Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1584 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone

today I received a parking notice for £50 for parking in the st peters retail park in Mansfield an am unsure how to handle it.

 

The notice is for parking for an extra 16 mins as their photographic evidence shows the car entering the car park at 15.40.37 and leaving at 16.42.11. I have done some homework and found no wording to suggest that the time their charges apply are from point of entry..but not being from that area I am just using google to look at their signage.

 

Is this even legal ???surely I cannot have been "parked"on entering the carpark or whilst searching for a spot?..then I have to walk to a pay and display and READ the conditions of parking. I did not enter my car reg as this was only required for payment and I was only staying for the 45 min free period.

 

There are many forums on this topic and im totally confused..do I ignore or appeal..I have read that appealing means you have entered into the contract and therefore admit guilt...but i was NOT parked for more than 45 mins

 

Thanks in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG. The forum guys should be along later.

 

We often advise not to ignore letters, but it depends on circumstances; the guys will tell you.

 

My best, HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In ENGLAND AND WALES PE must never be ignored but challenged. Does the signage not say Maximum Stay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

signage says : 45 mins free for all customers. if you want to stay longer parking tariffs then apply.

 

I dont have a problem with paying for parking but there is no way I could have known the time started as I entered...how am I to know the exact time a photo was taken of my car??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to read up about a then PE car park Fistral Beach where a judge threw out a similar case. That's why the BPA has introduced a mandatory 10 minute grace period.

 

In a case where you have to tap in your registration the contract starts (in my opinion) at the point you enter your details at the pay machine.

 

The purpose of the ANPR camera is to record the entry registration and the then exit time only.

 

Appeal to PE and then win at POPLA.

 

Straightforward I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the one Foxy...

 

3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014). Fistral Beach. The defendant spent 31 minutes waiting for a car park space during the crowded holiday season. The ANPR evidence was therefore not relevant as it showed the time in the car park, not the time parked. The judge ruled this was not against the terms and conditions of the signage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In ENGLAND AND WALES PE must never be ignored but challenged. Does the signage not say Maximum Stay?

 

Not true

I have ignored everything parking lie sent me

Had letter before county court claim back end of last year and still waiting

And was the same car park

 

However the advice is not to ignore

 

That carpark has 45 mins free parking for all customers

There invoice states the time you entered and exit times

 

So you were not parked for the full time they state

Also when turning out of that carpark there is traffic lights so you can fairly often get caught up in that with a tail back through the carpark

 

Send parking lie a appeal anything will do but do not state who are driving they will reject the appeal

 

Then appeal to popla


If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone

...does anyone have examples of what to write..should it look all legal and official or like its come straight from me..what works best??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You state that as RK you are not liable for the charge.

 

If you have a receipt from one of the shops , enclose that saying it is the drivers.

 

Go to the store (s) on site and complain vigorously.

 

 

Did you get the NTK within 15 days of the event?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You reply as the keeper (that is how they have addressed you) and say that the vehicle was not parked for the time claimed in the NTK so no breach of the conditions has occurred. Then say I refer to PE v Mrs X (Altrincham CC 17/03/2014)

when they know they have been rumbled you are likley to get a cancellation as a gesture of goodwill rather than an admission it is utter cobblers. I bet the planning permission says that parking is for customers and doesnt have a limit applied. this shortening of the parking period by the parking co is normally in breach of PP so unlawful. check that out if they dont cancel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ParkingEye, nor the landowner, have advertisement consent for their signs at this park and, by virtue of Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations 2007 that is a criminal offence.

 

Neither do they have planning permission in place for their ANPR cameras. The parking enforcement regime is underpinned by criminal conduct.

