Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Car parking charge: a moral question

Thread: Purgatory: Car parking charge: a moral question Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001145

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

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 ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

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.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

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.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

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.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

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.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

In this case, the legal is the moral.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

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 ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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 ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

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).

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

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 ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

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...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

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.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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!).

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

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 ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

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).

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

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.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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 ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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!

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

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.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

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...

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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.

Posted by greenhouse (# 4027) on :

Irrespective of the moral issue, you can almost certainly avoid paying the penalty charge.

See pepipoo.com for advice.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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 ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Morally, you should pay the fine and chalk it up to "lessons learned."

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

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

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

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.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

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??

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

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.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

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.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

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.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

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?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

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 ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

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]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

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.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

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.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

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.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Where I live you can park your car for the whole damn week.

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

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.

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

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.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

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.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

Morally, what you should do formally challenge the ticket through whatever means are made available to you.

If they find that you are still responsible for paying it, then pay. You can afterwards express your concerns to the shopping center.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

The other day, when discussing the imminent abandonment of tax discs for cars, someone pointed out that discs were a useful way of identifying abandoned cars, and were informed that anyone would be able to get the information from the DVLA. I'm not sure on what authority.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
…the law in this case is quite clear…

What is applied in court is indeed law, but in England (as in many other places) the law is not usually blind to issues of morality and justice.

Here are the bits that are not legally clear:

adequacy of the signs
fairness of the contract
reasonableness of the 'charge'

Any of these might mean either that there is no contract in law, or that its terms of it are not legally enforceable.

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
END OF.

[ 10. December 2013, 15:13: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
The other day, when discussing the imminent abandonment of tax discs for cars, someone pointed out that discs were a useful way of identifying abandoned cars, and were informed that anyone would be able to get the information from the DVLA. I'm not sure on what authority.

See here

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
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.

If every person using every park overstayed a two hour parking period by about an hour as francophile did, across an eight hour day that would account for 20-40% of customers not being able to get a park. Consequently they would be likely to take their business elsewhere for planned purchases and not make impulse purchases at all, both of which reduce revenue to the centre's tenants and therefore threatens the centre's revenue if renting premises becomes unviable.

It shouldn't be hard for centre management to show their working to justify that figure based on purchase statistics at the centre.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
You can afterwards express your concerns to the shopping center.

I would not expect this to be of any use, if anything I would expect it to be forwarded to the parking operator (whether in-house or contracted by centre management) as evidence that the person writing was aware of the contract offered to them. Shopping centres choose to enforce parking conditions purely because low turnover of parking spaces forces otherwise willing customers to take their business elsewhere.

Those businesses which primarily offer services rather than goods (e.g. cinemas, medical practices, fitness centres etc) at centres with paid parking often have arrangements in place to offer discounted or free parking for an extended period compared to the standard period offered.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
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.

Whatever you think of the moral position, this is simply wrong. As private companies have no legal right to impose fines this all comes under contract law - as has been pointed out above.

The key to this is that by parking in a car park you are implicitly entering into a contract. The registered keeper, if they are not driving cannot possibly enter into a contract. This is why so many people win on appeal as the signs don't meet the legally-defined standard to make it possible for someone to willingly enter in to a contract, fully understanding the terms to which they are agreeing. On this point, English law is very clear.

The recent change in statute law allowing companies to obtain the information on the registered keeper from the DVLA is an interesting development but it doesn't really change things. In the case of speeding fines it is very different as the law clearly compels the keeper to admit to being the driver or to identify who was driving. I am not opposed to speed cameras per se but do find forcing people to incriminate themselves troubling. However, coming back to private car parks, they have no grounds to compel the registered keeper to identify the driver. Although if the keeper does, they can then issue a speculative invoice to the driver.

AFZ

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

You are correct AFZ, as I understand the legal position.

A small correction. The recent change un the law is not relating to the ability of private parking enterprises to obtain registered keeper details from DVLA; that has been going on for some time and applies to England, Wales and Scotland (NI has separate vehicle licensing arrangements and I suspect there will be similar provision).

The recent legislative change (from 1 October 2012) applies to E and W only, and provides that a private parking company may pursue the registered keeper for private parking charges where the registered keeper has declined (after appropriate notice has been served on him) to identify the driver. There is no legal compulsion in the RK to identify the driver but, if he does not do so, he us liable for the charges. However, the charges must still be reasonable and proportionate and not a penalty.

Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, the police can, in pursuance of a bona fide investigation into suspected offences by the driver of a vehicle (not on a whim) require the registered keeper to identify the driver of the vehicle at a particular time, under pain of criminal penalty (which can include imprisonment) if he does not do so (unless he has reasonable excuse eg someone has stolen the vehicle). It has been held by the EuCtHR that this is a proportionate departure from the rule against self incrimination and not a breach of Art 6 of the Convention. It is this provision of the RTA which is used in speed camera cases.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, the police can, in pursuance of a bona fide investigation into suspected offences by the driver of a vehicle (not on a whim) require the registered keeper to identify the driver of the vehicle at a particular time, under pain of criminal penalty (which can include imprisonment) if he does not do so (unless he has reasonable excuse eg someone has stolen the vehicle). It has been held by the EuCtHR that this is a proportionate departure from the rule against self incrimination and not a breach of Art 6 of the Convention. It is this provision of the RTA which is used in speed camera cases.

