|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Car parking charge: a moral question
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
My apologies if this is more appropriate for AS.
On 4 November, I overstayed my welcome at a retail development car park. The notices say that parking is free for 2 hours, but I was there for 2 hours and 40 minutes.
There was a "good" reason for my overstay, the details of which I will not give for reason of brevity. Except to say that I was using the retail opportunities on offer and had not (eg) left the car in the car park to commute to work or to take a train or bus into the city.
My misdemeanor was caught on camera, and I have now been sent a Parking Charge Notice for £60 by the private parking company which controls the car park.
The basis of the alleged charge appears to be contract law (ie by parking, I accepted the contract terms exhibited, although not clearly, that I would pay £60 if I stayed beyond the period of free parking granted.
There is plenty of internet advice to the effect that such charges are not legally enforceable and that the notice (which is sent to the registered keeper, who may or may not have been the driver) should be ignored. The chance of civil action for recovery being taken is said to be negligible.
I am not so concerned with the legal position as with the moral position. I admit breaking the rules and am prepared to pay a reasonable amount as "compensation" for the use of the space for 40 minutes. The notice I have received is very careful not to describe the charge as a "penalty" but as a "charge". As such, it should (morally) be a reasonable charge and not an extortionate one, which £60 is.
I am thinking of writing to the private parking company with a cheque for £3 "in full and final settlement" on the basis that this is what 40 minutes use of a car park space might reasonably be.
Has anyone any views on what, morally, I should do?
[ 02. April 2014, 19:20: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
If the extra 40 minutes was due to my shopping taking longer than expected because of inadequate staffing and/or crowds of other people trying to shop in the supermarket, I would not feel morally obliged to pay anything at all and would send the company a letter saying so.
YMMV.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
You should send a cheque for £60 and chalk it up to experience.
The notice stated clearly that cars parked for longer than 2 hours would incur a charge of £60 - not a fine or penalty, a charge.
You parked for over 2 hours - why is not relevant unless it was some medical emergency that can be substantiated by witnesses. If you can't prove a genuine emergency then you have to pay.
Yes, it sounds harsh but even a "parking company" has to cover costs - and believe it or not the costs of prodiding safe, secure car-parking are fairly high.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Jane R quote:
If the extra 40 minutes was due to my shopping taking longer than expected because of inadequate staffing and/or crowds of other people trying to shop in the supermarket, I would not feel morally obliged to pay anything at all and would send the company a letter saying so.
And you'd be legally and morally wrong to do so.
It has already been stated that the car parking facility is operated independently of the shopping. If you're reason for over-staying is because of provable delay due to either staff ineptitude or lack of staff at one of the stores then you should write to the STORE with a copy of your letter and cheque to the parking company and ask for redress from the people who caused you to incur the charge.
No one likes paying for parking and there are instances where I think to charge for it is wrong - hospitals, for example.
But in this instance the parking is a privately owned facility that needs to be maintained.
You'll probably find that all the stores in the shopping centre pay the parking company an amount per year based on a maximum car stay of 2 hours. No one store will pay based on a longer period because they will only base their payment on time spent in their own store, not another, thus the free parking period is 2 hours.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I've been done twice by council (not private) parking meters in the last year. I suppose I had extenuating circumstances in both cases. But, I was in the wrong and so paid up (and did it promptly as that meant I only had to pay £30 rather than the full £60).
On one occasion I was in the university where several council parking areas have free parking for university permit holders, with the permit shown, but found that where I was parked wasn't one of the areas where the permit gave me free parking.
The other I was at an appointment for a medical assessment for my son, parked outside the centre where there was maximum one hour parking. I'd paid for the hour, 1 hr 15min later, still in the assessement, I suddenly noticed the time, dashed outside to feed the meter (and hope they weren't being too carefully re: the "no return within 1 hour" part of the notice) to find I was already ticketted.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Well, yes, but Francophile was asking a moral question, not a legal one. And responding with what I would have done in the same situation (=abandon the shopping trolley, go back to the car before the 2-hour deadline and shop somewhere else) is probably not helpful.
