Darth Vader Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 They'd probably get a letter back saying they should park within the rules in future and not have to deal with the invoices. What rules? By the way, they wouldn't be getting any more invoices from the same place, as they wouldn't be going back, would they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 If the letter makes clear- 1. the fact that you know your rights, know the invoice is unenforcable and so will not be paying a penny to the parking company... Which rights are those? If a person (or a company or another legal entity ... let's stick with person) owns a piece of land, then that person has the right to enjoy all the benefits of ownership of that land. If the person decides that (s)he would like to charge others to park on that land, then - unless such an action would contravene planning regulations, byelaws or other regulations - (s)he is entitled to do so. If the landowner wishes to allow a period of free parking and then charge for subsequent parking, then provided the terms of that parking are made clear to potential users before they commit themselves to anything which may cost them money (vide the ruling in Shoe Lane, which said that conditions must be brought to the attention of the person who parked in the car park BEFORE he paid [in that case] for the ticket) then the land owner can indeed charge people who park for longer than the free period. You might try to argue that because you hadn't paid anything you had not agreed to the condition which said that after a free parking period you would be obliged to pay. That's why I mentioned Saunders. It may not be strictly relevant, but in that case, Mrs Gallie signed a document without bothering to read it properly. Her argument (as propounded by Saunders, who was representing her [she was dead by the time the case came to court] was that she shouldn't be bound by the terms of the contract, but Lord Denning said that: "Mrs Gallie was out of luck. Grown literate people cannot simply get away with signing things, and not being bound." The House of Lords upheld his ruling (but they were a little more polite.) I suggest that if you park in a car park which offers free parking for a period of time and then makes a charge, then the fact that you parked there is sufficient to make you liable to the whole contract and not merely the part you like -the free parking clause. A number of posters have noted that the letter from Excel is an Invoice, not a fine. That does indeed appear to be the case, but it is an invoice for the payment of the fee laid down in the contract between the person who parked there and the landowner (or his agent.) It's not a fine, it's a bill. A bill for a service for which you contracted to pay. However. If the terms of the parking contract were made available before the person who parked committed himself to paying (in accordance with the ruling in Shoe Lane) and if those terms laid down a charge of - say - £2 an hour for a period in excess of the free period and if the landowner's agent tried to charge an additional £60 'administrative fee' (or whatever) then that fee would fly in the face of the ruling in Shoe lane if it had not been brought to the attention of the person who parked there before he made himself liable for a parking fee. Disclaimer. This post is not intended to provide legal advice and I accept no responsibility for any costs or damages incurred by anybody who relies upon it. If you want legal advice, pay a lawyer for it. ...and 2. that you will boycott the store in the future, for as long as they allow/invite the parking company to patrol the car park then I think it could be quite effective in getting the store to reconsider it's position, especially if it receives many such letters from different customers. That, of course, is another matter entirely. I can see why the owner of a car park might want to charge people who use it as a long-term facility for abusing his hospitality, (a number of motorway service stations charge long-term parking fees) but if the parker is merely spending a long time (and possible a lot of money) in the owner's shops, then charging customers because they didn't 'get a move on' will probably drive them elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freezer Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Just ignore them. They are unenforcible. No, but once it gets passed to a collection agency, it will be, and you'll get a CCJ if you refuse to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freezer Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Is there any scope for legal action against G24 (the PPC which operates in the Meadowhall Retail Park), on the grounds of intimidation and bullying letters etc. Or is it quite legal for private companies to send out intimidating letters? What you mean is you have received a bill for parking in the car park for too long and you dont feel like paying. Why would you take 'legal action' against them just because they've sent you a few bills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex C. Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 No, but once it gets passed to a collection agency, it will be, and you'll get a CCJ if you refuse to pay. I thought that none of these had yet gone to court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freezer Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I thought that none of these had yet gone to court? It wouldn't be court for non payment of the fine, but for non payment of the debt to the collection agency. Once the debt is passed on the agency doesn't care if its for parking tickets, unpaid credit cards or whatever - to original debt doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Is there any scope for legal action against G24 (the PPC which operates in the Meadowhall Retail Park), on the grounds of intimidation and bullying letters etc. Or is it quite legal for private companies to send out intimidating letters? No it isn't. Take action against them for attempted mail fraud, if you feel like doing more than ignoring them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatman Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Is there any scope for legal action against G24 (the PPC which operates in the Meadowhall Retail Park), on the grounds of intimidation and bullying letters etc. Or is it quite legal for private companies to send out intimidating letters? Im currently dealing with these cowboys as they are harrasing a man with cancer even though he doesnt own the car that keeps parking at the retail park. Many letters and emails later ive now got very good grounds for taking them to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Im currently dealing with these cowboys as they are harrasing a man with cancer even though he doesnt own the car that keeps parking at the retail park. Many letters and emails later ive now got very good grounds for taking them to court. Can you elaborate on this? Has someone fraudulently registered a car to his address? Someone tried that with my address but I intercepted the post and referred it to the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonjon Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Is there any scope for legal action against G24 (the PPC which operates in the Meadowhall Retail Park), on the grounds of intimidation and bullying letters etc. Or is it quite legal for private companies to send out intimidating letters? Maybe you wouldn't be recieving these 'bullying letters' if you learned to park your car correctley?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.