 

The owner of the site is The British Land Company PLC of York House, 45 Seymour Street, London, W1H 7LX. The person you need to complain to is Charles Maudsley whose email address can be found on the company website

 

Mansfield District Council, as Planning Authority, thought that there was no need for any advertisement consent for their signs or planning permission for the ANPR cameras until I pointed out to them just what the law actually said. Christine James at the Council is the officer who seemed to be quite unaware of the law around the job she is employed to do. I would suggest that you lodge a complaint with the Council over

 

1. It's failure to understand the law it is required to enforce and

2, Its failure to have undertaken any enforcement in relation to these breaches over these last three years or so whilst this crime has been on going

 

Head of Planning email address can be found on their website

 

In fact, if you are a Council Tax payer why not lodge a formal complaint of maladministration and demand compensation of , say ,£85ish

 

Here is an extract from the email from Mrs James

 

From: Christine James

To: "

Cc: Martyn Saxton

Sent: Monday, 25 January 2016, 14:09

Subject: RE: ParkingEye St Peter's Retail Park

 

Dear Mr

 

Thank you for your email below which Mr Saxton has asked me to respond to.

 

 

However, I have looked at the signage and CCTV cameras on the retail park and consider that the signs do not require advertisement consent because under Class A of the Advertisement Regulations an advertisement displayed on enclosed land which is not readily visible from outside the enclosed land does not require express permission from the local planning authority.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

As it happens the signs are clearly visible from outside of the retail park and, under the Regs, in those circumstances, advertisement consent is required. I had to send Mrs James a picture of the site taken from the highway showing the signs clearly visible. The advertisement regs are complicated for the uninitiated, but shouldn't planning officers understand them?

 

Wouldn't you think a Planning Officer would actually go and look at the site before responding with such rubbish?

 

Anyway, Mansfield Council has confirmed that it is writing to ParkignEye to ask it to submit an application for the necessary consents.

 

In the meantime, whilst the Council dallies many more people who pay their wages will be sent bills by ParkingEye when the use of the car park signs it relies on is a crime!!! Double standards or what?

 

The DVLA which provides your data to ParkingEye is aware of the occasions where ParkingEye operates without lawful consents in place and is quite happy to support this conduct.

 

Back in 2012 Mansfield Council passed this resolution but the planners never thought to check whether there was any breach of planning control

 

 

1. This Council condemns the practices of Parking Eye Ltd at St Peter’s Retail Park particularly in their use of CCTV number plate recognition as they discriminate against disable users of the retail park, impose extortionate charges upon shoppers using the park and have failed, through inadequate signage, to properly advise users of the retail park as to the terms and conditions of parking.

 

2. This Council through its Managing Director shall write to Parking Eye Ltd requiring that:

Parking Eye Ltd abandons the number plate recognition system being used to monitor times when shoppers enter and leave the car park and revert to a pay and display ticketing system or adopt a pay on exit scheme

Parking Eye Ltd grants an amnesty to all those who have been sent penalty charge notices demanding the payment of unlawful and unjustified fines since taking over the management of the car park

Parking Eye Ltd refunds the fines they have collected to date since taking over the management of the car park

 

That the company sets up an appeals system run by a third party so that appeals against future alleged breaches of the parking regulations are dealt with fairly.

 

3. That the Managing Director shall write to the owners and managing agents of the retail park informing them that they expect Parking Eye Ltd to meet the Council’s requirements as set out above to make the car park user friendly to encourage, not discourage people to visit the retail park.

 

Proposed by :- Councillor M Lee

Seconded by:- Councillor J Bosnjak

Supported by:- Councillor S Ward

 

 

So, the Council is not happy with the use of ANPR cameras but no one thought to take enforcement action after their employers passed that resolution

 

Incompetence or what?

 

Polyplastic

Edited by Mr.P
Signpost to where email addresses can be found please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sent to day to Mansfield Council - Mrs James - will the Council look after its Council Tax Payers?

 

Good Morning,

 

In our exchanges of correspondence you have not accepted that the use of ANPR cameras at this site requires planning permission. I would be obliged if you could explain why you have reached that conclusion. If you now consider that planning permission is required then no doubt you will be advising ParkingEye.

 

As regards the breach of the advertisement regulations I note that ParkingEye is to be contacted and I await evidence.