Legally, I agree - he will probably have to pay eventually. IANAL but I would have thought that paying anything is an acknowledgement that they are entitled to charge for the use of their car park and weakens his case for being let off the charge.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
The basis of the alleged charge appears to be contract law (ie by parking, I accepted the contract terms exhibited, although not clearly, that I would pay £60
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The notice stated clearly that cars parked for longer than 2 hours would incur a charge of £60
Morally, if you knew that overstaying would result in a £60 'charge' then, maybe you should pay it. In contract law,however, if the 'charge' is "a payment of money stipulated as in terrorem of the offending party", (i.e. a payment of a sum of money intended to frighten or intimidate the offending party rather than a genuine attempt to compensate the innocent party for their actual loss). (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v New Garage &Motor Co. Ltd. [1915] A.C. 79 at 86) then it is unenforceable in contract law.
Equally, if the contract was made by your implied acceptance of conditions displayed in the car park, then that fact and the relevant terms and conditions should have been clearly displayed - which your OP suggests was not the case, "the contract terms exhibited, although not clearly".
That's my tuppence worth though I should say IAN(any longer)AL, and you might want to take advice.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
L'organist: quote:
But in this instance the parking is a privately owned facility that needs to be maintained.
I'd missed the fact that it was separate from the shop. In that case I see your point. The only car parks where I live that have this '2 hours free then £60' system are two supermarkets near the city centre, and I can see why they do it; if they didn't their car parks would be full of tourists' cars and their own customers would never get a look in.
As I said earlier, in the same situation I would go and move the car (even if I hadn't finished my shopping) and if I overstayed my welcome at a council car park and got a ticket I'd pay up. I was in a similar situation to Alan once - went to the dentist, dentist was running late and took longer than expected, got back to the car about ten minutes after the ticket expired. I was lucky; the inspectors hadn't visited the car park between the expiry of the ticket and my arrival back at the car. But if they had, I'd have paid the fine without complaining.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In this case, the legal is the moral.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
If I have understood BroJames correctly, that would mean Francophile should not have to pay unless his car was parked right next to one of the notices explaining the terms of the contract, which should be fairly easy to establish.
Whereas (now that I understand the situation correctly) I agree with L'organist, that morally he should pay the charge.
So the moral and legal positions are NOT identical.
[ 09. December 2013, 11:05: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Our local hospital charges for parking (whether they should or not is an issue I won't go into here). But they do have posters in every department saying that "appointments sometimes take longer than expected, don't worry about your car park ticket". There is a helpline number to ring if you get a ticket.
I don't know how well the system works, I presume it wouldn't apply for someone who spends all day sitting by a bed visiting their nearest and dearest but only pays for a short stay. On the other hand my wife had an Arthritis Clinic appointment which went on to involve physiotherapy and a long wait for a blood test. However we weren't ticketed so didn't need to test the system.
Re. the OP, I think the signage was perfectly clear and that he should pay up; the morality is clear. Being stung for five minutes of overtime would be "excessive" as there should be some wiggle-room, but knowingly staying for 40 minutes is pushing it. Furthermore, one aspect of enforcing a maximum stay (and this applies even in "free" car parks) is to ensure spaces for people who come in later ... and to make sure that the retailers' tills keep ringing with new customers!
After all, you wouldn't criticise a Railway Company for fining you if the Ticket Collector found you getting off several stops further than your ticket's validity.
[ 09. December 2013, 11:15: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Our local hospital charges for parking too, but as they are within walking distance of the city centre they more or less HAVE to charge slightly more than the council car parks to avoid being swamped by tourists' cars (see above).
They do let you off the parking charge on the day your baby is born; you get a special pass from the Maternity checkin desk when you arrive. Unfortunately my husband did not discover this until after he'd paid £9 for a whole day's parking (he's still annoyed about it).
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
If I have understood BroJames correctly, that would mean Francophile should not have to pay unless his car was parked right next to one of the notices explaining the terms of the contract, which should be fairly easy to establish.
I wouldn't go as far as that, but there should be large print notices saying something like "Free Parking for 2 hours. £60 charge for longer than 2 hours. See notices for detailed terms and conditions." Then the detailed terms should be posted in easily accessible places for people to check if they wish. (Although even the fact that notices were badly sited or in small print might not help Francophile if he had parked right next to one of them.)
Even then, in contract law, if the £60 charge is really meant to frighten people into not parking for longer, rather than a genuine recompense of the loss to the person running the parking area then it is not enforceable in law.
If the actual terms and conditions are not clearly posted, so that you might easily park without seeing them, then it is doubtful whether the implication that you have entered into a contract can be sustained.
