Parking Eye - photographic evidence of the driver

[RichardM]

If I were ever asked by a judge why I ignored such correspondence, my response would be to say that I treated it as an unsolicited request for money without any merit or substance, akin to a Nigerian 419 [problem] letter. Then I would politely ask the judge if he had ever received such types of correspondence, either by mail or email himself and ask if he had ever replied to them.

[wheelergeezer]

I would just say 'I don't respond to any beggars at all'.

[postggj]

not going off topic but please educate me on why these so called parking invoices are no more than bog roll,

 

ive beenlooking at signs in morrisons and it states

 

YOU AGREE TO PAY XYZ IF YOU FAIL TO ABSERVE THE PARKING RESTRICTIONS ETC

 

now if on the signs it states

 

you agree to pay or

 

you agree to entering into a comercial contract

 

are you then not stuffed

 

i realy do not know as this is ot my area and realy do need a cast iron explanation as a friend of mine has just got a ticket at morrisons

 

thanks

[wheelergeezer]

Because the way they are attempting to sort the matter out financially, is tantermount to a fine or penalty. It is private property and thus is a civil matter and in law a civillian cannot impose a fine or penalty, even if the wording doesn't use such words the essence is the same. ie, if you stay more than 3 hours you will pay a 'fee'.

 

All the store can legally do is ask you to leave. If you don't they can sue you for 'tort'. In other words because you haven't left you are now trespassing and they can sue you for damage caused. That could be physical damage if you are doing so, or loss of earnings. Lets say they charge £3 per hour for parking, you park and don't pay for an hour, they have possibly lost £3 if someone else wanted that space and couldn't park and pay as a result.

 

The law they rely on is based around farming land rights effectively. You drive your tractor across my field and destroy a row of lettuse. I could sue you for the value of those lettuce at market, say 20 groats or three of your shiny coins. Or perhaps you park your combine harvester on my land for a day or two and I cannot plant anything there and then see you have damaged my fence., I could sue you for loss of use of the land and the damage. Obvioulsy the loss would be a proprtion of the entire field.

 

In the case of Morrisons and the like, they do not actually lose anything at all. Well, saying that if they could actually prove that a customer could not park at all as a result and that same customer went over the road to Sainsburys and spent £100 they might try to argue that they lost £100. However, that same customer could have just parked elsewhere and still shopped at Morrisons. You didn't block the door!

 

That is why these 'letters' asking for money are just that. A letter. They try to use very similar wording, style and imply that you must pay. But a court will only enforce a payment if there was a debt. The fact they put up a sign is nothing unless they can show that you did indeed see the sign and agree to the terms. Even then, they cannot impose a 'fine' or 'penalty' only attempt to sue for their actual loss which in reality cannot really be proved. Who can say if the man in Sainsburys poked his tongue out a woman who then decided to go across to Morrisons, which she would not normally do.

 

I could look at one of those signs all day and not understand it because I am dyslexic. The fact I looked does not mean I understood the contents and certainly do not agree just by pointing my head in the direction fo the sign.

 

That is why it is bog roll.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

If the driver of a vehicle parks on land and is notified of the parking conditions applicable then they agree to be bound by those terms provided they are lawful. That may include the payment of a fee.

 

A contract is formed.

 

If the driver breaks the contract the diver could be liable for damages in breach of contract. However this is likely to be limited to (for an overstay) the hourly rate for parking, or for parking across bays for the loss of use of a bay (ie pay twice). For parking outside a bay this is more likely to be trespass for which damages are harder to prove.

 

The above is not really financially viable so what the PPCs have done is to create a system that mimics the decriminalised parking enforcement adopted by councils and relys on public confusion, ignorance and fear.

 

PPCs can only enforce against the wrongdoer - the driver. They need to prove who the driver was. Typically they seek to enforce against the registered keeper and may wrongly assert that the registered keeper is liable. That is where their problem lies.

 

If they had someone at the carpark collecting the advertised fees from the driver at the time of parking they would be fine and if someone drove off without paying having parked they would be entitled to report a theft to the police.

[Al27]

There are also issues of what constitutes a contractual offer.

 

'Parking permit holders only. If you do not have a permit you agree to pay £50' does not constitute an offer.

 

Is the offer allowing parking? Then why does it say permits only? How can you agree to an offer that is not being offered simultaneously? Where is the invitation to treat?