Thanks for that Francophile. I had spotted the ECHR ruling on this point. I'm still not sure what I think about it.

AFZ

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

I should have added that, in Scotland, the private parking company would still have to prove in the civil proceedings that the defender in the action (the registered keeper) was the driver at the time the alleged charge (better to call it an unlawful penalty) was incurred.

Its not all bad news for E and W. The same 2012 legislation outlawed the clamping of vehicles on private land (the cowboy clampers). It was long settled in case law in Scotland that for a private individual to demand money to unclamp a vehicle amounted to the common law crime of extortion so the cowboy clampers were never active up here.

I believe that clamping by council parking attendants still happens in England.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
You can afterwards express your concerns to the shopping center.
I would not expect this to be of any use, if anything I would expect it to be forwarded to the parking operator (whether in-house or contracted by centre management) as evidence that the person writing was aware of the contract offered to them.

Having decided on one occasion to proceed to court when I was guilty of a parking infraction, I can say that it can be of use. I told the judge about the experience and the ticket writing official had to listen, and I also told the court that we would not be having to do it court if the ticket writer had any manners. -- so there can be a purpose and it can do some good if it helps the person feel better.

Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on :

Assessment of the morality is being clouded by outrage towards the scale of the charge - or penalty - whichever way we see it. But £60 is NOT excessive when one takes into account the admin involved for the organisation running the car park.

My employers need to control parking in certain areas, mainly to ensure that people not authorised to park do not displace legitimate users, and also to discourage anyone obstructing deliveries, which could severely disrupt business and service provision. I think we charge about a £60 penalty. Administration of it occupies much of a colleague's time, especially if the driver appeals. Overall, we don't make a profit at £60.

I successfully appealed against a £60 penalty in a Council-run car park last year, after the Enforcement Officer did not (and could not, due to an obstruction) look fully at the front of my car and failed to notice the ticket I'd bought and placed in the far corner of the windscreen. I suspect that the Council spent about two hours of staff time handling the appeal.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Bear in mind that I'm only talking about the position here, the here being NSW, and it may well be that the law in other parts of the world - or even other states - is different. The car-park owners would not be seeking to recover a fine, but rather sue in debt on the contract. It's hard to see a defence to that. It's not really a penalty as that term is understood here.

BTW, wheel clamping and so forth was abolished here a half dozen or more years ago.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
Assessment of the morality is being clouded by outrage towards the scale of the charge - or penalty - whichever way we see it. But £60 is NOT excessive when one takes into account the admin involved for the organisation running the car park.

My employers need to control parking in certain areas, mainly to ensure that people not authorised to park do not displace legitimate users, and also to discourage anyone obstructing deliveries, which could severely disrupt business and service provision. I think we charge about a £60 penalty. Administration of it occupies much of a colleague's time, especially if the driver appeals. Overall, we don't make a profit at £60.

I'm sorry but there is no way that it costs £60 to send me a computer-generated standard letter. Ok so £2.50 for the DVLA, so £57.50. Also this is exactly how the private companies that run car parks for the land owners make money.

AFZ

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

It's hard to know how to put this tactfully, but L'Organist, I think your approach to the ethics here is not so much simple as both simplistic and wrong. I'm not even sure that there is a moral, rather than a legal question here at all.

One could perhaps say that 'the law is the embodiment of everything that is excellent' but that was written as a joke. Besides, it it were, and one can use it to get out of being sued, it would follow that one is entitled to do so.

Beyond that point, if one regards the question as a matter of ethics, one is into tithing mint and cumin territory.

My advice to Francophile would be as follows:-

1. There is no fundamental ethical obligation that one is evading here by resisting payment.

2. The charge is unreasonable and exploitative. I think that except for L'Organist, we're all agreed on that.

3. The questions as to who actually owns the car-park, how it is financed, what arrangements might exist between the supermarket, hospital, railway company or whatever and the operator, are all irrelevant. The car-park is an adjunct to the supermarket, hospital or station. That entity provides it for the use of its customers. The customers are entitled to regard themselves as dealing with the supermarket, hospital, railway company or whatever and not speculate about the rest.

4. The clincher though, is that the operator, whether supermarket, hospital, railway company or whatever, is imposing an unreasonable charge unilaterally. You Francophile, were not given any opportunity for negotiation. It was take it or leave it. It may be that they should be entitled to be paid something, but the terms they are seeking to impose are out of proportion to what they are supplying. That defeats any moral obligation in their support.

5. So if they can enforce their charge, legally, one has to put up with it and pay grudgingly with a nasty taste in the mouth. If you can get out of paying, or force them to accept less, you're entitled to do so.

It's the same ethical situation as contract wrapped software.