[ 09. December 2013, 11:26: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Baptist Trainfan: quote:
After all, you wouldn't criticise a Railway Company for fining you if the Ticket Collector found you getting off several stops further than your ticket's validity.
I would if the information at the station said the train was going to stop at my station and nobody told me it wasn't until after the train started and it was too late to get off. This did happen to me once, but the guard was very nice about it and didn't make me buy another ticket. It helped my case that the train I was on usually did stop at that station and the intercom in my carriage was broken...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
We're having a bit of a chat as to whether this belongs in AS rather than Purg. We can see there are some interesting more general issues of legality and morality, but if the thread settles down to specific personal advice re a Shipmate's RL puzzle, then It will probably be moved.
B62, Purg Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Re. the OP, I think the signage was perfectly clear and that he should pay up; the morality is clear. Being stung for five minutes of overtime would be "excessive" as there should be some wiggle-room, but knowingly staying for 40 minutes is pushing it.
It depends. "Free Parking for 2 hours" might well imply "reasonable charges apply after that". If the £60 is a reasonable charge, all well and good.
Rail tickets (in the UK, at least) are a different story and penalties where chargeable are authorised by specific statute law rather than by the general law of contract.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
but there should be large print notices saying something like "Free Parking for 2 hours. £60 charge for longer than 2 hours. See notices for detailed terms and conditions." Then the detailed terms should be posted in easily accessible places for people to check if they wish.
I don't know what the car park is, but I would expect that the notice would be more likely to read "Free parking for 2 hours. Parking longer than 2 hours is charged at £x/hour, pay at ..... £60 charge for parking beyond 2h without paying". With the corresponding rate replacing x and details of where to pay (eg: there may be a single "pay and display" machine, or payment could be made at a shop or by phone). As I recall, that sort of wording is on the "2h free" notices at motorway service stations (though, usually I stop there for a coffee and fresh air to perk myself up and reading parking notices is liable to have the opposite effect!).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Our local hospital charges for parking too, but as they are within walking distance of the city centre they more or less HAVE to charge slightly more than the council car parks to avoid being swamped by tourists' cars
Our local hospital does not, at present, charge for parking. However, it's just across the road from a station with limited car parking space and the hospital carpark is often full of cars belonging to people commuting into Glasgow (either for work, or the shops). Which means finding a parking spot to visit the hospital is often difficult. They have started putting notices on cars parked there all day to say "please don't park here, this car park is needed for visitors to the hospital" (I don't know the exact words). The Scottish government abolished carparking charges at hospitals in 2008, so the hospital is limited in what it can do to deter people from parking there to the detriment of hospital visitors.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Our local hospital charges for parking too, but as they are within walking distance of the city centre they more or less HAVE to charge slightly more than the council car parks to avoid being swamped by tourists' cars
Our local hospital does not, at present, charge for parking. However, it's just across the road from a station with limited car parking space and the hospital carpark is often full of cars belonging to people commuting into Glasgow (either for work, or the shops). Which means finding a parking spot to visit the hospital is often difficult. They have started putting notices on cars parked there all day to say "please don't park here, this car park is needed for visitors to the hospital" (I don't know the exact words). The Scottish government abolished carparking charges at hospitals in 2008, so the hospital is limited in what it can do to deter people from parking there to the detriment of hospital visitors.
whatever the legal issues, if any, in this example, there is a clear moral imperative NOT to use a hospital car park otherwise than for attending an appointment or visitng an inpatient or (perhaps) if working at the hospital (although usually there is a separate "staff only" car park controlled by permit displayed on the vehicle).
I am thinking about the replies to the situation in my OP, from the moral perspective (I am satisfied that, legally, the charge is unlawful and would not be ratified in a civil court, the only forum open to the private parking company to enforce; for the benefit of others, I will provide a link to excellent advice on this, once I have found it).
Thanks to all correspondents on this thread.
[ 09. December 2013, 14:28: Message edited by: Francophile ]
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Scottish government abolished carparking charges at hospitals in 2008, so the hospital is limited in what it can do to deter people from parking there to the detriment of hospital visitors.
Post notices restricting parking to bona fide hospital users only. Then employ parking enforcers to show up 10 minutes before the first commuter train gets in and video people leaving the station and removing their cars from the hospital car park.
Then prosecute the selfish [deleted] until they squeal.
