private company parking charges

[jeds]

The point is that in using a car park you can be found to be entering into a contract. My personal view is that if you get a ticket for overstaying an hour or so when you are shopping I think you would be safe to ignore an invoice for a hundred quid. As far as I'm concerned that is tantamount to extortion but either way it's an unfair contract and I'm pretty sure a judge would find it so. Well, actually I don't think it would ever get near a judge because the car park scammers aren't stupid and they know going to court for a small breach would be too risky. But if you are parking in Aldi and trotting off down the road to your office for 5 hours or more and then chucking the invoices in a drawer then all I'm saying is you are running a risk. The parking people will pursue claims to test the water and eventually they'll know what they can get away with. There's no point arguing you're safe because a contract can't be made by using a car park because it can. The problem is that Joe misunderstands the meaning of 'consideration'. He thinks it means that you have to 'consider' the contract for it to be legal. That's not what it means. I tried to explain it some time ago in a similar thread but he couldn't get it.

As a side note; some people previously said they weren't comfortable just ignoring letters and demands. Let's face it a lot of those people pay up just because they can't face the hassle and it's really those people the parking scammers rely on. My advice in that case is to send them a cheque for a reasonable amount for the parking and an amount for the letter they send. Say, ten or fifteen quid or so. If they cash it you're clear. If they don't and you do end up in court the judge is much more likely to be sympathetic. But I agree it's unlikely unless you really take the pi55.

 

[joe-90]

I know what 'consideration' means so tell me where it is in a contract re free parking?

And your personal view is wrong. You (and that thick judge) don't understand the law.

 

[alumni]

It hasn't changed. You still cannot be sued by a parking company. Simple as that.

The bit you are referring to is an official FINE. Only the POLICE or COUNCIL can issue FINES that MUST BE PAID.

It doesn't refer to supermarkets. Now stop being silly and see sense.

Supermarkets can sue for ACTUAL LOSS, which on a free parking ticket is how much?

Seems you need to read up on the Law.
Yes it has changed and yes it does involve the private scumsuckers.

Sensible advice now is to NOT ignore but submit a sensible appeal - not a poor me sob story but one that highlights the scammers failings.

Ignoring can be a big mistake.
Aldi are wrapped in with Parking Eye - who are currently processing 2,000 cases a month through MCOL.

 

[alumni]

You cannot be sued for a breach of contract that you never entered. Get over it.

Depends on the wording - and the Judge.

Tip. Don't ever rely on your theory in the Bournemouth County Court.

 

[alumni]

There has been some Joe, however they are mainly only because they won by default because the victim was not present at court. ISTR thats because they were actually false names given to them.

With the PC being able to seek redress from the keeper, PATAS defines the keeper as the person that keeps the car at the time - NOT the registered keeper.

There are numerous threads on Pepipoo's forums and linking to other blogs etc where people have successfully stuck it to the parking companies and forced them to spend money when they are bound to lose.

The government has set up PATAS to adjudicate on parking cases which should be used before the courts.

The private scammer setup has NOTHIG to do with PATAS.
I suspect you are getting it mixed up with POPLA.
Popla, the independent appeal processing set up by the British Parking Authority Ltd who just happen to be the boys club for the parking scammers.
Oh, and the chief honcho of London Councils, who run Popla, just happens to be a senior board member of BPA Ltd.

Still, nice to see the BPA Ltd losing serious money in this charade.

 

[mattylad]

My mistake - chose the wrong acronym.

However the law has changed - but it still does not make private parking contracts legally binding just because they (PC) say they are, nor does it make the huge amounts asked for legal.

It only makes the RK liable to name the driver.

 

[alumni]

My mistake - chose the wrong acronym.

However the law has changed - but it still does not make private parking contracts legally binding just because they (PC) say they are, nor does it make the huge amounts asked for legal.

It only makes the RK liable to name the driver.

If they have complied with ALL the requirements of POFA - and most don't.