Parking Charge Notice at Decathalon

[MobileB]

As for parking in disabled bays and on double yellow lines - if they are for real i.e council controlled ones - then there are parking wardens, if they are not council controlled then they are graffiti and there is nothing you or anyone else can do to pretend they are otherwise.

 

.

 

I take it you condone people parking in disabled bays which have been put aside for blue badge holders when not holding a badge, then.

[Kevin Watts]

Once again I will point out that if you are claiming that a crime has been committed we will require you to provide links to the relevent legislation making this a criminal offence.

 

For not paying and displaying?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/31/section/3

 

Kevin

[Kevin Watts]

Kevin - please understand that private companies cannot issue fines, no matter what the provocation, any more than you and I can. I can paint some lines on my small drive and suggest anyone walking across it is liable to a charge. I can issue a so-called fine for those who refuse to pay. But it is not enforceable any more than those issued by Private Parking Companies are.

 

If there is a charge for parking - either via a ticket then all well and good - I am happy to pay. I am not going to pay made up speculative invoices disguised as fines - and neither should anyone else.

 

What is a 'fine'? Chasing an errant motorist for charges owed costs time and money. I believe that the parking businesses could very easily show that the 'fine' or 'charge' is a reasonable and representative amount for the behind the scenes infrastructure required. So, why is that a 'fine'?

 

What about if, for some reason, the car owner hasn't paid for parking and gets a 'ticket' ('fine' 'charge' invoice' whatever) in the post. Do you think the owner should send what he/she considers a fair amount or is the reality that he/she simply ignores it in the hope it will go away. If you are going to try and take the moral high ground over not paying a 'fine' then that would or should involve making some form of payment.

 

What if the car park camera/ticket people explained in detail exactly how the excess charge is calculated, would you still dispute it?

 

This whole problem is simply a small part of a wider issue, the fact that our country is on the financial bones of it's ar&e, there are an ever increasing minority who believe that it is socially acceptable to chance your arm.

 

Kevin

[MrSmith]

What is a 'fine'? Chasing an errant motorist for charges owed costs time and money. I believe that the parking businesses could very easily show that the 'fine' or 'charge' is a reasonable and representative amount for the behind the scenes infrastructure required. So, why is that a 'fine'?

 

What about if, for some reason, the car owner hasn't paid for parking and gets a 'ticket' ('fine' 'charge' invoice' whatever) in the post. Do you think the owner should send what he/she considers a fair amount or is the reality that he/she simply ignores it in the hope it will go away. If you are going to try and take the moral high ground over not paying a 'fine' then that would or should involve making some form of payment.

 

What if the car park camera/ticket people explained in detail exactly how the excess charge is calculated, would you still dispute it?

 

This whole problem is simply a small part of a wider issue, the fact that our country is on the financial bones of it's ar&e, there are an ever increasing minority who believe that it is socially acceptable to chance your arm.

 

Kevin

 

For a charge to be applied the person receiving the service would have to enter into a verbal or written contract, the problem these parking companies have is proving that such a contract exists.

Signage informing people that are parking on private land would need to be big enough for there to be no doubt that the person parking would have seen it, if the sign is there and is big enough not to be missed, then parking there would imply your agreement to the terms of the contract.

Ultimately for a court to side with the parking company they need to prove that the person parking saw the sign and understood the terms and conditions of the contract, any charge would also have to be reasonable.

[Moosey]

For not paying and displaying?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/31/section/3

 

Kevin

 

Ok, I'll go for it.

 

Making off without payment is an offence designed (if you read Hansard) to capture things such as people leaving petrol stations without paying.

 

Goods supplied are "things in possession", actual items. The act requires that the good be an item that ordinarily, one would pay for, and would then take away. "Parking" does not fit here. Petrol would. A parking space is a "thing in action". It has no intrinsic value, although it's use against terms could lead to civil action, not criminal.

 

Services are jobs done by persons, such as building work and similar.