Or do it the other way around - wait for people to park and get on the train, then tow their cars. I like this way better - it means that the selfish and lazy also have to deal with being reunited with their cars on a cold, dark evening when they want to go home.
I don't usually have much sympathy for the car park gestapo, but people who block access to hospitals in order to save a few quid on their commute push my sympathies in the other direction.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Actually this has got me thinking about broader issues of fairness and reminded me of a discussion on a list for collectors of children's books that I used to contribute to. We were debating the question of whether it was ethical, if you came across a very rare book being offered for sale at a knockdown price, to pay the asking price and freeze onto the book without drawing the seller's attention to how valuable the book really was.
Most people were uncomfortable with the idea of doing this kind of thing to a charity. A few took the view that it's the bookseller's funeral if s/he doesn't know enough to price stock accurately. Hardly anyone was willing to argue that the buyer *always* has a moral duty to point out that the book is underpriced (possibly by several hundred pounds).
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
We were debating the question of whether it was ethical, if you came across a very rare book being offered for sale at a knockdown price, to pay the asking price and freeze onto the book without drawing the seller's attention to how valuable the book really was.
I think for me it would depend on the bookseller. If it was a small, independent bookseller I might well 'fess up. But if it was an Oxfam bookshop, which is driving a lot of independent booksellers out of business, I'd be much more inclined to keep schtum.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As I recall, that sort of wording is on the "2h free" notices at motorway service stations (though, usually I stop there for a coffee and fresh air to perk myself up and reading parking notices is liable to have the opposite effect!).
The mere act of driving into a Service Area car park - let alone entering the building - gives me instant depression. But needs must (and they know it).
[code]
[ 09. December 2013, 16:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Scottish government abolished carparking charges at hospitals in 2008, so the hospital is limited in what it can do to deter people from parking there to the detriment of hospital visitors.
Post notices restricting parking to bona fide hospital users only. Then employ parking enforcers to show up 10 minutes before the first commuter train gets in and video people leaving the station and removing their cars from the hospital car park.
There is a town near us which does not charge for using its Council-run car parks. However you have to take and display a timed ticket and it's quite clear that Excess Charges will apply if you overstay (just as if it was a paying car park). Problem sorted!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Baptist Trainfan: quote:
...[train ticket analogy]
I would if the information at the station said the train was going to stop at my station and nobody told me it wasn't until after the train started and it was too late to get off. This did happen to me once, but the guard was very nice about it and didn't make me buy another ticket. It helped my case that the train I was on usually did stop at that station and the intercom in my carriage was broken...
That happened to some friends of mine. Though in their case I gather it took them discussing the lesser fine for pulling the cord, before they were allowed to stay on the train at the other end.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Re the train incident, I was very lucky to be dealing with a reasonable guard. Although I think it was actually the look of horror on my face when he told me the train didn't stop at my station that convinced him I hadn't done it on purpose.
It was a few years ago, too. Not sure how much discretion they're allowed now, over whether or not to impose extra charges.
On the book question, I was one of the few people who thought I ought to tell the bookseller every time. Not sure whether I'd actually live up to this standard in real life if I was ever in the position of having a £500-pound book priced at 50p in my hands... but I think if I didn't I'd feel guilty every time I looked at it.
I am obviously not a serious collector...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Our local hospital has pay-on-exit car parks - card taken on entry has to be put into the machine when you're ready to leave and the charge is calculated. First three hours are charged at £1.60 per hour, subsequent hours at £1.20 - in theory the machines can issue receipts but I've never once found this facility to be working.
It was wonderful coming out having been told the other half had advanced cancer - having already had to wait hours because the outpatient organisation would make even Baby Jesus scream - to be met with a demand from the parking machine for an un-receipted (so unrefundable) £7.20.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
greenhouse
Shipmate
# 4027
|
Posted
Irrespective of the moral issue, you can almost certainly avoid paying the penalty charge.
See pepipoo.com for advice.
Posts: 94 | From: North West | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Important reminder
Comments posted on the Ship of Fools do not constitute legal advice. This includes whether someone considers that you can avoid paying a penalty charge. It also includes recommendations for other discussion forums where the opinions of others may be posted. We do not know if those comments are correct either. Just because someone says something doesn't make it so.
If you want legal advice, consult a suitably qualified lawyer.
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
[ 09. December 2013, 18:54: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Francophile: quote:
I am satisfied that, legally, the charge is unlawful and would not be ratified in a civil court, the only forum open to the private parking company to enforce...
