I had a parking ticket last year from a private parking company called Parking Eye.I ignored it and Ive heard nothing.Private parking companies cannot enforce these tickets as it comes under contract law.I did not agree to any contract and thats the end of the matter.
I had a parking ticket last year from a private parking company called Parking Eye.I ignored it and Ive heard nothing.Private parking companies cannot enforce these tickets as it comes under contract law.I did not agree to any contract and thats the end of the matter.
I had a parking ticket last year from a private parking company called Parking Eye.I ignored it and Ive heard nothing.Private parking companies cannot enforce these tickets as it comes under contract law.I did not agree to any contract and thats the end of the matter.
Well, it isn't. By parking you agree to and enter into a contract. (As long as the car park signage was clear.) In the past that hasn't mattered because the contract was between the car park owner and the driver and they never knew who the driver was. All that changes from 1st October when they can go after the registered keeper.
I believe that in the main the law is changing, first to outlaw clamping (as is the case in Scotland) and second, to give the residents of blocks of flats, etc some redress when they continually find other people have parked in their space. (A particular issue near rail stations.) I do have sympathy with this it must be a real pain. Unfortunately, private parking at shopping centres and the like comes within the same category.
I dont want to enter into a long discussion on this matter suffice to say you do not enter into contract by parking in a private car park with clear signage.Here is a section of the letter I sent to Parking Eye.
You are probably aware Private Parking Companies rely on the law of contract as the basis for claiming and enforcing penalty notices. This differs from notices issued by police or local authorities that are issued pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1991.
The long established remedy for breach of contract is damages and the measure of the same is to put the injured party in the same position had the breach not occurred. Clearly, therefore in this instance there is no loss amounting to £50.00, as the parking is free. It is trite law (Wilson v Love 1896, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v New Garage Motor 1915 et al) that you cannot charge a penalty for breach of contract, i.e. where the sum bears no relation to the potential loss.
I am not the only driver of the vehicle and require proof that it was myself driving at the time of the alleged offence.
Additionally, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999 and related Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083, in particular at section 5 states that unfair terms are:
(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term. (3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract. (4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was. (5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.
There is also the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 that states in section 4 that:
1) A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness. (2) This section applies whether the liability in question – (a) is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred by him vicariously; (b) is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else.
Clearly the charging of £50.00 is wholly unreasonable.
Well, ESP, I agree with what you say regarding the law as it currently stands although you did leave out Vehicle Control Services vs HMRC [2012] UKUT 129(TCC) Appeal Number FTC 51/2011! That decision appears to open a whole new can of worms for parking control companies that are not actually the owners of the land they are controlling.
However, the Government seems to have gone to a lot of trouble setting out in Sch 4 of the POFA2012 in what circumstances reasonable unpaid parking charges can be recovered with effect from 1st October. It remains to be seen of course whether the erstwhile clampers will have the ability to draft compliant charge notices.
Got a penalty notice yesterday in railway car park but had a valid ticket displayed, it just happened to be on the side window and the jerk didn't bother to check. Got two railway staff to corroborate.
Anyway I've decided to set up a business offering services to CP Plus. If they contact me about the penalty notice which I've already disputed with a copy of the ticket my fee is £500 to assist them sorting out the dispute. Naturally a 50% discount for payment within 28 days.
Comments
I believe that in the main the law is changing, first to outlaw clamping (as is the case in Scotland) and second, to give the residents of blocks of flats, etc some redress when they continually find other people have parked in their space. (A particular issue near rail stations.) I do have sympathy with this it must be a real pain. Unfortunately, private parking at shopping centres and the like comes within the same category.
You are probably aware Private Parking Companies rely on the law of contract as the basis for claiming and enforcing penalty notices. This differs from notices issued by police or local authorities that are issued pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1991.
The long established remedy for breach of contract is damages and the measure of the same is to put the injured party in the same position had the breach not occurred. Clearly, therefore in this instance there is no loss amounting to £50.00, as the parking is free. It is trite law (Wilson v Love 1896, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v New Garage Motor 1915 et al) that you cannot charge a penalty for breach of contract, i.e. where the sum bears no relation to the potential loss.
I am not the only driver of the vehicle and require proof that it was myself driving at the time of the alleged offence.
Additionally, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999 and related Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083, in particular at section 5 states that unfair terms are:
(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.
(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.
(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.
(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.
There is also the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 that states in section 4 that:
1) A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
(2) This section applies whether the liability in question –
(a) is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred by him vicariously;
(b) is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else.
Clearly the charging of £50.00 is wholly unreasonable.
However, the Government seems to have gone to a lot of trouble setting out in Sch 4 of the POFA2012 in what circumstances reasonable unpaid parking charges can be recovered with effect from 1st October. It remains to be seen of course whether the erstwhile clampers will have the ability to draft compliant charge notices.
Anyway I've decided to set up a business offering services to CP Plus. If they contact me about the penalty notice which I've already disputed with a copy of the ticket my fee is £500 to assist them sorting out the dispute. Naturally a 50% discount for payment within 28 days.