[ 11. December 2013, 11:28: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
If every person using every park overstayed a two hour parking period by about an hour as francophile did, across an eight hour day that would account for 20-40% of customers not being able to get a park.

What makes you think the shops over here are only open for eight hours a day?! Our local Tesco is open 24 hours (except on Sunday).

I am sure the shops want as many different customers as possible, but if the people whose cars are currently occupying space in the car park are spending money in the shops the car park is fulfilling its intended purpose, regardless of how long each individual car has been there.

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
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!

1. this is irrelevant in the case of automated systems, eg on monday visited hospital where you take a ticket on way into carpark and then have to pay a machine when ready to leave which works out what you owe.

2. I may visit church folk etc but their family are visiting everyday. Around here that means lots of petrol as well as the parking. I would rather they had the concessions than me (after all I can claim it as work expense - well if I remember to ask for a receipt which I didn't Monday so that one is on me). There are concessions advertised for primary family members for long stay patients but don't know how it works.

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

Enoch

Thank you for summing up the ethical or moral position so clearly. I agree with you.

It's a pity in a way that we got side-tracked onto the legal question, I'm as guilty as anyone on that.

In a way, though, the legal does impinge on the moral. And I don't just mean the general biblical exhortation to obey the rules and pay your due (apologies if that does not correctly summarise the position). The private parking companies are committing a massive fraud on the motoring public, and are assisted in that by an agency of the UK government, DVLA. These parking charge notices are, in essence, speculative invoices. But they are dressed up to look like legitimate Penalty Charge Notices issued by the police and council parking officials which carry the force of law. The initials used (PCN) for the parking charge notice are deliberately set up to mislead. Even the payment arrangements (50% "discount" for early payment) mimic the legitimate schemes. The charges are unlawful and not legally enforceable. If they were legally enforceable, there would be tens of thousands of actions in county courts up and down the land every year for recovery. There aren't. The plain fact of the matter is that the private parking companies work on a business model that enough people will pay up (through ignorance of the legal position and/or fear) to cover their costs and make a profit. Those that dont pay are harried with a series of letters, initially from the PPC and later from a debt collection agency, designed to put the frighteners on the non-payer. If you keep resolute and dont pay, you want be taken to court. Most people pay up eventually, I suspect.

I won't be paying. Morally I am due a small amount for the 40 minute overstay, on a generous estimate £5. I know the PPC won't accept this "in full and final settlement" (others have tried this, the payment is rejected), so I will be paying this amount to a local charity (I haven't decided which one).

I agree that there is a need to control unethical parking on private land, particularly eg hospital car parks. I dont consider that I was parking unethically on this occasion. On another occasion, I might have parked unethically and different considerations will apply. However, the problem of unethical parking is not solved by an unethical system of parking control.

Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on :

Responding to alienfromzog's point, I maintain that at £60 we only break even. On top of the £2.50 for the letter there's about £25 for the outsourced firm who physically walk/cycle and inspect (it would cost more in-house), the cost of erecting and replacing warning signs and marking out parking spaces, lawyers' bills for complying with Data Protection Act and other legal and policy requirements, etc, leaving probably about £15 for admin time.

Pay for someone of the right calibre is probably about £15 an hour in the provinces, and getting on for double this when all employment and support costs are taken into account. That half an hour left soon goes when a high proportion of tickets are appealed and there are complex relationships with some offenders. I accept that the economics may be different for local authorities handling larger numbers and dealing with more routine cases.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

I'm amazed. Truly amazed that people think it's OK to break the rules and then decide themselves what they should pay for that. I'm not talking about the legal issue here*, but the fact that someone can use a service, break the conditions of it and then blame the provider.

It just seems shabby to me.

M.

*For the record, IAAL and work with contracts (and liquidated damages/penalties all the bloody time)

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
Responding to alienfromzog's point, I maintain that at £60 we only break even. On top of the £2.50 for the letter there's about £25 for the outsourced firm who physically walk/cycle and inspect (it would cost more in-house), the cost of erecting and replacing warning signs and marking out parking spaces, lawyers' bills for complying with Data Protection Act and other legal and policy requirements, etc, leaving probably about £15 for admin time.

Pay for someone of the right calibre is probably about £15 an hour in the provinces, and getting on for double this when all employment and support costs are taken into account. That half an hour left soon goes when a high proportion of tickets are appealed and there are complex relationships with some offenders. I accept that the economics may be different for local authorities handling larger numbers and dealing with more routine cases.

That may be true if there is no other revenue. In the cases of car parks who charge they have of course, significant revenue from the parking fees. Furthermore, if the major cost is from people contesting the fees, it is difficult within the contract law framework to justify imposing this cost on those who don't contest it.

The behaviour of the vast majority of parking companies is consistently bad. They are trying to intimidate people in to paying - clearly with some success.

You may argue therefore that the current law makes it very difficult for private car parks to make any kind of charge. That may be true. But I don't think that justifies the dishonest behaviour of the parking companies.

AFZ

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I'm amazed. Truly amazed that people think it's OK to break the rules and then decide themselves what they should pay for that. I'm not talking about the legal issue here*, but the fact that someone can use a service, break the conditions of it and then blame the provider.