Hum. With all due caution (I am not a lawyer, etc etc), if this is really true, would it change the moral position? Businesses have been known to take advantage of their customers before. If the law will not support the imposition of the charge, is it morally right to encourage companies to do this sort of thing by paying up without protest? I'm thinking of Francophile's original case here, not the commuters parking in the hospital car park.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Morally, you should pay the fine and chalk it up to "lessons learned."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Morally, you should pay the fine and chalk it up to "lessons learned."
Mousethief, I'm not so sure. For one thing it's not a fine.
In the UK there is a clear division. Local authorities have the right to issue fines. Private companies clearly do not. The law is very clear on this point. What they can do is act within contract law to issues charges.
The area of law is interesting as you enter in to the contract by entering the premises. This can only be legally enforcible if the terms are clear - hence recently tightening of the rules about signage. And as this is contract law, any charges they issue must be both reasonable and reflect their actual losses.
Here's an interesting one. I recently moved hospital. The place I now work has a shocking parking situation whereby there aren't enough spaces for the staff at all. As a consequence I get the train to work. When I work a Sunday (8am Sunday to 8am Monday) I can't get the train as there isn't one early enough. A few weeks ago, 3 weeks after moving to said hospital my parking permit (which I am entitled to) had not yet come through - the trust's fault, not mine. The staff car park is barrier controlled, so without the permit it's not actually possible to enter the car park. On this particular Sunday I wasn't especially busy during the day so had been out of the hospital. I came back in at 8ish (pm). I thus had to park in the pay-and-display section. As charges don't apply after 6pm on a Sunday there was no mechanism by which I could pay until 6am when charges started. I sleep on site when I'm working.
at 5:30am I had to see a patient. and then after that I had to see another before doing the ward-round (we have a big round on a Monday morning) and returning to my car around 10am to drive home.
I had a ticket on my car for £60. Because I haven't paid it (or for that matter acknowledged it) They recently added on a £40 administration charge.
Now I know a little about the law here, and the £40 charge would never stick - that's clearly trying to impose a penalty - which they are not allowed to do.
These kind of tickets are 'speculative invoices' as such you are well with in your rights to send a different amount to them as remittance and see if they accept it.
Now, if they do take me to the small-claims court then I will probably have to pay as I was in breach of the parking regulations. But I feel no moral responsibility to do so as it's not my fault I am this position.
Moreover I know that they function by trying to intimidate people in to paying and that I don't think is right either.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Has anyone any views on what, morally, I should do?
This is purely my opinion, but if you had a "good" reason, have you tried speaking with the place of business that you were patronizing? If they have a good relationship with the parking company, they may be of some assistance.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I dealt with this once, and it sticks in my memory well because we were at Handel's Messiah at about this time of year. We bought hourly parking tags that you display on the dash of the car, for the amount of time until parking is stated to be no longer enforced, i.e. post 9 pm. If the sign had said until 10 pm I would have paid for another hour. The parking company asked for $60 because I hadn't paid for the after 9 pm hour. The hourly was something like $5 (don't exactly recall). I wrote a letter enclosing photocopies of the 2 one hour tags we bought, and quoted the sign at the lot to them. Never heard from them again.
Your moral question?
My first take is that it isn't a moral question beyond paying the hourly fee and the reasonable admin costs the company may have borne due to sending you a notice, so I would offer them twice the hourly fee and that you don't expect to hear from them again. They are in business and money-making knows no morality at all in most modern situations.
I do wonder about disclosing private information to them? Who told them who you were? The car license number would be known, but your identity? Privacy rights may not exist in some places quite the same way I suppose.
A few cases like this have been in newspapers in Canada, which has changed some of the practices, including that some unattended car parking facilities require a bank or credit card to be inserted at entry and leaving, which seems to fix the problem because then you pay exactly for the time you use. -- Maybe the fix for the moral problem is for the company to get some modern up to date equipment??
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
In the UK, the private parking companies can get access to the name and address of the registered keeper from the DVLA, a government agency which licenses vehicles. They have to pay a fee for the information, which helps towards the costs of running the agency. Frankly, I think it is an outrage that government held info can be handed out to such private outfits for them to extort money from the public. Most people pay the charges (which are, in effect, penalty charges and legally unenforceable) out of fear or because don't distinguish them from lawful penalty notices issued by local council parking enforcement officers.
