BPA reject my complaint

[jax50]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

Which would clearly be absurd.
Eg....Person A goes into car park, & in the initial 'reasonable period', finds a suitable space, reads signage, agrees to park. Then, on returning to the car park, has a min 10 mins to exit after the relevant parking period has expired.
Why can't person B, who decides not to park, have the same grace periods?

I don't disagree, but the 'norm' in what I'd say is 99% of all cases is that if person A pays for one hour,but is more than 70+ minutes between in and out of ANPR's they'd get a PCN. I'll bet most car park operators just allow the standard 10 minutes. Most people would think, in putting there cash in the machine, checking their watch that they have that time to get back...regardless if they'd been chatting before they paid...because the clock starts at ANPR, not when you put your cash in,

[ostell]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

That's a lot of Ts & Cs. More than a couple of minutes to read then pay and receive ticket. There is no statement about the time starting when you passed the entrance camera so time sarts when you agree to the terms and buy a ticket. How does that help you?

[charitynjw]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

I would tend to agree with [MENTION=39331]ostell[/MENTION]....with P&D, once you've bought your ticket, the relevant parking period starts from the time you bought the ticket, not when the ANPR captures the vehicle entering the site.

Btw, the time on the ticket should also be scrutinised......sometimes that is out of sync with the ANPR time.

[jax50]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

I would tend to agree with @ostell....with P&D, once you've bought your ticket, the relevant parking period starts from the time you bought the ticket, not when the ANPR captures the vehicle entering the site.

Btw, the time on the ticket should also be scrutinised......sometimes that is out of sync with the ANPR time.

So if you drive past ANPR at 12:00 hrs ..take 7 minutes before paying for an hour at the machine, then get back and drive out 70 minutes later through the ANPR at 13:17hrs......the ANPR shows you were in the car park for 77 minutes, and you paid for 60 minutes, you were 'allowed' 11 minutes and thus you were 6 minutes over-stayed and would be sent a PCN. isn't that how it works ? Thus it's the ANPR that sets the time limit.?

[ostell]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

You've got it in one but while you're passing the ANPR cameras cameras you aint parking. The contract to park started when you paid your money and ended when you left the parking space. You were paying for parking, not driving around the car park, and driving around is not parking, as has been commented on by one judge.

[jax50]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

You've got it in one but while you're passing the ANPR cameras cameras you aint parking. The contract to park started when you paid your money and ended when you left the parking space. You were paying for parking, not driving around the car park, and driving around is not parking, as has been commented on by one judge.

The T&C's say 'any stay' is chargeable...but I know what you're saying. Is it entering private land that is being monitored by the ANPR and the parking is an option, as is not parking and just driving out again. Two options for the driver. ? But when does the 'contract ' start ? I'm trying to get my head round this..if you drive in and drive out again straight away has there been a acceptance of the contract on offer ? If you drive in and don't pay has there been an acceptance of the contract offer ? Does the fact the T&Cs say 'any stay is chargeable' when in fact that is not true, because of the undisclosed grace periods, have any affect on things... As you said, while you're driving around you're not actually taking what is offfered, ie a parking spot, ..but what if you park up to read the T&Cs etc, is that acceptance of the contract before you've even read the conditions ? I'm rambling now...aren't I.

[charitynjw]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

While grace periods are allowable, each case is considered on the facts which are pertinent to it.

For instance, if a driver parks & exits the parking area on foot straight away, then it becomes a bit more difficult to make an argument for the initial 'reasonable' grace period.

[ostell]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

No doubt I will be corrected but for a contract to exist there has to be an offer, acceptance of the conditions and consideration. How can you agree to the coditions if you haven't read them.

[charitynjw]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

No doubt I will be corrected but for a contract to exist there has to be an offer, acceptance of the conditions and consideration. How can you agree to the coditions if you haven't read them.

The contract is a unilateral offer, which can be 'accepted' by performance.
If the site signage is clear & prominent, I guess that it would be for the offeree (the driver) to read them & decide whether to accept the terms.
By leaving the vehicle in the parking area & exiting it, I would say that it is acceptance by performance.

Classic Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co

[jax50]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

The contract is a unilateral offer, which can be 'accepted' by performance.
If the site signage is clear & prominent, I guess that it would be for the offeree (the driver) to read them & decide whether to accept the terms.
By leaving the vehicle in the parking area & exiting it, I would say that it is acceptance by performance.

Classic Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co

At what point is the offer accepted ? Entering the car park, or just parking in a bay, or actually paying for parking ?

[ostell]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

If there's money involved then the payment of money says you accept the contract and want to be held by it. Entering the car park it would not be possible to read the contract on offer.

[jax50]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

reply from BPA...

The entry grace period states that ‘You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action’.

We do not define the ‘reasonable time’ given at entering as this will vary dependent on the size, layout and design of the parking area and subsequently this will vary from site to site. This is not a free period of parking as if a motorist stays on the site this is included in their time on site. The exit grace period is only applicable at the end of the parking contract to allow the motorist time to leave the car park. In a Pay & Display car park the motorist must pay for parking for the exit grace period to be applicable.

Can anyone actually translate this into English ???

[charitynjw]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

Imho it is absurd nonsense.

Firstly, driving into a car park & finding a suitable space is not parking.
Then, as with any contract, you must at least be given the opportunity of reading the contract terms & conditions to decide whether or not to accept them. This is in both the trade assn Codes of Practice.
You can then either choose to accept the T&Cs, or not accept & leave the site.
If you choose the former, then you are allowed a min 10 mins to vacate the site after the allowed period of parking.
But why should it be any different if you choose not to park? You still need to go back to the vehicle & drive out, don't you?

In my opinion, if you read the BPA reasoning literally, you have no grace period whatsoever if you choose not to park. That would mean that, the moment you set foot (or should that be 'tyres') in the car park entrance you are held liable for parking charges or for a breach of contract.
So you only get the advantage of grace periods if you agree to T&Cs, but if you don't agree to them, they hold you to them regardless & you cannot escape the trap.
As stated, absurd!

[jax50]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

It bamboozled me...just doesn't make sense. I see the BPA have released some ammendments to version 7 of the CoP, dated May 2017 but operative just recently. I spotted a bit where operators must send driver a copy of their POPLA appeal reply, I didn't get one unsurprisingly.

The ambiguity over entering a car park and when a contract is formed seems to be even more contradictory too.

[charitynjw]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

It bamboozled me...just doesn't make sense. I see the BPA have released some ammendments to version 7 of the CoP, dated May 2017 but operative just recently. I spotted a bit where operators must send driver a copy of their POPLA appeal reply, I didn't get one unsurprisingly.

The ambiguity over entering a car park and when a contract is formed seems to be even more contradictory too.

A new CoP came into force 2nd Jan 2018.
I reckon it is accepted now by most people who have an understanding of the 'politics' of the current shambolic parking regimes, that self-regulation has been a spectacular failure*, especially when you have 2 trade associations competing for business.
It must be obvious to anyone that firms will go to the system which gives them the greatest benefit. Or at least, they can use the threat of doing so as powerful leverage to get the results that they want,
As usual, it is the motorist who suffers.

That response from BPA is a classic example.......a load of waffle & gobbledegook to try & justify what, to any reasonable person, is incredulous.

*Unless you happen to be a parking co, in which case it is a resounding & very profitable success.