 

I'm sorry but I simply don't believe you.

[wolfstalin]

I'm sorry but I simply don't believe you.

 

WooHoo, I can't think of a better endorsement;)

[Tipex]

I've parked there for hours last year and hadnt got anything. Even seen people chuck litter out of their windows.

[obase]

I park here often, and have never seen the car park full.

 

I can sympathise with Aldi and the retail outlets in that corner due to the amount of cars that use that bit of the car park to catch the tram into town. It must be very annoying, and I think the retail park owners have every right in trying to put a stop to this misuse.

 

However, my sympathy for the retail park does not extent to it handing over the management of this problem to crooks.

 

As frequent users of both Centretainment and the retail park, often simultaneously, I will always park in one of the car parks but walk over to the other side if necessary. Only this weekend, we parked up in the retail park, walked over to the cinema to watch a film, walked back, let the kids buy some rubbish in Toys’R’Us, bought something in PC World, and then had something to eat in Pizza Hut. We must have been pretty close to the 3-hour limit.

 

All I can add is if the retail park wants to manage their problem in such a lazy way that genuine customers are likely to be presented with threatening letters like this, my custom will now be taken elsewhere.

 

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

[clogginchris]

There's a letter in the Star about a 3 hour time limit for parking at Meadowhall. Anyone know if it's actually a 3 hour limit, or 3 hours of free parking?

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/letters/Parking-time-limit-drives-us.3954596.jp

[China-Black]

...............