 

Another issue that has not been discussed, and I wonder if you have given this consideration, is the covering up of the car park signs pending consideration of any application for consent. Pending consideration of any application the continued presence of the car park signs is an offence. Whilst committing that offence Council Tax Payers will be in receipt of parking charge demands fairly or otherwise. In an area noted for its low wage situation those charges will create difficulties. Perhaps motorists may find it difficult to meet their monthly Council Tax contribution.

 

Please note that the Council should have given a deadline by which a valid application should be submitted. If no valid application is received then you do have power to prosecute without further notice. ParkingEye are well known for failing to deliver a valid application in any time limit provided by a planning authority.

 

All it takes to make out an offence is a photograph of one illegal advertisement on one day. I trust that this evidence has been collected.

 

Should you choose to prosecute the landowner the only defence available is that the advertisement was displayed without the owner’s knowledge, or that it took all reasonable steps to prevent display or secure the removal of the advertisement. As for ParkingEye I can provide you with evidence of other planning authorities that have raised the breach with it such that it clearly has mens rea of the crime.

 

Without advertisement consent you may also wish to consider action for a change of use - s55(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act may apply.

 

If the landowner or ParkingEye choose not to cover their signs then you have a power to do so on two days notice. You may also use s225A of the Town and Country Planning Act.

 

In the alternative you could continue your disregard of the interests of Council Tax Payers and assist in ParkingEye levying rather high parking charges on local motorists.

 

I look forward to receipt of your positive proposals in this regard as soon as possible

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you cant see the signs from the public highway how are you expected to consider the offer of a contract before entering the site?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is the landowner who should be held to account for the criminal activity of PE but nice to see that they are not getting away with it being it is their signage causing the trouble.

PE usually learn from the past but I presume they dont want to risk losing out on all that free money so decided to keep quiet rather than get PP and risk being refused.

PE are now open for a group action if you know anyone who paid up after breaching the non-existent contractual terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it is the landowner who should be held to account for the criminal activity of PE but nice to see that they are not getting away with it being it is their signage causing the trouble.

PE usually learn from the past but I presume they dont want to risk losing out on all that free money so decided to keep quiet rather than get PP and risk being refused.

PE are now open for a group action if you know anyone who paid up after breaching the non-existent contractual terms.

 

Wait until Thursday's events

 

Polyplastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another example of the criminal conduct underpinning parking enforcement where ParkingEye is involved........email from Bury Planners confirming that yet again a breach of Regulation 30 of the Advertisement Regs apply

 

Subject:

RE: Moorgate Retail Park

Date:

Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:02:32 +0000

From: Someone from Bury Council

 

To:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Mr xxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that I have inspected the site and noted the signs in question, I found 26 signs of two different sizes, some on a waist high pole which slightly exceeded 0.3 sq metres and some larger ones on approximately 3 metre poles. I can confirm that the advertisements have not been granted express consent from the Council and that they do not benefit from deemed consent under any Class within the Regulations. As such, their display constitutes an offence under the terms of Section 224 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). I can further confirm that I have written to the advertiser, ParkingEye Ltd, explaining the above and requesting either the submission of an application for advertisement consent, for consideration, or the removal of the advertisements by the 6th January 2016.

Yours sincerely

Planning Enforcement Officer Bury Council, Resources & Regulation

Planning Division

3 Knowsley Place, Duke Street, Bury, BL9 0EJ

: 0161 253 5318 :

 

 

Then there are instances in Skipton; Stoke on Trent; Burton on Trent; Whitehaven; Penrith; Cambridge Beehive Centre; Barrow in Furness; Neath.........serial crime?

 

Polyplastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following overtures to the Landowner a concession has now been agreed. Copy email from the landowner below

 

Dear Mr [ ],

 

Thank you very much for your email below regarding St Peter’s, Mansfield.

 

We are working with Parking Eye to retrospectively cancel parking charges where it is clear that extra time was needed to allow for the congestion in the run up to Christmas. The affected customers will receive refunds on paid parking charges and charges which are still open will be cancelled.