It just seems shabby to me.

M.

*For the record, IAAL and work with contracts (and liquidated damages/penalties all the bloody time)

Well said. This is a simple instance where there was a contract - entry was permitted on certain terms and conditions. Admittedly this was not the subject of any real negotiation, but there seems no doubt that the terms were displayed at the point of entry, that Francophile knew these, and still entered the car park. That seems to me to amount to acceptance.

What if the alternative were that there was a fee of $20 ph for each and every hour. Would Francophile still object to the $60 charge?

(Sorry, can't find a pound symbol on this keyboard, but the argument's the same.)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
This is a simple instance where there was a contract - entry was permitted on certain terms and conditions. Admittedly this was not the subject of any real negotiation, but there seems no doubt that the terms were displayed at the point of entry, that Francophile knew these, and still entered the car park. That seems to me to amount to acceptance.

You and I both know that the notion of a 'simple contract' is a contradiction in terms...

We also both know, I assume, of all the cases with car parks that put terms and conditions at a point where the only way you can say 'no' is to reverse. Such terms and conditions being non-binding. Or in print far too small for a driver in a vehicle to see (you'd have to be a pedestrian and squint) - again, non-binding. So there's nothing inherently straightforward about a statement like 'the terms were displayed at the point of entry'!!

And what about fault? Are you suggesting that the contract, assuming we've got one, is automatically going to trigger the breach clause regardless of the reasons WHY a person overstayed? Car broke down, no means of moving it: still a breach? Fire breaks out, carpark starts collapsing, blocks exit: still a breach?

Rather more lawyering required, my boy. [Biased]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

And it is a contract of adhesion, of course, I know all of that. I also considered the effect to the Aust Consumer Law cl.27 etc. I still hold to what I said.

I find it difficult to see that we're talking of a breach, as you do in your post. AFAICS, this is a case where there's no charge for the first 2 hours and then $60 ph after. Would you happily pay $20 oh or part thereof?

[ 12. December 2013, 09:31: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Would you happily pay $20 oh or part thereof?

Probably not. Though I think it was New York where I saw $37 an hour. But then I'm a yokel from a small country town where people get testy about anything more than $2 flat rate on a Sunday.

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

I've been back to the car park to examine the signs. As the vehicle enters the car park, and bearing in mind that you are moving at that point, there is a sign facing the driver. The only words which I could read as I drove past (and my eyesight meets the minimum requirement for driving) were the headline words "Parking Free For 2 Hours". There are other words on the sign which cannot be read from the driver's position in the car. I did not go on foot to decipher these words because the position of the sign (at a busy vehicular entrance/exit to a car park, with no provision at that particular point for pedestrians, made it clearly unsafe to do so. The sign at the entrance is clearly for drivers only, not pedestrians. There is no readable information re charges applying beyond the 2 hour free limit on that sign. Once parked in a bay and out of the car, there are quite small signs (not many for a sizable car park) affixed to lighting poles. These identify the private parking company which controls the parking facility, advises that parking is free for 2 hours and then say (not in large lettering) "to avoid a £60 parking charge, park only in the bays provided, do not park in disabled spaces without displaying a disabled badge and do not park for longer than 2 hours" (I paraphrase, but that is the gist). The signs cannot be read until you have parked and left your vehicle.

[ 12. December 2013, 10:58: Message edited by: Francophile ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
The only words which I could read as I drove past were the headline words "Parking Free For 2 Hours".

Would a reasonable person not therefore conclude that parking longer than 2h would not be free? And, that therefore if you want to park more than 2h you should look for the additional information telling you what that would cost.

quote:
Once parked in a bay and out of the car, there are quite small signs (not many for a sizable car park) affixed to lighting poles. These identify the private parking company which controls the parking facility, advises that parking is free for 2 hours and then say (not in large lettering) "to avoid a £60 parking charge, park only in the bays provided, do not park in disabled spaces without displaying a disabled badge and do not park for longer than 2 hours" (I paraphrase, but that is the gist).

Ah, there's the information about what you'll be charged if you park more than 2h. Didn't take you long to find it I assume, even if there aren't many such signs.

quote:
The signs cannot be read until you have parked and left your vehicle.

At which point, if you don't accept the terms and conditions of using the carpark, you are free to return to your vehicle and park elsewhere.

Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :

Legally I wouldn't like to say.

Morally - here's my take:

It's about co-operation with wider society and not being selfish. Despite how it feels it's not just a money-making scam* it's a way of trying to share access to a scarce resource in something approaching a "fair" manner. The implication of a 2 hour free period followed by a very high charge is clear - that 2 hours is deemed to be the a period that allows the optimum amount of people to park. It's less convenient for some who want to park for longer but it allows more people to park overall.

So if one chooses to overstay and (legally) avoid payment without some serious extenuating circumstances then I don't find that morally acceptable.

