Excel/VCS lose in Court (+ Tribunal)

[rich951 10]

As I understand it, in theory these sort of implied contracts are perfectly valid. The issue most people have is the way it's communicated, the amount charged and the way the companies conduct themselves. And of course there are legal loopholes such as it being perfectly legal to refuse to identify the driver and therefore the person who the contract is with.

 

If the private parking companies were about keeping parking fair rather than raising revenue, and did it with large clear signs etc, they'd probably have won huge numbers of cases.

 

Devil's advocate: judging by experience last night, the standard of responsible parking at Cineworld has dramatically increased since the cowboys were brought in. Good thing or bad?

[carosio 186]

This situation (as I understand it) is different from the usual ones in that there was a pay and display system operating, ie, you agree to buy a ticket in order to use the car park, but the signage was inadequate.

[GrapeApe 10]

This situation (as I understand it) is different from the usual ones in that there was a pay and display system operating, ie, you agree to buy a ticket in order to use the car park, but the signage was inadequate.

 

Yes but what's the difference between this and any other penalty clauses in a contract?

[Cyclone 10]

The fact that it went to court implies that the charges are enforceable. This guy got away with it on a technicality about sign sizes. Nothing to do with the legality of the charge.

 

How was it implied that they were enforceable then?

 

I can take you to court for something entirely bogus, will the fact that I do that imply that it's enforceable?

[Cyclone 10]

the part which enables (or not) the clause which states something of the lines of "by parking here you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions which include additional charges should you do naughty things"

 

However if someone chooses to break the contract (assuming it's been made) then the only remedy a court can impose is to make the guilty party pay damages, and they have to be real, provable, damages. So that would be the £2.50 parking charge that wasn't paid.

[carosio 186]

Yes but what's the difference between this and any other penalty clauses in a contract?

See post 24.

[GrapeApe 10]

See post 24.

 

That's about the amount of the actual ticket, but if the contract states that there is a penalty charged for failure to comply, then that is legitimate as well isn't it? The contracts I work with have penalty clauses like this and I would expect a contractor to pay up if they had entered into the contract and then failed to deliver in some way. Issuing a default notice for example has costs associated with it and it's reasonable to include this in the penalty amount. The penalties cover things like administrative costs.

[GrapeApe 10]

How was it implied that they were enforceable then?

 

I can take you to court for something entirely bogus, will the fact that I do that imply that it's enforceable?

 

A contract is enforceable isn't it. What's the point otherwise?

[JFKvsNixon 11]

That's about the amount of the actual ticket, but if the contract states that there is a penalty charged for failure to comply, then that is legitimate as well isn't it? The contracts I work with have penalty clauses like this and I would expect a contractor to pay up if they had entered into the contract and then failed to deliver in some way. Issuing a default notice for example has costs associated with it and it's reasonable to include this in the penalty amount. The penalties cover things like administrative costs.

 

The penalty clause has to represent the amount lost, it can't be an arbitrary figure made up. The is one of the reasons that it is thought that the parking companies are reluctant to take people to court as they'd have to reveal the associated costs, and price their "invoices" at that level.

[GrapeApe 10]

The penalty clause has to represent the amount lost, it can't be an arbitrary figure made up. The is one of the reasons that it is thought that the parking companies are reluctant to take people to court as they'd have to reveal the associated costs, and price their "invoices" at that level.

 

Thanks. So is this issue basically about the unreasnable level of the penalty charges rather than the principle of a contract being breached?

 

These days surely Excel could argue that it costs them £50 or more to process a notice to a motorist?

[Tony 10]

Penalty charges and / or clauses aren't legal.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Thanks. So is this issue basically about the unreasnable level of the penalty charges rather than the principle of a contract being breached?

 

These days surely Excel could argue that it costs them £50 or more to process a notice to a motorist?

 

It wouldn't be a case of arguing, it would be a case of proving. So what's the cost of an automated letter and a second class stamp, a pound maybe?