Excel/VCS lose in Court (+ Tribunal)

[Tony 10]

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.

 

The trouble with that is that there is still no loss through internal management costs unless Excel wish to create one by issuing their claim for monies to which they are not entitled because there is no contractual relationship in the first place.

 

Third party users of a car park cause no direct or consequential damage that can be remediated to Excel. If Excel were paying rent it might be different.

 

They could trying to sue for trespass I suppose, but again, unless there is some damage there's no point.

 

Maybe they should take out an injunction against people who break their rules?

Edited September 17, 2011 by Tony

[dawny1970 10]

well excel are going to be upset again soon, my father in law has a disabled badge, parked in a disabled bay at the hallamshire hospital, they gave him a ticket because they "claim" it was displayed incorrectly, he is 76, visiting his 75 year old wife in hospital and can hardly walk but knows how to display a disabled badge, im sorry but thats disgusting

[JFKvsNixon 11]

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

 

So did I, but I suggested to the bank that a contract must exist within the law. After some friendly correspondence where I both complimented the bank and their service, but I also expressed my disappointment as to how the bank didn't value my custom by taking the opportunity to take as much money off me as possible, they decided to give my the majority of the money back to me.

Edited September 17, 2011 by JFKvsNixon

[Walkley Dave 10]

well excel are going to be upset again soon, my father in law has a disabled badge, parked in a disabled bay at the hallamshire hospital, they gave him a ticket because they "claim" it was displayed incorrectly, he is 76, visiting his 75 year old wife in hospital and can hardly walk but knows how to display a disabled badge, im sorry but thats disgusting

 

They have no right to "charge" him.

 

Tell him to ignore all correspondence - except properly stamped court papers.

 

As far as trespass is concerned - only the owner can sue. A private parking company cannot.

 

BUT they still can't impose a penalty.

 

As far as the banks are concerned they one this in the High Court. Parking companies keep losing in the lower courts and daren't take it higher since they would undoubtedly lose. One firm went to a higher court. They lost.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?295596-OPC-LOSE-AT-APPEAL-Established-contractual-principles-reinforced

[shortcrust 10]

So if the sign had been bigger he would have had to pay the fine plus costs. I think I'll keep paying for my parking....

[KenH 10]

The trouble with that is that there is still no loss through internal management costs unless Excel wish to create one by issuing their claim for monies to which they are not entitled because there is no contractual relationship in the first place.

 

Third party users of a car park cause no direct or consequential damage that can be remediated to Excel. If Excel were paying rent it might be different.

 

They could trying to sue for trespass I suppose, but again, unless there is some damage there's no point.

 

Maybe they should take out an injunction against people who break their rules?

 

My point was addressing the people who think that parking companies can only claim for the very direct costs, such as a stamp. It seems to me that they can claim for other costs, provided they are entitled to claim for anything.

 

The problem is that there are many different sorts of "parking offences" that might happen, and some of them, perhaps most of them, are parking companies taking the mick. If, for example, it is a pay and display car park where a motorist is allowed to park but fails to pay, this is entirely different from a office car park where only staff members are allowed to park. It really isn't possibly to properly compare these two versions, since in one the motorist might obviously be a trespasser, and in another he might be in breach on a contract.

 

The law tends to evolve and change usually due to case law, but driven by business needs. If a company has a car park which is for the use of visitors and those visitors are prevented from using it because someone else decides to use it for free, then the company is due something, and it won't be £2. The courts will see that a need exists for the parking to be enforced in a way which means that the "offenders" stop misusing the car parks. On the other hand, they are likely to be less sympathetic to a company which charges £2 to park but which then charges £100+ if someone forgets to pay. In time it will all become clear and good case law or statute law will exist.

[Eckolad 10]

So if the sign had been bigger he would have had to pay the fine plus costs. I think I'll keep paying for my parking....

 

Not a Fine.

 

Invoice.

[HeadingNorth 11]

So if the sign had been bigger he would have had to pay the fine plus costs.

 

Maybe, or maybe not. The court only rules on the claim brought, which was that the signs were insufficient. They don't rule on what would have happened if the signs had not been insufficient.

[GrapeApe 10]

I've enjoyed this thread and have learned stuff from links posted.

 

What should the company do?

 

Display prominent signs so that they can't be missed; explaining the terms and conditions of the contract.

 

In these terms and conditions, they should explain clearly the charges to park and the penalty charges for failure to pay or comply with some other condition such as parking outside a marked bay.

 

This penalty should be reasonable in that it could be said to represent their losses whcih would include the parking fee (and maybe the fees from other motorists who could have parked there ) plus any costs incurred in issuing the penalty notice etc.

 

Would that do it?

[Tony 10]

Once again, penalties are not legal.

 

On the wider point, the parking company can simply charge for parking if they want to derive an income from the land.

[Lee2 10]

Once again, penalties are not legal.

 

On the wider point, the parking company can simply charge for parking if they want to derive an income from the land.

 

But that would never happen because the companies would lose too much money due to people staying away. I know I would.

[Cyclone 10]

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

 

No, a court can award damages (real ones) for a breach of contract.