*and I'm no naive when it comes to this. I've been clamped outside my own house! This occurred because our free off-road parking was being used by so many non-residents that fire engines couldn't get access. After that they brought in "parking controls" and the initial signage was less than clear.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
The only words which I could read as I drove past were the headline words "Parking Free For 2 Hours".
Would a reasonable person not therefore conclude that parking longer than 2h would not be free? And, that therefore if you want to park more than 2h you should look for the additional information telling you what that would cost.

quote:
Once parked in a bay and out of the car, there are quite small signs (not many for a sizable car park) affixed to lighting poles. These identify the private parking company which controls the parking facility, advises that parking is free for 2 hours and then say (not in large lettering) "to avoid a £60 parking charge, park only in the bays provided, do not park in disabled spaces without displaying a disabled badge and do not park for longer than 2 hours" (I paraphrase, but that is the gist).
Ah, there's the information about what you'll be charged if you park more than 2h. Didn't take you long to find it I assume, even if there aren't many such signs.

quote:
The signs cannot be read until you have parked and left your vehicle.
At which point, if you don't accept the terms and conditions of using the carpark, you are free to return to your vehicle and park elsewhere.

1. I would certainly expect that it is not free after 2 hours. I would not expect, from past experience in my own naive little corner of the world, for it to suddenly jump to 60 pounds. Around here it'd be a few dollars at most.

2. That depends entirely on what 'elsewheres' might be available to park.

There was actually a High Court decision here today on the notion of false and misleading advertising. It quite clearly said that, under the relevant Australian law, advertising could be misleading even if it was possible, even likely, that someone would find out the true situation before signing on the dotted line. Because the very point of the advertising is to draw you towards that company and away from another one.

So I don't find it any kind of satisfactory answer to say that you could find out, after you'd made your choice of carpark, that the deal wasn't the kind of deal you'd imagined. There are opportunity costs involved in moving your car again. Wasted time, first and foremost.

It is pretty fundamental to both law AND morality that you can't just go changing the deal after the transaction has already started. Hiding the catch until after you've dangled the carrot is the very essence of unfair. And companies only do it because people keep rolling over and thinking it's not worth fighting them.

(And so do governments. It seems oddly reminiscent of those absurd cases about UK unemployment schemes.)

[ 12. December 2013, 12:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

In short, francophone tried to game the system and got caught, and is unwilling to pay the comeuppance.

Posted by Noodlehead (# 9600) on :

I came up against this not that long ago.

I broke down in a hired van at a service station and was there for more than the two hour limit while I was waiting for repairs and help to arrive. The signs were not very clearly displayed in any event, but it was also late at night and I was panicking about how I was going to get home so probably wouldn't have noticed them even if they had been clearly displayed.

Had I incurred the £60 charge at this point, I may have been willing to pay it. However, the details given to the parking company by the van hire company were of the address that I had hired the van in order to move out of, the upshot being that I didn't receive any of the increasingly threatening letters (with exponentially increasing fines) until 5 months after they first wrote to me when the Royal Mail FINALLY decided to forward my mail on to me.

By that stage, the fine had reached £150.

But the thing that really hacked me off is how full of outright lies the letters were. One stated that a court judgement against you would adversely affect one's credit rating (LIE: only affects you if you don't pay it). When I phoned and spoke to them the woman I spoke to also told me I had no right of appeal or negotiation (LIE: and actually, to call it an appeal is a bit misleading - it's not a fine, as has been said above, so there has been no judicial process in its issue so you have no need to appeal - you're just negotiating a contractual dispute).

Anyway, these things and the fact that the woman on the phone had a truly terrible attitude meant that I was never going to pay their stupid charge in full.

As far as the moral argument went - I don't believe that giving in to what is essentially extortion is morally right. I think these companies are sharks and the world would be a better place without them. I have no problem paying for my parking, particularly to the council, hospitals, local businesses and whatnot as part of my debt to society, but I will not pay legally unenforceable parking charges to a company who lies, in a situation where they will not even accept an apology or an explanation.

Anyway tl;dr I wrote to them with a settlement as one would in any civil dispute. I enclosed a cheque for the parking fee I had neglected to pay and a reasonable estimate of the costs involved in writing to me and tracking me down, along with a reminder that a judge in any court would not look favourably on a party who rejects a reasonable offer of settlement (particularly if they don't win more than is offered, which current case law suggests they wouldn't!). They cashed the cheque, which means all is well.

As far as I'm concerned, moral dilemma solved - I felt a moral obligation to pay the debt I owed. I felt no moral obligation to pay an arbitrary demand for money.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In short, francophone tried to game the system and got caught, and is unwilling to pay the comeuppance.

You can't game a system until you're told all the rules.

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

An update.

Parking "charge" was allegedly incurred on 5 November. After two notices from the parking company, I have now been passed to the debt collectors who have been in touch saying that I "owe" their clients £108. Funny, it started at £60, reduced to £30 if I paid quickly. Apparently "costs" have been added.

The letter helpfully advises that only the driver is liable and, if I wasn't the driver, I have to let them know who was. I won't be assisting in this scam.

