Excel/VCS lose in Court (+ Tribunal)

[Walkley Dave 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"

 

This is I am sorry to say, nonsense. Suppose they put on their notices and terms and conditions that failure to abide by them would result in you losing your vehicle?

 

They are entitled to charge for parking. If you fail to pay that charge they can take you to court to reclaim that charge ONLY. However since parking charges are (let's say) around £3.00 it is not worth their while to do so because they cannot reclaim their costs in the small claims court. That is why they only rarely take people to court.

 

What they are NOT entitled to do is raise a penalty - whatever their terms and conditions say - because private companies are not entitled to penalise people. That's it. And if the car park offered free parking and you go over time then they are entitled to that - i.e. nothing.

 

As for taking people to court - yes they have done it on a number of occasions BUT as far as I and anyone else knows they have never won a properly defended case. They have lost plenty. Try googling Excel Parking and Mansfield. The judge in that case said their "fines" - more properly invoices - are unenforceable. This applies to lots of other Private Parking companies.

 

They in fact send out hundreds if not thousands of notices. Unfortunately it seems around 60% of recipients pay.

 

Ignore them. Mostly they go away.

[KenH 10]

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?

 

It is perfectly reasonable that a company claw back all the costs of stopping people misusing their car park. This means that they have to put up signs (big signs now) and also have people patrol those car parks. The parking company they employ has to employ back office staff such as clerks and legal experts. It is perfectly reasonable that the person suffering the loss claims back a share of these costs, since he has to spend this money in order to protect his assets from misuse.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

It is perfectly reasonable that a company claw back all the costs of stopping people misusing their car park. This means that they have to put up signs (big signs now) and also have people patrol those car parks. The parking company they employ has to employ back office staff such as clerks and legal experts. It is perfectly reasonable that the person suffering the loss claims back a share of these costs, since he has to spend this money in order to protect his assets from misuse.

 

If these costs are reasonable charges associated with breaking a contract, then why haven't the parking companies claimed them back through the courts?

[Walkley Dave 10]

It is perfectly reasonable that a company claw back all the costs of stopping people misusing their car park. This means that they have to put up signs (big signs now) and also have people patrol those car parks. The parking company they employ has to employ back office staff such as clerks and legal experts. It is perfectly reasonable that the person suffering the loss claims back a share of these costs, since he has to spend this money in order to protect his assets from misuse.

 

It may indeed be reasonable. That isn't the point. The point is that there is no provision in law. They have a business model that relies on people paying unenforceable invoices which they call parking charge notices and if people stop paying them their business model collapses.

 

According the the newspaper item they issued nearly 12,000 unenforceable invoices at that car park in Stockport. (Incidentally that doesn't mean they all paid!!)

 

They took one person to court and lost.

[PARROT91 10]

I agree dont pay it. But the question is, if they realise no one is going to pay these notices via letter, will they start clamping every vehicle and force you to pay?

[Tony 10]

Private clamping will soon be as illegal as penalties.

[GrapeApe 10]

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?

 

My bank charges £25

[GrapeApe 10]

This is I am sorry to say, nonsense. Suppose they put on their notices and terms and conditions that failure to abide by them would result in you losing your vehicle?

 

 

That would be unreasonable whereas a clause that requried an admin fee would be reasonable. My credit card charges me £12 if I miss a pyment as well as the interest. Should I refuse unless they can prove it cost them £12?

[Tony Erikson 10]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Why not just boycott any retail outlet that employsa PPC? Surely you wouldn't all want to be lining the pockets of the people who employ the cowboys would you. Anyone would think people had no morales today.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

That would be unreasonable whereas a clause that requried an admin fee would be reasonable. My credit card charges me £12 if I miss a pyment as well as the interest. Should I refuse unless they can prove it cost them £12?

 

I claimed my bank charges back for the very same reason.

[KenH 10]

It may indeed be reasonable. That isn't the point. The point is that there is no provision in law. .

 

Yes there is.

 

There is a contract, or there is trespass, it has to be one or the other as they should have a good reason for using someone else's car park.

 

The person who suffers a loss because they have to provide staff etc to stop the car park being used improperly can rely on :-

 

Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd, para 86.

 

This is a bit murkier when it is a pay and display, but in such cases they should still be able to claim a lot more than the normal ticket price and a few stamps.

[GrapeApe 10]

I claimed my bank charges back for the very same reason.

 

But I signed a contract with them that allows them to charge me.