 

The parking space is an amenity. It is neither goods nor services.

 

Trust me, if this were a crime, do you not think the police would have prosecuted someone by now? You know why they haven't? Because it isn't a crime.

[Walkley Dave]

What is a 'fine'? Chasing an errant motorist for charges owed costs time and money. I believe that the parking businesses could very easily show that the 'fine' or 'charge' is a reasonable and representative amount for the behind the scenes infrastructure required. So, why is that a 'fine'?

 

What about if, for some reason, the car owner hasn't paid for parking and gets a 'ticket' ('fine' 'charge' invoice' whatever) in the post. Do you think the owner should send what he/she considers a fair amount or is the reality that he/she simply ignores it in the hope it will go away. If you are going to try and take the moral high ground over not paying a 'fine' then that would or should involve making some form of payment.

 

What if the car park camera/ticket people explained in detail exactly how the excess charge is calculated, would you still dispute it?

 

This whole problem is simply a small part of a wider issue, the fact that our country is on the financial bones of it's ar&e, there are an ever increasing minority who believe that it is socially acceptable to chance your arm.

 

Kevin

 

To blame the financial mess the country is in, on people chancing their arm is stretching the bounds of truth a little far! Briefly the country is on the bones of its bottom because the banks lent money they didn't have to people who couldn't afford to pay it back.

 

Even if there is a contract - not easy to prove by the way on this occasion - the remedy for breach of contract is to restore the person to the position they were in before the breach.

 

Free parking therefore = no loss. Paid for parking = restoration of the amount that should have been paid.

 

Like it or not Kevin that is what the law says. If I enter a car park for which there is a charge then I pay. Right and proper - no argument.

 

If I am given a so-called fine in reality a speculative invoice - then I am going to ignore it - and I advise everyone else to do exactly the same.

 

However since you believe private parking companies can "easily" enforce their rules - then I suggest you try typing "Excel Lose" into Google and see just how easy it is.

[metalman]

Problem is, Kevin Watts, that if you gave the population a straight choice in a referendum between the situation as it is now on the one hand, and putting up with inconsiderate parking but getting rid of companies like Excel on the other, then knowing what we know now, there could easily be a landslide victory for the latter.

[onewheeldave]

 

What if the car park camera/ticket people explained in detail exactly how the excess charge is calculated, would you still dispute it?

 

 

 

Kevin

 

Well, it would be a step in the right direction wouldn't it?

 

Certainly none of these companies have made any effort till now to issue fair 'fines'- instead they've gone for ludicrous amounts that bear no relation to reality (e.g. £100 for overstaying by 5 mins).

 

If they hadn't been so greedy they could still have a viable business, instead they've infuriated so many people that the truth has come out, and, from now on, any motorist can chack the internet and find that their parking 'fine' is a sham and totally unenforcable.

[MobileB]

Well, it would be a step in the right direction wouldn't it?

 

 

Would you expect a hotel to list what it costs them to supply and clean a room? If you book the room and do not show they will still charge you and what has it cost them?

 

Interesting quote from the judge in the Excel statement earlier in this thread:

 

cont...

 

4. I do not find that the amount they claim is a penalty, but an estimate of the cost to Excel of identifying and chasing up non-payers.

[Kevin Watts]

Would you expect a hotel to list what it costs them to supply and clean a room? If you book the room and do not show they will still charge you and what has it cost them?

 

That's a poor example, they wouldn't charge you 'extra' for cleaning the room because a) it doesn't need cleaning and b) the charge would simply be the initial charge of the room in any event.

 

As regards the Escel quote from the judge, they (Escel) would be able to show that if a person paid upon immediate receipt of the ticket then their costs are x amount, whereas if they have to do all the chasing and contact the DVLA then their costs will be y amount.

 

I doubt very much whether their charges are a matter of National Security and I'm sure that Escel will publish them to show that they are indeed legitimate and stop everyone speculating and complaining!