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
In the UK, the private parking companies can get access to the name and address of the registered keeper from the DVLA, a government agency which licenses vehicles. They have to pay a fee for the information, which helps towards the costs of running the agency. Frankly, I think it is an outrage that government held info can be handed out to such private outfits for them to extort money from the public. Most people pay the charges (which are, in effect, penalty charges and legally unenforceable) out of fear or because don't distinguish them from lawful penalty notices issued by local council parking enforcement officers.
That's cool. How do one apply for the info? It could be used to note the licences of unpopular politicians and then stake out their houses. Or bankers. No morality problem there.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
Three words:
Detachable Number Plates.
I've only been in a few private car parks where the terms of the contract offered have specified that the car must remain identifiable using a number plate of some kind. Even in those cases, there's been nothing to say that they must be the same as the registration used on the public road system.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I wouldn't pay it. Charging you that amount of money for parking in one place for too long is simply absurd. Does anybody who realizes it's a charge that can't be legally collected actually pay the money?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Here in Seattle if you don't pay for parking and get ticketed in some private lots, if you don't pay and park in the same lot again, you can get towed and your car impounded. I don't know if that's legal where you live, but if you don't pay you may want to not park there again.
[ 10. December 2013, 03:23: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Charging you that amount of money for parking in one place for too long is simply absurd.
Seconded. 60 pounds is ridiculous and completely out of proportion to the 'wrong' committed.
[ 10. December 2013, 06:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
Re hospitals - those of you who are clergy should try wearing your dog collar. The number of times my dad has been told 'No charge for you, of course, Vicar' when he's been visiting patients (even in non-official capacity) is amazing! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
In the UK, the private parking companies can get access to the name and address of the registered keeper from the DVLA, a government agency which licenses vehicles. They have to pay a fee for the information, which helps towards the costs of running the agency. Frankly, I think it is an outrage that government held info can be handed out to such private outfits for them to extort money from the public. Most people pay the charges (which are, in effect, penalty charges and legally unenforceable) out of fear or because don't distinguish them from lawful penalty notices issued by local council parking enforcement officers.
That's cool. How do one apply for the info? It could be used to note the licences of unpopular politicians and then stake out their houses. Or bankers. No morality problem there.
Information here. There are only limited purposes for which you may apply for the information. And quote:
It is a criminal offence under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to unlawfully procure or sell personal information. The maximum penalty is
a fine not exceeding £5000.
Also the DVLA may then refuse any further requests from you.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I must confess to being astonished at the number of people here who cavalierly advise non-payment - some even claiming morality for the proposed non-payment.
Francophile stated that the charge over the free 2 hours was exhibited. The clarity or otherwise of the notice is not relevant: the charge/fee was advertised, the period of free parking was advertised, they overstayed and thus incurred the charge.
Whether or not you feel £60 to be exorbitant for parking for 2 hours 40 minutes is not the issue: the issue is whether or not Francophile should pay.
And the answer to that is YES.
Legally AND morally the charge was incurred and so must be paid.
In any case, is £60 so much? When visiting an aged parent in central London 12+ years ago it cost £1 for 7 minutes to park within tottering distance of the front door, so taking small grandchildren there for a visit was fairly pricey; if the visit included lunch (had to be in a restaurant) plus a play on the swings to 'de-bounce' before returning home it took about three-and-a-half hours, so we stumped up £25 per visit PLUS the congestion charge.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Francophile: Frankly, I think it is an outrage that government held info can be handed out to such private outfits for them to extort money from the public.
I find this very strange too.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
L'organist: quote:
Legally AND morally the charge was incurred and so must be paid.
Well, that seems to be the question, doesn't it.
Francophile's car was parked for 40 minutes longer than the 'free' 2 hours. No arguments there. However, he was a bona fide customer engaged in shopping at the shops the car park is provided for, not someone abandoning his car to go and do something else like the pond slime who park in hospital car parks to save money on their commute to Glasgow.
The legal position (bearing in mind that IANAL) seems to be that although the company is entitled to charge people for use of their car park they are not entitled to impose fines for non-compliance with the rules in the same way as the council does in council-run car parks. Also, the charge must be reasonable and compensate the company for the actual loss incurred, not Hurt Feelings or The Affront To Natural Justice or whatever. I don't know where you live, but where I am £60 is roughly four times what you would pay to park your car somewhere for the whole day.