[postggj]

Good stuff people

 

hats off to the pair of you

[postggj]

Quick question

 

so what civil damages could be claimed if say at morrisons, which is free parking

 

how could they fine you £50 as there is no loss in the first place

 

godd stuff this

[wheelergeezer]

They cannot 'fine' you at all as a fine is a fee paid as the result of a crime.

 

Again, they can only seek to reclaim their losses as it is a private property tresspass issue.

[JonCris]

If the driver of a vehicle parks on land and is notified of the parking conditions applicable then they agree to be bound by those terms provided they are lawful. That may include the payment of a fee.

 

A contract is formed.

 

If the driver breaks the contract the diver could be liable for damages in breach of contract. However this is likely to be limited to (for an overstay) the hourly rate for parking, or for parking across bays for the loss of use of a bay (ie pay twice). For parking outside a bay this is more likely to be trespass for which damages are harder to prove.

 

The above is not really financially viable so what the PPCs have done is to create a system that mimics the decriminalised parking enforcement adopted by councils and relys on public confusion, ignorance and fear.

 

PPCs can only enforce against the wrongdoer - the driver. They need to prove who the driver was. Typically they seek to enforce against the registered keeper and may wrongly assert that the registered keeper is liable. That is where their problem lies.

 

If they had someone at the carpark collecting the advertised fees from the driver at the time of parking they would be fine and if someone drove off without paying having parked they would be entitled to report a theft to the police.

 

"entitled to report a 'theft' to the police" Forgive me but do you actually believe that?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

"entitled to report a 'theft' to the police" Forgive me but do you actually believe that?

 

Yes. If a service has been offered and provided and a fee for that service was agreed in advance, then to fail to pay can be reported as theft, in exactly the same way as someone who "does a runner" from a restaurant can be reported.

[Al27]

Quick question

 

so what civil damages could be claimed if say at morrisons, which is free parking

 

how could they fine you £50 as there is no loss in the first place

 

godd stuff this

 

None.

 

If you parked every single day they may claim you could be depriving them of a customer, but the actual loss incurred would be small.

 

Morrisons wouldn't actually bother though.

[RichardM]

Similarly, do you honestly believe that Morrison's would be ask you to pay £50 because you have forgotten a vital ingredient for tonight's dinner and had to return to the store within x hours. If you read the signs carefully, that's generally what Morrison's signs say.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?275140-morrisons-and-cps-parking

 

The prospect of the negative publicity that such a demand might generate would be far more damaging than any loss of a parking space.

Edited September 2, 2010 by RichardM
added link to Morrison's CPS signage.

[dragonkeeper]

Hi Postggi this has been copied from another thread " Private Parking Ticket"

 

 

"Re: Private Parking Ticket - Have I admitted liability?

Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v. Paul Helmn (20th August 2010)

The claimant stated they were owed £50 from Mr Helmn for parking in a disabled bay in the hospital car park without displaying a blue badge. The judge found that the sum was a contractual penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The case was dismissed

. "

 

I assume the same judgement would be levied (I know this states Disabled bay but makes no difference)

 

 

 

 

dk

[postggj]

bingo

 

ill give him the good news

[mightymouse_69]

There are also issues of what constitutes a contractual offer.

 

'Parking permit holders only. If you do not have a permit you agree to pay £50' does not constitute an offer.

 

Is the offer allowing parking? Then why does it say permits only? How can you agree to an offer that is not being offered simultaneously? Where is the invitation to treat?

 

Most signs in car parks would be effective. It's reasonably well accepted that a sign with some conditions on it can amount to an offer. Acceptance is through conduct - so in a parking case this would be the conduct of parking (obviously.)

 

An invitation to treat is not required to form a contract...

 

Bernie gave a great explanation of some of the troubles PPCs face. Stating that failure to comply with the posted terms and conditions will result in a financial penalty can be problematic. The reason is that it means the PPC will have to go to court asking the Judge to award damages of (say) £100.. or whatever sum the sign and subsequent paperwork said.

 

This amounts to punitive damages - I.E: the PPC is getting more money back in compensation than they lost due to the defendants action. Punitive damages can be awarded for breach of contract. At one stage, the cases for which such damages could be awarded were limited. They have been extended though and in one case it was stated that:

 

“In a suitable case damages for breach of contract may be measured by the benefit gained by the wrong-doer from the breach. The defendant must make a reasonable payment in respect of the benefit he has gained.”

