Thread: Should you ever buy a ticket for a private car park?

Hey everyone,

Just having a look at a load of the posts on here and I'm starting to wonder... if you have parked in a private car park, and they can't actually prove YOU were the driver, is there any point in buying a ticket at all? Since they can't enforce any penalty etc.

:idea:

Similar Threads:

• Private Parking Fine- Ldl car park
• Euro car park ticket
• Penalty notice in private car park
• Private Car Park Fine
• ncp notice from a private car park with wrong time

To deliberately not pay for the service the car park provides is morally the same as walking out of Tesco's without paying for your shopping.

This isn't about wilful avoidance of payment. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with paying a FAIR fee for a service, it is the penalty charge for overstaying which is unlawful and unenforceable. Any charge should only reflect the ACTUAL loss or costs incurred by whoever owns the land.

A couple of quid to park for a while is fine, and it is not unreasonable to be chased for a COUPLE of quid more if you return late to the vehicle. Nobody however will knowingly accept a contract which means you have to pay £50, £100 or £150 for that infringement.

Remember, the purpose of this forum is to help people get justice against the scumbag ticketing companies, who prey on people and con them into paying unfair penalties, not companies who provide car parking facilities, either as part of their business or as their actual business. Paying for parking, as others have mentioned, is like paying for any other service and is perfectly acceptable. Running a car park is like running any other business and it is only reasonable to expect that it makes a profit. There is a moral aspect to this too...

I'm not saying I wouldn't, it was more of an academic question really. I totally accept that the car park companies should make some money for providing a service!!

Good question to raise a debate...

If you were caught parking and driving off without paying afterwards, you could be liable for an offence of making off without payment, under section 3 Theft Act 1978. This would obviously require proof that you were the driver as well.

I can't recall many people stating that they've wilfully refused to pay and now want help. Such people already know they'll get away with it! Most posts relate to "overstaying" in a free carpark, parking over the lines or in "unauthorised" spaces, "leaving the site" of a free carpark, tickets being blown of dashboards etc.

jacraig

Technically, it's either trespass or breach of contract which are civil matters. Theft involves "intention to permanently deprive" someone of something, I think.

I know it's naughty, but I don't pay at Morrisons. Purely because I never have any change on me and it seems pointless when they just give it you back at the till!

Same reason I always end up having an overfilling basket - I never have a pound coin for a trolley!

Plus I hold a grudge after I only wanted a paper and they wouldn'tr refund the parking because it was less than a pound!

It would fall under both civil and criminal law (provided knowledge that payment was required could be shown), much the same as getting out of a taxi without paying. The offence I referred to, although included in the Theft Act, was not one of theft but one of making off without payment. The post I responded to was suggesting that people could not bother to pay for a ticket if the fine was unenforceable.

Yes, jacraig, you appear to be right.

Dishonesty is also a component though so I think they'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you saw and understood the signs.

Absolutely right. It would almost certainly never be prosecuted, as it would be hard to prove, not in the public interest and the police would say it was purely a civil matter!

Re: Should you ever buy a ticket for a private car park?

short answer... yes.

long answer... yes you should. You should pay for the service you have used.

Good question to raise a debate...

it is, but there is no debate about this issue, not on CAG anyway.

While fully accepting the 'moral and socially acceptable' arguments about buying a ticket, the title of this thread instantly raised a question in my mind.

I recall from days studying Mercantile Law (that dates me!) years ago there was a lot of Contract Law around tickets, and conditions thereon.

Could the very act of purchasing a ticket construed to be an Acceptance of the Terms on Offer - be they reasonable or not? And if those Terms state

If so, I wonder (for the purposes of debate only) if there is merit in not actually buying one and therefore the matter of acceptance of conditions does not arise?
But of course, as stated above, that could be theft.

Interesting though....
(but I am sure I will be proven wrong)

The contract would be accepted by conduct, i.e. parking your car. Assuming that the terms were communicated to you before or at the time of paring, you would be bound by them. However, as this is a contract between a business and a consumer, unfair contract terms legislation would apply, e.g. Unfair Contract terms Act 1977 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. It is a basic principle of contract law that you can only recover (save for in certain circumstances which do not apply here) for actual loss caused by breach of contract. Clauses which seek to impose a penalty, e.g a £50 fine for not paying for a parking ticket, would almost certainly be held invalid by the courts.

Tony,

Contract can be formed by conduct other than paying for a ticket.

The case of Vine vs Waltham Forest dealt with this issue. Though it specifically related to clamping, the situation appears relevant to car parking charges.

Paraphrasing somewhat, I understand that the judgement was that the presence of notices posted "where they are bound to be seen" this will "normally" lead to the finding that the car driver had knowledge of them.

In the Vine case it was taken that parking in this circumstance indicated consent to clamping. So it could be concluded that parking may also indicate acceptance of contractual terms displayed on any suitably visible signs.

While that sounds like a bit of a Perky argument, there are still many hurdles to cross, not least of which is time and effort to gather evidence and take people to a small claims court.

To show that the car owner consented or willingly assumed the risk of his car being clamped, it has to be established that the car owner was aware of the consequences of his parking his car so that it trespassed on the land of another. That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable to be clamped. Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning.

In the Vine case it was taken that parking in this circumstance indicated consent to clamping. So it could be concluded that parking may also indicate acceptance of contractual terms displayed on any suitably visible signs.

Which begs the question, why don't they up the amount to £200+ and why don't they take every case to court?

If you consider parking sign contracts in another situation it seems absurd. E.g. in a shop - "If you take a DVD you are contractually agreeing to pay the price of the DVD plus a charge of £50.
Of course, the actual loss to the shop would be £6 or £7 and the £50 would be punative.

So how can this be any different?
"If you fail to buy a ticket for £1 you you are contractually agreeing to pay the price of the ticket plus a charge of £50."

In the clamping instance, I think you're looking at the the angle of requesting a service and paying for it. E.g. if you park here you agree to us placing an item on your car and you agree to it being released for £80. There is some cost to driving to the location, fitting the clamp etc. Of course the problem is that they go too far, charge £150 and bring in tow trucks and dodgy cancellation charges.

I agree with you Al.

That's another fault in the Perky argument: that a "fair charge" for clamping and declamping is the same as a fair charge for sticking a post-it notice on your windscreen. Vine case adjudged that the approx £100 (in real terms) for clamping and declamping was "fair". So it ought to be a lot less for ticketing.