Those supermarket parking charges.
- Thread starter joe-90
- Start date
I have to disagree. Yes, there are the traffic wardens who take great pleasure in waiting to pounce the minute the motorist's time is up, but I am generally in favour of enforcing parking restrictions, especially when we consider on-road parking controlled by the council.
I believe the majority of on-road parking restrictions are there to facilitate the free flow of traffic, although I'm sure some councils use it as a money-making exercise. However, I regularly see the selfish sods (very often in expensive BMWs and Chelsea tractors) taking liberties at the expense of everyone else and in these cases I'd love to see a keen traffic warden happen to pass by.
Except a circuit judge, and now a high court judge, decided it was reasonable. It was always the case in contract law that damages had to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Thus 'liquidated and ascertained damages'. But the element of 'deterrent' damages has crept in over the years and judges have tended to allow it as long as the charge was not unreasonable. The question here wasn't whether the charge was legal - it was all about whether it was reasonable.
L
longdogs
I quite agree that there are those who really flout the law but the wardens never seem to pick on them. Trying to work in the centre of London I have had too many run-ins to like them I'm afraid. What I could never understand was, if I parked illegally I was 'blocking the highway' but if I paid to block the highway that was ok.
Just one of my pet hates I'm afraid.
If it was a few minutes, then yes it would be unreasonable. But an hour?
In staying that long, he is depriving another shopper from parking there and so potentially depriving the shops of custom.
This is of course a civil debt (contract) and the charge would have to be fair and reasonable. Bear in mind that there are also the overheads of the parking companies to consider.
We all hate parking charges and remember the 'yellow peril' of the old meter wardens, but the way to avoid risking big penalties is to abide by the rules.
Not much different from the fines levied by speed cameras - if you dont want to be fined, don't speed. Simple.
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,280
- Reaction score
- 2,000
- Country
So they can charge £1000? £5000? And who makes the rules? Who pockets the money? What if the car park is all but empty? Where's the loss then?
It has to be reasonable, and of course under contract law £1000 would be regarded as unreasonable.
Presumably the rules are made by the parking companies.
With regard to who pockets the money, what difference does it make? - it's still money out of your pocket.
Whether the car park is full or empty matters not; it's private property and the owners, through their agents, can charge for anyone parking there if they wish.
Look at it the other way, you are getting a concession by parking for free on someone's property.
It's not illegal.
Let's say it costs Tesco's 20p to put a can of beans on the shelf. Say they advertise it at 30p, I can't demand to have it at 21p on the grounds that they wouldn't then be making a loss, can I?
Similar principle in occupying private land with a car beyond an agreed time limit; it prevents the owners from having an alternative use of the land, ie allowing someone else to use it to do their shopping. Hence there could be a loss to the shops in the retail park.
He knew the craic, so tough. If there was a reasonable likelihood that he would have needed / wanted to park for longer, he should have not chanced his arm on a time-limited freebie space.
No they can't charge a grand - because a grand would be unreasonable. The car park owner (the retailer) contracts with a parking company (ParkingEye) to manage the car park on their behalf. The retailer wants free parking because it attracts punters, so Parking Eye cannot charge for parking. The only money they make is from over-stayers. Parking Eye set the charge and keep all the money. There are guidelines which, if I recall, set the reasonable maximum at about £100. In fact the charge is £50 if you pay within 14 days so it could even be argued that this is MORE than reasonable.
God knows why I'm defending these people? I'm not really, I'm just looking at it from the other way because I can't otherwise see how you could stop people abusing the free parking without there being some kind of deterrent. Let's face it, Barry fish shop wasn't shopping - he was obviously elsewhere. His choice. If he didn't want to risk a fifty quid charge he should have put a couple of quid in a meter like everybody else.
The court of appeal decided it was reasonable. Why don't you look at the case notes rather than ask people on here? I personally feel that £85 is ok.
The car park people did and the court of appeal has backed that decision.
If you or anyone else doesn't think it reasonable I suggest you pay for your parking in full in future. For those that can't read the signs get a mate to read them for you.
L
longdogs
Similar threads