 

We are also in dialogue with both our planning consultants and Parking Eye to ascertain whether we need advertisement consent and planning permission for the signage and cameras. Unfortunately it appears to be rather a grey area. However, I hope to be able to come back to you shortly with a more definitive response.

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Three Cheers for the British Land Company

 

The Landowner has also been asked to agree with ParkingEye to refund all parking charges paid whilst a crime is being committed as part of the enforcement operation. Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regs 2007 make the use of the signs at this site, without advertisement consent, a crime.

 

Let us wait and see what happens

 

Polyplastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to start your own thread really. In the meantime, if you want to challenge the charge, get a photo of the signs and also write to the local planning authority to ask if they have advertisement consent for their sign and planning permission for the cameras. ParkingEye did not have advertisement consent for its signs at the Queens Hospital in Burton on Trent and the East Staffordshire Council threatened a prosecution. That is the same Council for the Uttoxeter area. I assume that this is the Starbucks off Derby Road Uttoxeter?

 

John Thompson is the man to contact at East Staffordshire Borough Council PO Box 8045 Burton on Trent DE14 9JG. 01283 508684

 

You need to get an appeal in to ParkingEye initially (their parking charge notice should say how and when to do that.) They will turn you down so you then need to appeal to POPLA

 

I would include in your appeal that ParkingEye is failing to comply with the BPA COP which requires it to comply with the law. It does not have advertisement consent for its signs or planning permission for its ANPR cameras according to the local Planning Authority Planning Portal. By virtue of Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations 2007 it is a criminal offence to display signs without such consent.

 

NOTE this depends on the size of the signs and whether they can be seen from outside of Starbucks site.

 

In the alternative pay the charge

 

In the alternative pay the charge..... :tsk:

 

 

What about non compliant NTK and no locus standi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the alternative pay the charge..... :tsk:

 

 

What about non compliant NTK and no locus standi?

 

We don't know that without any facts before us. NTK matters are irrelevant if they sue the driver outside of PoFA even if he is the RK

 

Polyplastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't know that without any facts before us. NTK matters are irrelevant if they sue the driver outside of PoFA even if he is the RK

 

Polyplastic

 

Exactly. So don't advise paying the charge until all appeal points are exhausted...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As know ParkingEye's parking management system at the St Peters Retail Park is underpinned by criminal conduct. That is to say a breach of Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England)Regulations 2007. ParkingEye has been invited to apply for advertisement consent by Mansfield District Council

 

If you want to challenge a parking charge, apart from any reasonable defence you may have, you need to recognise just how the small claims courts operate - especially post Beavis. There are signs that Judges are taking a simple view - a PPC manages the site; It has signs on the land so the landowner must have agreed to them being there; the signs say what they need to; Beavis says that a PPC is entitled to issue demands for money set out on the signs (up to a certain figure); the Driver contravened the Ts and Cs so PPC wins. To get past that you need something quite robust. if you don't have the "It's not my car and I was out of the country on the day" defence then other defences need work put into them. If you accept that you were the driver and you stayed for 10 minutes too long that will weigh against you.

 

Going to court and advising a Judge that a crime was committed to create the contract between driver and PPC is fine, if the Judge has a planning background and understands the nuances of Planning Law and the Advertisement Regulations. Not many Judges come from the Town Planning ranks. In a recent case the Judge considered the criminal element and thought that if you get what the planners wrongly call "retrospective advertisement consent" then that consent is backdated to the date the signs were first erected. ParkingEye's rep in court was keen to encourage the Judge along that line. In another court a Judge commented that if ParkingEye had been prosecuted then her decision may have been different.

 

So you need three things

1. Get the Planners to prosecute - tricky because if they think that advertisement consent for the signs would be granted they prefer to invite an application for consent. The Government Guidance indicates that for regular offenders then perhaps a prosecution is the way forward.

