Ukcps notice for leaving site

[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.

[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.