I see no problem with the general contract law. I've never read one but I imagine the signboard in the car park sets out terms and conditions. That's the offer. By using the car park you accept the offer. As long as you stay within the terms then no problem. The moment you go outside the terms - by overstaying - then you are in breach and may be liable for a charge. All that seems pretty clear to me. Where it gets nonsense is when they try to charge you a hundred quid or something for an hours parking. That doesn't stack up and there's no way i'd pay it. I'd be interested to know how many such cases get to court - I'll bet it's very, very few.
Private Parking Invoice £100
- Thread starter moneypenny
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
I looked at one of those sign today. It said: Free Parking 1 hour 45 mins.
Then underneath it said : Parking charge £100.
No mention of a contract. Besides a contract is enforceable unless you have given it 'due consideration' - that means a printed copy with all the small print.
It's all nonsense and I'm a little surprised that Chappy has fallen for it.
Then underneath it said : Parking charge £100.
No mention of a contract. Besides a contract is enforceable unless you have given it 'due consideration' - that means a printed copy with all the small print.
It's all nonsense and I'm a little surprised that Chappy has fallen for it.
Sponsored Links
Abu Hambone would have nothing on the publicity I`d stir up Joe, it isn't. Consideration is one of the fundamentals of English contract law. For a contract to be valid there must be a promise of something and some consideration must be given in exchange for it. Normally it's what you pay for something. I offer you a parking spot in consideration for...
You may be right about the contract being dodgy due to not setting out the terms correctly but that has nothing to do with 'consideration' in its legal sense.
You may be right about the contract being dodgy due to not setting out the terms correctly but that has nothing to do with 'consideration' in its legal sense.
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
I know what it means, but give me a case whereby consideration was one sided. I drive in and park, there is no contract as I'm unaware of what that 'consideration' is. You cannot then claim that I entered into a contract because of this.
Technicality???
You mean like no legal right to form a contract?
No legal right to issue penalties?
It is no technicality. Just like it was no technicality i used when getting them fcktards Smart Parking/TCP banned from accessing DVLA data due to their criminal activity.
The technicality in your reply is that it was VCS involved with Wickes, NOT Parking Eye.
Just goes to show we can all make simple mistakes which have no real impact on the big picture.
Which is:
A judge said eighty quid was OK and awarded £45 costs.
That's the problem here. Hey I don't like it either, but that's what the law says. The law is also really wrong because it makes you grass up the driver or pay the penalty yourself.
PS Joe is a numbskull
Which is:
A judge said eighty quid was OK and awarded £45 costs.
That's the problem here. Hey I don't like it either, but that's what the law says. The law is also really wrong because it makes you grass up the driver or pay the penalty yourself.
PS Joe is a numbskull
The Law makes you do nothing of the sort.
We have yet to see any correspondence from any of the Scammers that complies with POFA, therefore they cannot fall back on it.
In the VCS case Hibbotson failed to play the game correctly with VCS and gave them a chance to go to court. Only at the end did he put up a fight, albeit a weak one. As it happens, that's all that was needed.
VCS had no authority to form a contract - just like all the other scammers. It was that lie that prompted the Judge to tell Ms Coates to bring a toothbrush if she tries that trick again.
Sorry, but the law coerces you to grass on the driver under threat of paying the charge if you don't.
That is essentially making you do it. If you don't, you pay instead.
You are going on about these technicalities under the impression that these parking companys are too stupid to fix them. Everything is now in place to allow these companys to start collecting £100 a time, all they need to do is get their act together and tidy up all the loose ends.
Go down to your local supermarket, deliberately overstay, and be the test case to get it all sorted out then. If you aren't prepared to do that then stop telling others to do it for you.
That is essentially making you do it. If you don't, you pay instead.
You are going on about these technicalities under the impression that these parking companys are too stupid to fix them. Everything is now in place to allow these companys to start collecting £100 a time, all they need to do is get their act together and tidy up all the loose ends.
Go down to your local supermarket, deliberately overstay, and be the test case to get it all sorted out then. If you aren't prepared to do that then stop telling others to do it for you.
I suggest you actually try reading up on POFA then.
As for getting tickets, i get them by the bag full - perks of the job.
Dealing with a response to one at the moment. Basing it on Agency Law to see how they trip themselves up on that.
Like i said. It was me who got Smart Parking Ltd suspended from accessing the DVLA database due to their criminal activity.
It is clear you know nothing on the subject so please don't confuse the issue for others.
Sponsored Links