2. The Planners not to grant consent and call it a retrospective consent. So, in the case of Starbucks in Uttoxeter I have had it confirmed that there is no advertisement consent nor planning approval for the ANPR cameras (the serial offenders are at it again). The Council must be asked not to issue a "retrospective consent" but a "consent" if they are minded to grant consent. In this way ParkingEye in Court cannot point to a document saying here is a retrospective consent. In the Uttoxeter case the Council there has already had a run in with ParkingEye over the Queens Hospital at Burton so here we have evidence of ParkingEye being a regular offender in that Council's area. Maybe this time they will prosecute? its up to Starbucks users to lobby the Council

3. Evidence from the Local Head of Planning that an advertisement consent can only actually apply from the date the consent is given. This would be by way of a witness statement along the following lines

 

 

 

1. On behalf of the Defendant

2. Witness Statement number 1 of [ name of deponent ]

3. Initials and number of each exhibit referred to:-

[ Initials of deponent ] 1

4. Date of Statement [ ]

 

In the [ ] County Court

 

Case Number [ ]

Between

 

ParkingEye Limited

40 Eaton Avenue Buckshaw Village

Chorley PR7 7NA

Claimant

V

 

[ ]

of

[ ]

[ ]

Defendant

____________________________

Witness Statement of [ ] on behalf of the Defendant

____________________________

 

 

1. My full name is [ ] of [address of Council Office] and I am employed by the [ name of Council ] Council as its [ Job Title ] in the Planning Department. I have been employed by that Council in that Post for [ ] years

2. I am a [ qualifications e.g Associate or Fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute] having obtained that qualification in [year]

 

3. [ ] Council is the Planning Authority for the area in which [name of car park] car park is situated.

 

4. I am familiar with the development known as [ ] at [address] (The Land) and with the signage and ANPR cameras that have been positioned on the site. I can confirm from my own professional knowledge that the car park signage and ANPR cameras at the site have been erected unlawfully as they do not have the benefit of any advertisement consent for the signs nor planning permission for the ANPR cameras. Further, the signs and ANPR cameras do not have the benefit of any deemed consent, or permitted development rights.

 

5. By virtue of Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations 2007 (2007 Regulations)it is a criminal office to have erected the car park signs without firstly having secured advertisement consent for the same.

 

6. It is possible for a retrospective application for such consent to be submitted to the Planning Authority for consent for the signs however the 2007 Regulations has no provisions for any backdated consent to be granted such that even if advertisement consent is subsequently granted the erection and maintenance of the signs on the Land remains a crime prior to that date.

 

7. I understand that the defendant parked [his/her] car on the Land on the [date of parking event]. For the reasons given above, on that date an offence under regulation 30 of the 2007 Regulations was being committed

 

8. On the [ date] a letter was sent by the Planning Authority to ParkingEye Limited advising it that planning permission is required for the retention of the ANPR Cameras and advertisement consent is required for the car parking signs and which invited ParkingEye Limited to make an appropriate application in that respect. A copy of that letter is attached to this witness statement and marked “[deponents initials]1”

 

 

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true

 

 

Signature

 

Name [ ]

 

Address [ ]

 

Date [ ]

 

 

 

The bits in [ ]are the bits that need completing

 

Now, most planning officers will not wish to be giving evidence in what they see as a private matter so you may need to issue a witness summons to order them to court to confirm to the Judge that on the day you parked the crime was being committed even if advertisement consent was subsequently granted. That will cost you £50 plus the officers expenses so you need to weigh in the balance that outlay to try against trying to avoid paying the PPC £100. May be cheaper to pay the PPC

 

Then you need to consider your defence and how the principle that no man should profit from his crime should provide you with a defence.

 

Mansfield District Council has been asked not to issue any advertisement consent for the St Peters Retail park in which they use the word "retrospective". Hopefully they will do as requested.

