Ukcps notice for leaving site

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

UKCPS parking notice charge Yesterday I parked in a retail park in Leeds and left the car park on foot to return later with some friends. When I returned I had a parking notice charge stuck on my windscreen. The reason was 'leaving site'.

I understand this is because parking spaces are in high demand and it's to stop non users of the site..I was given the ticket within 10 minutes of leaving but returned to use the facilities later.

From reading the blogs, it's obvious that I should not pay as it's private land and unenforceable but I am annoyed that the signage was so poor. There were none in the parking bays, only on the entry and exits. When I looked at the sign later it said you were not allowed to leave the site,but it doesn't say how,i.e. on foot, or by car and for how!.Also, the sign reads

WARNING PRIVATE PROPERTY CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT.

IF YOU VISIT ELSEWHERE, BEFORE OR AFTER USING THE FACILITIES YOU ARE CONTRACTUALLY AGREEING TO PAY A FEE OF £100 DISCOUNTED TO £60 IF PAID WITHIN 14 DAYS.

It's a farce! Also, when such a condition is blatently unreasonable, why are the DVLA allowed to sell them my data, which, in itself, is outrageous. This sign is very menacing and uncompromising and some reassurance re my position will be gratefully received.

Many thanks

[Bazooka Boo]

Yes ignore.

 

A complaint to the local authority (council) might be in order, but to be honest, your not under any obligation to pay anything, especially not to the latest highway robbers this government can't get a grip on.

 

Any chance you can go back and take a photograph of the signage?

Obviously don't park there, just get a photo and post it up on here for others to have a laugh at.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Many thanks for your reply.

I have taken pic's of the signs on the entry and exit but there are no signs on or near the parking bays. I have taken a pic of the spot where I parked, i.e. near a lamp post and there is no sign. Is it correct that just by parking on the private land there is a tacit acceptance of a contract?

[Bazooka Boo]

TBH I don't know the answer to that.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Pic of a UKCPS sign.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Beam Me Up Scotty

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Pics of UKCPS sign.

[Bazooka Boo]

Gotta like their basic English grammar.

 

How is a car supposed to pay a speculative invoice?

[afcwben]

Many thanks for your reply.

I have taken pic's of the signs on the entry and exit but there are no signs on or near the parking bays. I have taken a pic of the spot where I parked, i.e. near a lamp post and there is no sign. Is it correct that just by parking on the private land there is a tacit acceptance of a contract?

 

and you could write to them and in the letter state by reading this you owe me £100, that tells you how much of the contract you tacitly accepted

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Excellent point. Thank you.

[Bazooka Boo]

and you could write to them and in the letter state by reading this you owe me £100, that tells you how much of the contract you tacitly accepted

 

Now that is a good idea!!

[Old Snowy]

Is it correct that just by parking on the private land there is a tacit acceptance of a contract?

UKCPS will argue that case law supports the view that if signs are so-say 'prominently displayed' then a presumption may be made that the driver saw them and agreed to the conditions set out on them. They will base this argument on the well-known case of Arthur v Anker which did indeed establish that precedent.

 

What they do not tell you, however, is that case related to wheel-clamping, as opposed to parking, and has no bearing on the law of contract because the court found, in that case, that Mr Arthur's car was lawfully clamped on the basis that he had willingly taken on the risk of that happening when he parked. He had admitted seeing and reading the signs.

 

It is my view that whilst Arthur has some relevance in the parking context there is a significant difference between a sign that sets out a straightforward warning not to park - at the risk of being clamped, and the far more complex signs intended (as in the case of UKCPS and other private parking companies) to be a contractual offer. What is more, the case of Arthur was further refined by a subsequent case - that of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest in which it was found that it was insufficient to show that prominent signs were in place but it must be shown that they had been seen and their content understood.

 

If it is necessary in cases of clamping that signs are not only capable of being seen but must have been understood as well then, in the cases of alleged breaches of contract (where signs are inevitably "wordier" and more complex - a recent example showed that such a sign contained over 700 words) this case is of even greater relevance. Not only do UKCPS not inform you of this case their approach suggests that they are unaware of its relevance.

 

So, in brief, UKCPS will argue that an agreement to a contract may be inferred (a tacit agreement , if you like) by a motorist parking in their car park, case law shows that not only must signs be there but they must be understood as well.

[afcwben]

and all of the above assumes you are not dyslexic or suffer from the inability to read

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

That is brilliant! Thank you. I wonder who and on what grounds is in supposed breach of their Mickey Mouse contract, i.e. if the driver of the vehicle stayed on the site to use the facilities but the registered keeper left?

[Old Snowy]

That is brilliant! Thank you. I wonder who and on what grounds is in supposed breach of their Mickey Mouse contract, i.e. if the driver of the vehicle stayed on the site to use the facilities but the registered keeper left?

The only person who could ever enter into such a contract is the driver at the time. That is always assuming that, as set out in the case of VCS v HMRC 2012, UKCPS have sufficient legal rights in the land to be able to offer a contract to park in the first place. If they don't (the majority of private parking companies do not) then they are whistling in the dark.

[esmerobbo]

"IF YOU VISIT ELSEWHERE, BEFORE OR AFTER USING THE FACILITIES YOU ARE CONTRACTUALLY AGREEING TO PAY A FEE OF £100 DISCOUNTED TO £60 IF PAID WITHIN 14 DAYS".

 

According to that clause you would never be able to go anywhere again without paying them!

Edited August 3, 2012 by esmerobbo

[Michael Browne]

"IF YOU VISIT ELSEWHERE, BEFORE OR AFTER USING THE FACILITIES YOU ARE CONTRACTUALLY AGREEING TO PAY A FEE OF £100 DISCOUNTED TO £60 IF PAID WITHIN 14 DAYS".

 

According to that clause you would never be able to go anywhere again without paying them!

 

 

 

You are missing a bit. This is what the sign actually says (my bold):

 

If you park a vehicle anywhere on this carpark and visit elsewhere outside the carpark, either before or after using the facilities, or without using any facility, you are contractually agreeing to pay the fee of £100.

So even assuming Beam Me Up agreed contractually, there was no breach of contract.

[ashmk]

I always wind the window down and politely tell the sign I do not agree before parking.