 

It is clear that some judges in parking case are prepared to award such damages. Some do not though. So, the main problem for the PPC would be arguing that the damages they seek should be awarded. This is by no means impossible - but not easy either.

 

The above is also, I would say, an argument for responding to PPCs if one wishes to do so. A defendant who has behaved reasonably before court would probably be less at risk of having punitive damages awarded against them than a defendant who has not behaved reasonably.

 

Interestingly, should the sign say "by failing to comply with this sign, you agree to pay £x" then there could be no arguments about punitive damages etc. However the PPC would be seeking specific performance which may not be successful considering some of their tactics.

 

 

Yes. If a service has been offered and provided and a fee for that service was agreed in advance, then to fail to pay can be reported as theft, in exactly the same way as someone who "does a runner" from a restaurant can be reported.

 

I don't think "services" is property under section 4 TA 1968. However you are correct, an offence would have been committed.

 

As for the restaurant scenario - that's a whole debate about when the decision to flee the restaurant was made etc

[stjuninho]

In the Trethowans case the judge asked why the defendant hadn't responded to letters. He seemed satisfied with the answer that it was well established advice on internet forums.

 

My interest in all this is piqued (if that's the right spelling). Any link to this Trethowans case, or is it on an another thread? Very grateful. StJ

[JonCris]

Yes. If a service has been offered and provided and a fee for that service was agreed in advance, then to fail to pay can be reported as theft, in exactly the same way as someone who "does a runner" from a restaurant can be reported.

 

 

Really!so everyone who refuses to pay can be accused of a criminal offence namely theft:jaw: AND what happens if a driver say yes I will pay then gets home & changes his mind would that be fraud as defined by the 2006 Fraud Act? AND don't you think if what you claim were correct that ALL of the PPC's would be using it

[mightymouse_69]

JonCris,

 

I take it that you believe that no offence could have been committed?

[JonCris]

JonCris,

 

I take it that you believe that no offence could have been committed?

 

None whatsoever. Think about it. A breach of contract does NOT amount to a criminal offence & if it did the criminal courts would be swamped with disgruntled contractors

 

As for the restaurant or taxi scenario an offence would occur if you couldn't pay or fled the scene without leaving your details. In the parking situation your details are left namely your reg no.

 

So yes to suggest that by leaving without paying a parking penalty or fee your committing a criminal offence is fanciful to say the least

 

AND wouldn't the PPC's love it if it was

Edited September 2, 2010 by JonCris

[mightymouse_69]

None whatsoever

 

It is a reasonably interesting point.

 

Bernie said:

 

If they had someone at the carpark collecting the advertised fees from the driver at the time of parking they would be fine and if someone drove off without paying having parked they would be entitled to report a theft to the police.

 

So, you go to the car park and see that you have to pay £3 to park. You do not pay. This sounds a lot like making of without payment, under the Theft Act 1978.

 

For such an offence to occur, goods must be supplied or "services done." In Smith and Hogan, Prof. Ormerod says:

 

"A service may be done (or goods supplied) though nothing physically is done by the victim other than proffering the service of which the defendant takes advantage, as where the defendant is permitted to park his car on the victims lot."

 

So, in theory an offence is committed... I doubt the police get many complaints though.

[JonCris]

I disagree not only with you but also the Prof AND until a 'criminal' high court rules otherwise I'm sticking to my opinion

[mightymouse_69]

I disagree not only with you but also the Prof AND until a 'criminal' high court rules otherwise I'm sticking to my opinion

 

Fair enough.

 

Considering Smith and Hogan was rated an "excellent piece of work which elucidates the criminal law for judges..." by The Hon Mr Justice Pitchford, who has been a High Court judge for 10 years, I'd say that it's fairly authoritative.

 

The High Court has made several rulings that concern a failure to pay for a service, further to this - the statute says that failure to pay for a service is an offence.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I disagree not only with you but also the Prof AND until a 'criminal' high court rules otherwise I'm sticking to my opinion

 

No such thing. Criminal cases would be in Mags or Crown Courts!

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Really!so everyone who refuses to pay can be accused of a criminal offence namely theft AND what happens if a driver say yes I will pay then gets home & changes his mind would that be fraud as defined by the 2006 Fraud Act? AND don't you think if what you claim were correct that ALL of the PPC's would be using it

 

No I don't because it does not suit their business model to make a complaint to the police for theft when it is somewhat more lucrative to try and dupe people into paying a purported "parking charge notice".