Edited by Polyplastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At Post 15 above is evidence from Mansfield Council of the crime involved in this parking enforcement operation - You may wish to include the following in your appeal to POPLA - you may need to send with your appeal a copy of the Beavis Judgment the case you need is Cavendish Square Holding BV (Appellant) v Talal

El Makdessi (Respondent) ....ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant)

 

 

The Beavis case at paragraph 96 draws our attention to the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association Limited. In Beavis para 111 the Judge helpfully comments that “while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced.” Paragraph 2.4 of the Code of Practice, (applicable at the time of the parking event in this action), sets out how and in what circumstances a term may be enforced. It reads “All AOS members must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses.” Broadly, the Code of Practice obliges the Claimant to comply with the law in creating and enforcing its contract with a motorist and in communicating the terms of that contract.

 

I have attached a copy of a letter from the local Planning Authority which confirms that at the time the vehicle was parked the car park signs did not have advertisement consent nor planning permission for the ANPR cameras. By virtue of Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations 2007 it is a criminal offence to display the signs without advertisement consent. It is not legally possible to secure any backdated advertisement consent so it will always have been a crime when the car was parked.

 

This is clearly a breach of paragraph 2.4 of the Code of Practice. If there is any liability on the Appellant then, in considering paragraph 2.2 above, it is submitted that a term is not fair if the requirements of the Code of Practice are ignored and a crime has to be committed to create that term and/or the contract between motorist and the parking enforcement company.

 

 

By virtue of Regulation 3 of the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 a commercial practice is unfair if it contravenes two requirements. The first strand being the requirements of professional diligence and the second that a failure of professional diligence materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to a “product”. (For “product” see below). By virtue of Regulation 5 of the 2008 Regulations a breach of Regulation 3 is an offence. The Office of Fair Trading guidance on the 2008 Regulations at paragraph 10.1 indicates that “Regulations 3(1) and 3(3) of the 2008 Regulations set out the general prohibition on unfair business to consumer commercial practices, also known as the general duty not to trade unfairly. This prohibition allows enforcers to take action against unfair commercial practices, including those that do not fall into the more specific prohibitions of misleading and aggressive practices, or into the very specific banned practices. This means it acts as a safety net. It is designed to ‘future-proof’ the protections in the CPRs, by setting standards against which all existing and new practices can be judged”. Paragraph 10.4 of the OFT Guidance indicates that professional diligence should evidence “(a) honest market practice in the trader’s field of activity, or (b) the general principle of good faith in the trader’s field of activity”. The Appellant submits that the first strand of Regulation 3 applies as a result of the criminal conduct involved in parking enforcement. The second strand begs the question “Would a consumer be likely to make a different decision about payment of damages if he were told that a crime had to be committed to bring about the demand for that payment?” It is averred that a car park operator failing to secure, or that its client had secured, the relevant advertisement consent in accordance with the law, before managing the car park, and thus a crime was being committed, was acting in contravention of Regulation 3 of the 2008 Regulations. In doing so the Claimant fell below the standards of a reasonably competent professional, having regard to the standards normally expected in its profession with particular regard to the Code of Practice. Further that by failing to advise the Appellant of the criminal conduct in relation to its parking enforcement, when demanding damages for an alleged breach of contract, it is averred that the Defendant was also acting with a lack of professional diligence.

 

On the 1st October 2014, the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014 came into effect which extended the definition of “product” in the 2008 Regulations and which now includes the settlement, (rather than the demand) after the 1st October 2014, of actual or purported liabilities and which the Claimant is seeking to recover from the Appellant by way of alleged damages. (see Regulation 2(9) of the 2014 Regulations). So, taking a decision to settle damages falls within Regulation 3 of the 2008 Regulations. It is submitted that it is incumbent upon the Claimant to show that it is acting with professional diligence.

 

Regulation 5(3)(b) of the 2008 Regulations indicates that it is a misleading action where there is any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with. The Claimant had, in the Code, undertaken to comply with the law and clearly failed.

 

 

Polyplastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, you cannot enter into a contract when one of the parties is committing a criminal act, even if you wanted to. Therefore there is no contract in place to breach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...