I'm looking forward to putting my case before a Scottish Sheriff in the small claims court. Somehow I dont think that will happen. The cowboys are in Surrey.

I'll keep you posted.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In short, francophone tried to game the system and got caught, and is unwilling to pay the comeuppance.
You can't game a system until you're told all the rules.

Absurd. You know that the parking time is limited, and there are fines for overstaying your welcome. You overstay your welcome, hoping you won't get caught. That's gaming the system, whether or not you know the details about what the fines are.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In short, francophone tried to game the system and got caught, and is unwilling to pay the comeuppance.
You can't game a system until you're told all the rules.
Absurd. You know that the parking time is limited, and there are fines for overstaying your welcome. You overstay your welcome, hoping you won't get caught. That's gaming the system, whether or not you know the details about what the fines are.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THOSE THINGS?

Don't just assert that 'you know'. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that there are plenty of parking stations around that don't have a time limit. They have increasing costs if you stay all day, yes, but they don't have a limit and they don't have any kind of 'fine'.

So if anything's absurd, it's the belief that drivers are psychic and can tell the difference between a parking station like I described and a parking station like the one Francophile entered if there aren't nice big visible signs on the outside TELLING you.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

ADDENDUM: And don't bother whipping out the 'First 2 hours free' sign as some kind of evidence. Because let me tell you, several shopping centre car parks that I use in my home city start as free for the first 2 hours. And they don't jump up to 60 bucks once you go past the 2-hour mark.

Up to 3 hours will cost you 3 dollars at one I just looked up. You'd have to park for 6 hours to get to 20 dollars.

So the proposition that 'you know' that after 2 free hours you'll be whacked with a massive bill for staying an extra half hour is just... oh, what's the word... absurd.

[ 21. January 2014, 04:17: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Only cos this thread is back ... I've kept my eyes open recently in car parks.

Over Christmas I stopped at several motorway service stations. In all cases, big signs at entrance to the carpark and by doors into the service area declaring "Free parking for 2h", with information on how to pay for longer on the sign by the doors (you can pay by mobile phone or at some of the shops) with penalty for non-payment if you overstay clearly displayed. Repeater signs, smaller but with the same information on practically every lamp post. Couldn't have been more clearly posted.

After Christmas went to a small local shopping area, one of those warehouses with 2-3 large stores selling computers and electrical goods. Big sign on entrance to carpark "2 hours free parking, patrons only". Signs on most lamp posts, at least two visible from any parking space. The two most prominent things on these signs were the "2 hours free" and "£85", the penalty if you stayed longer or parked there for any reason other than go to those shops (given the location I'm not sure why you would want to park there for any other reason). Anyone who can satisfy the eyesight component of the driving test would also be able to make out the name of the company operating the carpark and a few other details (disabled places to be used by blue badge holders only etc).

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
I'm looking forward to putting my case before a Scottish Sheriff in the small claims court. Somehow I dont think that will happen. The cowboys are in Surrey.

I'm not a lawyer, but if they operate in Scotland they do so under Scottish Law. It shouldn't make any difference if their headquarters are in Glasgow, Surrey or Moscow (Russia, not Ayrshire).

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
I'm looking forward to putting my case before a Scottish Sheriff in the small claims court. Somehow I dont think that will happen. The cowboys are in Surrey.
I'm not a lawyer, but if they operate in Scotland they do so under Scottish Law. It shouldn't make any difference if their headquarters are in Glasgow, Surrey or Moscow (Russia, not Ayrshire).

They will need to employ a Scottish advocate or solicitor to present their case. Even if they win (no chance) costs are not awarded against the losing side in small claims procedure, so their costs will greatly exceed their winnings. I will act for myself. Only costs will be my parking costs (!) at the local sheriff court (2 miles from home) plus a days leave from work. If I win, thecourt has power exceptionally to grant costs against the pursuer if the claim is unreasonable. And it will be, especially as I will be offering the true cost of the excess parking before the case comes to a hearing (which of course it won't, even if raised they will withdraw when I put in notice of intention to defend).

[ 21. January 2014, 08:49: Message edited by: Francophile ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Only cos this thread is back ... I've kept my eyes open recently in car parks.

Over Christmas I stopped at several motorway service stations. In all cases, big signs at entrance to the carpark and by doors into the service area declaring "Free parking for 2h", with information on how to pay for longer on the sign by the doors (you can pay by mobile phone or at some of the shops) with penalty for non-payment if you overstay clearly displayed. Repeater signs, smaller but with the same information on practically every lamp post. Couldn't have been more clearly posted.

After Christmas went to a small local shopping area, one of those warehouses with 2-3 large stores selling computers and electrical goods. Big sign on entrance to carpark "2 hours free parking, patrons only". Signs on most lamp posts, at least two visible from any parking space. The two most prominent things on these signs were the "2 hours free" and "£85", the penalty if you stayed longer or parked there for any reason other than go to those shops (given the location I'm not sure why you would want to park there for any other reason). Anyone who can satisfy the eyesight component of the driving test would also be able to make out the name of the company operating the carpark and a few other details (disabled places to be used by blue badge holders only etc).