And I am having doubts about the morality of just paying the bill without protest because, if imposing these charges is not legal (or at least, will not be enforced by the courts), by paying up I am encouraging the company to extort money from anyone else who looks at the official letterhead and scary-sounding language and assumes that it is a fine. Which it would be, if you parked illegally on the street or in a council-run car park.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Where I live you can park your car for the whole damn week.
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
Jane R, your final paragraph sums up the moral dilemma brilliantly.
The legal position is straightforward. I am not giving legal advice but there are several reasons why these "charges" are not enforceable in the civil courts. In Scotland (where I am) the pursuer (the parking company) would have to prove that I was the driver. I have admitted nothing, nor am I legally obliged to. Note: the law changed in E&W in late 2012, allowing the PPC to pursue the registered keeper if the driver is not identified by the RK. But even without this change (by legislation) the "charges" are clearly penalties and not a reasonable estimation of loss, and thus unlawful under contract law (contract law forms the basis of the claim). There are other issues. The PPC does not own the land, it is contracted by the owner of the retail centre to control parking, for which it retains the "charges" (or fines). The PPC has no title or interest to sue: the party who has suffered loss by the overstay is the owner, not the PPC.
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
I forgot to add:- most of the "charges" are discounted by a half if paid within a certain period, usually 28days, of issue. This follows the pattern of (lawful) penalties imposed for overstaying or other breach of regulations in council-controlled parking areas (another means by which the PPCs seek to confuse, by mimicking lawful enforcement of parking penalties). But if the PPC will accept half the charge for early payment, the whole charge cannot be a bona fide and reasonable estimation of loss.
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I must confess to being astonished at the number of people here who cavalierly advise non-payment - some even claiming morality for the proposed non-payment.
Francophile stated that the charge over the free 2 hours was exhibited. The clarity or otherwise of the notice is not relevant: the charge/fee was advertised, the period of free parking was advertised, they overstayed and thus incurred the charge.
Whether or not you feel £60 to be exorbitant for parking for 2 hours 40 minutes is not the issue: the issue is whether or not Francophile should pay.
And the answer to that is YES.
Legally AND morally the charge was incurred and so must be paid.
In any case, is £60 so much? When visiting an aged parent in central London 12+ years ago it cost £1 for 7 minutes to park within tottering distance of the front door, so taking small grandchildren there for a visit was fairly pricey; if the visit included lunch (had to be in a restaurant) plus a play on the swings to 'de-bounce' before returning home it took about three-and-a-half hours, so we stumped up £25 per visit PLUS the congestion charge.
There's nothing cavalier about it. The company is into a highly profitable exorbitant change issue, akin to extortion. There's a moral problem there isn't there? Charging far too much, beyond the value of the service.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
You can bet your bottom dollar that the notices, and charges listed thereon, have been checked out by lawyers. There was a lot of publicity about 'rogue' parking charges and companies 10 or so years ago and those companies that provide parking cleaned up their act.
Jane R
Whether or not Francophile was a 'bona fide' customer is immaterial since the shops and/or shopping centre do not own or control the parking: the parking is owned and operated by another company. It is this party that has issued the charge because Francophile overstayed the free period by a third.
As for the company not being able to 'prove' who was driving the car: in the case of driving or parking infringements, whether the civil or criminal law is involved and whether in England & Wales or Scotland, it is the registered keeper of the vehicle to whom the notice/charge is issued. Furthermore, if there is photographic evidence os the car entering and exiting the car park it is more likely than not that it will be possible for the driver to identified visually.
As for there being some question as to whether the owner of the car park is the same as the company that operates it: it matters not which side of Hadrian's Wall you're on, the operator will have bought a licence or franchise to run the car park and to reap any financial benefits from it once costs have been covered: it is their right to issue notices and to receive monies payable from them.
Of course, if you all want to keep banging on about 'moral' rights etc, I'm sure you won't mind if someone breaks into your house and steals your best suit, shirt, tie, shoes, money, etc, etc, etc, because they NEED them and, since they don't have their own, they have a MORAL right to borrow them...
In any case, what is applied in any court is not morality or even justice: what is applied is the LAW - and the law in this case is quite clear: Francophile overstayed in a place where the charge for doing so without pre-paying was displayed and thus incurred that charge and so must pay.
END OF.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
