Tweet
should I just pay £60?
Heyy Mystery1, I got a ticket at stockport peel centre, I challenged the fine internally which got rejected, I have appealed with ias and it got rejected, I basically wrote, I would like to appeal this charge on the following grounds: (im thinking I should just pay it as it was kinda my fault since i didnt have a ticket, could you please have a look over this)
1) The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or a trespass. They are not a genuine pre estimate of loss either.
2) In order to form a contract the signs need to be clear so that they must be seen by an average person. They were not. There was no breach of contract.
3) Excel Parking do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi.
4) Excel Parking have failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice.
(Please note I have offered to pay the original cost of a ticket and although I would argue there is a genuine pre estimated loss of zero, since the carpark was operating nowhere near 100%, and I did not occupy the space of sombody else who did read the sign and could have paid, I am still happy to pay the original cost of a ticket, which according to their website stands at £1.30)
I attached a microsoft word document that talked about these points further,
The adjudicators reply was:
Having considered the evidence supplied by the Operator, I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been established.
Dealing the points raised by the Appellant:
The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis has established that in cases such as this, a contract exists between the Appellant and Operator, whereby the Appellant is granted a contractual licence to park their car in the car park on the terms of the notice posted at the entrance, which he accepted by entering the site.
Having considered the evidence in relation to the signage, the signs are large, prominent and legible, so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature, and would have a fair opportunity to read them if he or she wished to do so.
It can never be a defence to a claim in contract law to say "I did not read the terms", so long as the existence of those terms is reasonably advertised.
The £100 is regarded as a charge for contravening the terms of the contractual licence.
The charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although the Operator was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss.
Deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.
Whether the Operator has a contract with the landowner to issue parking charges at the location is irrelevant.
This is because the parking charge arises out of a relationship in contract between the Operator and the Appellant. The Operator is not acting as the landowner's agent, rather they are are principal in the contract which the Appellant entered into by parking at the location.
In accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract between the Operator and the Appellant, by failing to purchase a pay and display ticket the Appellant agreed to pay the parking charge.
The Supreme Court considered that a similar charge in ParkingEye v Beavis did not infringe the 1999 Regulations. In their opinion, the term imposing the £85 charge was not unfair. The term does not exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the general law or by statute.
Motorists could hardly avoid reading the notice and were under no pressure to accept its terms.
Finally, the Appellant has failed to provide any evidence of a brach of the relevant code. Which in any event is irrelevant to the lawfulness of the parking charge in question.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed.
1) The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or a trespass. They are not a genuine pre estimate of loss either.
2) In order to form a contract the signs need to be clear so that they must be seen by an average person. They were not. There was no breach of contract.
3) Excel Parking do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi.
4) Excel Parking have failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice.
(Please note I have offered to pay the original cost of a ticket and although I would argue there is a genuine pre estimated loss of zero, since the carpark was operating nowhere near 100%, and I did not occupy the space of sombody else who did read the sign and could have paid, I am still happy to pay the original cost of a ticket, which according to their website stands at £1.30)
I attached a microsoft word document that talked about these points further,
The adjudicators reply was:
Having considered the evidence supplied by the Operator, I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been established.
Dealing the points raised by the Appellant:
The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis has established that in cases such as this, a contract exists between the Appellant and Operator, whereby the Appellant is granted a contractual licence to park their car in the car park on the terms of the notice posted at the entrance, which he accepted by entering the site.
Having considered the evidence in relation to the signage, the signs are large, prominent and legible, so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature, and would have a fair opportunity to read them if he or she wished to do so.
It can never be a defence to a claim in contract law to say "I did not read the terms", so long as the existence of those terms is reasonably advertised.
The £100 is regarded as a charge for contravening the terms of the contractual licence.
The charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although the Operator was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss.
Deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.
Whether the Operator has a contract with the landowner to issue parking charges at the location is irrelevant.
This is because the parking charge arises out of a relationship in contract between the Operator and the Appellant. The Operator is not acting as the landowner's agent, rather they are are principal in the contract which the Appellant entered into by parking at the location.
In accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract between the Operator and the Appellant, by failing to purchase a pay and display ticket the Appellant agreed to pay the parking charge.
The Supreme Court considered that a similar charge in ParkingEye v Beavis did not infringe the 1999 Regulations. In their opinion, the term imposing the £85 charge was not unfair. The term does not exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the general law or by statute.
Motorists could hardly avoid reading the notice and were under no pressure to accept its terms.
Finally, the Appellant has failed to provide any evidence of a brach of the relevant code. Which in any event is irrelevant to the lawfulness of the parking charge in question.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed.
Comment