Sigh.

It makes a world of difference, Alan, what kind of parking area you are in. Something that has a series of carpark spaces along the street is completely different from something where you have to enter a gate to get to the parking spaces.

Much as I'd love the ability to draw diagrams on the Ship, much of what I've been saying has to do with the kind of parking places where there is a boomgate to come in, and a ticket machine that issues you a ticket as you come in the boomgate. For something like that, for a sign to be valid it has to be visible before you turn in to where the boomgate is.

That's completely different to something where there is parking along the street and signs on lamp posts. Because you haven't been committed into any irreversible or difficult to reverse actions.

Every car park is different. And besides, it doesn't matter one jot if every car park you find has magnificent signage and complies properly with what's necessary under the law, it only matters what Francophile's car park did.

Let me tell you something: I know some car parks aren't competent because I've been in one. They gave me an all-day ticket for the top floor with some late time on it, something like 11:00pm. I relied on that ticket. I came back to discover the car park closed at something like 9:00pm. I called the after hours number. They tried to tell me I had to pay more money to get let out. I had none of it.

[ 21. January 2014, 11:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Look, let me put this in a simpler, cleaner way rather than spending all night trading anecdotes.

"All the carparks I can find are fine" does not prove that all carparks are fine.

Whereas "I've found carparks that are not fine" immediately proves that there may be other carparks that are not fine.

Now, unless we all make a little excursion to Francophile's particular carpark, that's as far as we can take the matter. I find Francophile's opinion plausible because I know that there are such things as poorly signposted carparks. The rest of you are welcome to live in your perfect-carpark worlds and I congratulate you on your good fortune.

Maybe I'm just the kind of person who actually notices these things. The other day I was reminiscing about I appeared to be the only person out of hundreds in a department, mostly lawyers, who wouldn't sign a consent form for a flu shot that said I'd read the provided information, because the information hadn't been provided. I'm the kind of person who asks what a question on a form means and refuses to just 'guess' at the answer as if it didn't matter. I'm the kind of person who gets a ticket mentioning a time and reasons that's the time the carpark closes.

I am, in short, an absolute pain in the arse for all those people who think it doesn't matter if they're imprecise or sloppy.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It makes a world of difference, Alan, what kind of parking area you are in. Something that has a series of carpark spaces along the street is completely different from something where you have to enter a gate to get to the parking spaces.

Yes, I appreciate the difference between types of car park.

In the UK (I'm not even going to attempt to extrapolate to other places, but note that Scotland is the context of this particular situation) there are three main (fairly broad) types of car parking.

1) Barrier entry. Usually giving a ticket as you enter, which is then put in a machine for payment and validation before you leave so you pay for how long you were parked. In every such carpark I've used the rates are clearly displayed before reaching the entry barrier, although in some cases getting to the barrier and then reversing may be problematical (especially if there's someone right behind you). With the exception of very short-stay carparks which also double up as drop-off/pick-up points (eg: at airports) there's may be a grace period so you can go in and if you can't find a space where you want to park can exit without paying.

2) "Pay and Display" or metered. Car parking without barriers, off road or on road. Find a spot to park, go to a nearby machine to put in the money for how long you expect to be and put the ticket your given on the windscreen. Generally replacing parking meters (which are basically the same idea) because it puts all the money in one place (and often those machines now can process card payments, or even payments using mobile phones, and so contain even less cash) reducing costs for the operator in emptying the things. Tarifs, limitations (eg: maximum stay) and penalties for overstaying are clearly displayed next to the machine, and in the case of larger carparks usually displayed on entry as well. No barrier, so no impediment to deciding parking is too expensive and driving off.

3) Free parking. Again, as for 2) no barrier and may be on or off-street. In many cases at shopping areas etc time limited. May be strictly time limited (eg: "2h only"), or maybe with an option to pay for longer if it's likely to be needed. Sometimes coupled to pay and display (ie: press the button without putting in money and you get a ticket for the free duration, put in money you get one for the free period + what you've paid for). No exit barrier, so no impediment to deciding you want to park elsewhere if the terms are unsuitable (eg: free period too short).

It appears that Francophile parked in somewhere operating model 3). The question then becomes whether the signage was sufficiently clear and well placed that before entering the shop any reasonable person could be expected to know that parking was free for a stated period, whether there was an option for paying for a longer period if required, and what the penalty for overstaying the free/paid for period would be.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Here is the Code of Practice for members of the British Parking Association - of course the people who operated Francophile's car park may not be members.

See in particular para. 13 (Grace period) and 18 (Entrance signs).

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Alan Cresswell: The two most prominent things on these signs were the "2 hours free" and "£85", the penalty if you stayed longer or parked there for any reason other than go to those shops

Most legal system have some kind of proportionality principle: the punishment should in some way be proportional to the crime, even if that isn't always easy to define. I fail to see how a £85 fine for a couple of minutes overstay is proportional.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Perhaps, perhaps not. But if you choose to park there then you are tacitly accepting the Terms & Conditions, even if you don't like them or think they are wrong.

You can choose to park elsewhere (although I grant that that option may not be realistically available, which brings a "monopoly" ethic into play); or you can go to a different shopping centre.

But - in my book - you can't enter and then complain that you've been "done", providing the T&Cs were clear and you had the opportunity to back out before it was too late.

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

We'll see who wins in court, if the parking company are daft enough to take it there.

I'll be tipping off the local press. "Local motorist takes on the parking bullies". It will fill a half page.

The first hurdle which the private parking company face is proving that I was the driver in the absence of an admission or photographic evidence.

A recent law change in England means that (the charge being otherwise reasonable and proprtionate and not a penalty etc) the registered keeper is liable. The same legislation brought in an independent, pre-court appeals tribunal for motorists challenging private parking charge notices. Doesn't apply to Scotland though. I think were better off without it.

I'll be almost disappointed not to get my day in court. Advice on various websites is that the company concerned doesn't "do court", even in England where its (slightly) easier. They're unlikely to venture into the vagaries of Scottish civil procedure after a few pounds. Its not their business model.

Their business model is that enough folk will pay up after receipt of frightening letters.

A disgrace that this is allowed to go on unchecked.

I do wish people here would stop talking about penalties or fines. These companies cannot impose penalties or fines. These are civil claims for alleged "losses".

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I'm surprised how few posts have waxed indignant at the rapaciousness of the car park operators. As well as the unreality of their time limit. If the car park was serving a single supermarket, for example, a two-hour limit would be reasonable (though pushing it a bit perhaps at times like the pre-Christmas crush – and bearing in mind that supermarkets often have restaurants or coffee bars and encourage people to spend more time). If, as in Francophile's situation, the car park serves a retail park with several stores, it is not unlikely that many people will overrun the two hour time limit.

Nobody I think is going to quibble at being asked to pay a reasonable charge for any additional time. £3 an hour might be on the high side but is not unreasonable. £60 for 40 minutes (or possibly just two minutes) is extortionate and grossly unreasonable. Even if it is legal it is certainly not morally acceptable.

I have no sympathy with motorists who whinge about parking charges in city centres and on busy streets. Usually that's because they are too lazy to walk a few metres or use public transport. Anything that deters people from cluttering up our streets and prevents cities functioning for people should be penalised.

But out of town shopping precincts that were deliberately built for motorists (and are often inaccessible to anyone else) are a different matter altogether. I'm with Francophile on this.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Presumably the parking conditions are set by the operator of the shopping precinct, rather than the company actually administering the system. The store management would put out a tender to administer the car park, they'd be setting the terms, although possibly the charge for overstaying may be set by the company that wins the tender to run the car park. If two hours isn't long enough, take it up with the stores not the car park operator.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Ah, but there is one thing we don't know (unless it's been posted upthread).

Was 2 hours the absolute maximum limit with a penalty charge being payable for exceeding it?

Or was it a case that Francophile could have bought another hour or two at a reasonable rate at the time of parking, e.g. through a pay-and-display machine?

The first is "Free Parking: maximum 2 hours". The other is "Paid parking: first two hours free". The two are not the same!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Ah, but there is one thing we don't know (unless it's been posted upthread).

Was 2 hours the absolute maximum limit with a penalty charge being payable for exceeding it?

Or was it a case that Francophile could have bought another hour or two at a reasonable rate at the time of parking, e.g. through a pay-and-display machine?

T

The implication in the OP (if it wasn't stated directly) is the former. I've seen similar notices elsewhere and nowhere is there any option of buying tickets (nor machines to buy them from).

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
I'll be tipping off the local press. "Local motorist takes on the parking bullies". It will fill a half page.

Not much going on in the newspaper where you live, apparently.

They did a story here about a parking lot that started towing cars after a short stay and without warning, but that seems like a bit more than charging a large overage fee.

Be aware that if you take to the press, you could easily blow your plan to not admit (as you have here) that you were, in fact, the person who was responsible for parking the car and leaving it overtime. At least in the United States, if the parking company were to be able to connect you to the kind statements you have already made on the Ship (Ship privacy policy notwithstanding), it would be totally admissible as non-hearsay, as it is a statement by a party against party interest.

I don't know if it is legal where you live, or how credit reporting works in the UK for that matter, but be mindful that next time someone takes a look at your credit report, this may make an appearance.

Oh, and for such a small account they may not bother, but you might want to start saving money to have your phone number changed, as bill collectors will call you quite a bit.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

My experience is the opposite. Type two (pay to park, first 2h free) are very common - in our village that's first 15/30mins free (depending on where) with pay-and-display, motorway services for 2h and pay at the shop for longer. I only know one type one (free parking, maximum 2h) car park.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
I'll be tipping off the local press. "Local motorist takes on the parking bullies". It will fill a half page.
Not much going on in the newspaper where you live, apparently.

Funnily enough, our local free newspaper managed a decent-sized story on a new carpark that was supposed to be public and erroneously had signs put up labelling it as private.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0