| Parking at Morrisons Neath 16:29 - Feb 20 with 33233 views | owainglyndwr |
Parking Eye Ltd are trying to fine us.
But before Christmas when parking at Morrisons all the payment machines had notes saying that they are not working.
But at the start of the new year we had the first letter with a fine.
Which I have ignored and will not pay.
We parked for 3hrs .14 mins after shopping in Neath but also doing our Morrisons shop and having a meal there.
Has anyone else had this problem |  | | |  |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 17:22 - Feb 21 with 1618 views | controversial_jack |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 15:49 - Feb 21 by Highjack |
Both parties have to agree to a contract. Otherwise it isn't a contract. If there's no evidence that a person has stopped to read and accept all the terms and conditions of the sign and then it can't be proved there was a contract. So how can you be done for breach of contract? This is why contracts usually have to be accompanied either with a signature or some other clear acknowledgement of the contract, a recording for example, which is how you can enter into contracts over the phone or via the Internet.
If all contract law was based on assumption then we'd all be running around making millions off innocent people like these shark parking companies are. |
That's correct. They aren't suing you for breach of contract, if they were and got things even slightly wrong, they could be counter sued and that would be bad business for them.
Even councils don't sue, because they invariably get their wording wrong |  | | |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 17:39 - Feb 21 with 1594 views | Highjack |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 16:01 - Feb 21 by STID2017 |
Are you real.
Let's say you walk into the T/O at the Liberty
"One ticket for Burnley home please" - you hand over your £35, he or she prints off the ticket, you say Ta and walk out.
At what point during that transaction did thr person selling the ticket say " Excuse me Mr Highjack, but by buying this ticket you agree to abide by all the terms and conditions both printed on the ticket and displayed in or around the ground, as well as on our website, and to follow all instructions given by our employees, whether full time, part time or casual staff"
It's implied - same as when you buy a pint, it's implied you are going to behave responsibly in the pub, club, etc.
Same as the car park - accept the terms or don't park there. It's implied and anyone who tries to say they haven't formed a contract is just talking crap.
What do you expect - someone at the entrance with a contract for each user of the car park to sign ? |
Rubbish. When you buy a pint you agree to exchange a pint for a certain sum of money. The contract is complete at the point of handing over the money and receiving the drink. You then get a receipt with the details on it I.e written proof of the exchange. If you then act irresponsibly they can chuck you out, sue for any damages caused or call the police in the event of a criminal act. They can't however sue you for breach of contract. That would be farcical and theyd be laughed out of court. |  |
| |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 18:45 - Feb 21 with 1548 views | sherpajacob |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 17:39 - Feb 21 by Highjack |
Rubbish. When you buy a pint you agree to exchange a pint for a certain sum of money. The contract is complete at the point of handing over the money and receiving the drink. You then get a receipt with the details on it I.e written proof of the exchange. If you then act irresponsibly they can chuck you out, sue for any damages caused or call the police in the event of a criminal act. They can't however sue you for breach of contract. That would be farcical and theyd be laughed out of court. |
You seem to be confusing several different issues. Including the law of torts with contract law.
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 , covers many of the points.
I'm interested in your opinion of formation of contract, when exactly does an invitation to treat, become offer and acceptance and therefore form a contract. I believe Fisher v bell 1961 is regarded as definitive on this.
A,receipt for payment, is exactly that, a receipt for monies paid,. I.e. the contract has already been formed and acceptance is deemed to have taken place at the time of payment. The receipt is after payment so cannot be deemed to be any part of the terms of the contract.
From the OP it appears that Morrison's in Neath is pay and display, do you think this impacts on whether the decision in Parking eye v Beavis is binding. Personally I think Parking eye v Cargius is the relevant case law.
Parking eye tend to rely on Beavis in court ( they take a lot of cases to court) as it is a,supreme court judgement, however the Cambridge case PE v Beavis and wardley is clear on the issue of signage and the fundamental difference between free car parks with a time limit where gpeol doesn't apply and pay car parks where gpeol does apply.
Just my opinion, everyone is entitled to their own.
What do you think? |  |
| |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 19:03 - Feb 21 with 1530 views | Loyal |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 18:45 - Feb 21 by sherpajacob |
You seem to be confusing several different issues. Including the law of torts with contract law.
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 , covers many of the points.
I'm interested in your opinion of formation of contract, when exactly does an invitation to treat, become offer and acceptance and therefore form a contract. I believe Fisher v bell 1961 is regarded as definitive on this.
A,receipt for payment, is exactly that, a receipt for monies paid,. I.e. the contract has already been formed and acceptance is deemed to have taken place at the time of payment. The receipt is after payment so cannot be deemed to be any part of the terms of the contract.
From the OP it appears that Morrison's in Neath is pay and display, do you think this impacts on whether the decision in Parking eye v Beavis is binding. Personally I think Parking eye v Cargius is the relevant case law.
Parking eye tend to rely on Beavis in court ( they take a lot of cases to court) as it is a,supreme court judgement, however the Cambridge case PE v Beavis and wardley is clear on the issue of signage and the fundamental difference between free car parks with a time limit where gpeol doesn't apply and pay car parks where gpeol does apply.
Just my opinion, everyone is entitled to their own.
What do you think? |
Take the risk, and fck it. |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 19:12 - Feb 21 with 1516 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 15:48 - Feb 21 by controversial_jack |
The DVLA can do this lawfully, because when you register your vehicle with them you hand over deed and title to them and you just become the registered keeper |
Apart from the first six words which are factually correct, the rest is abject nonsense. [Post edited 21 Feb 2017 19:16]
|  |
| |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 19:15 - Feb 21 with 2000 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 15:52 - Feb 21 by Highjack |
Of course but they have to adhere to the data protection act and only give private details out for genuine reasons. It could be argued that giving details out to private, profit making parking firms is not a sufficient reason, although entirely lawful. |
It has been argued and summarily dismissed as being wrong. | |
| |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 19:19 - Feb 21 with 1999 views | owainglyndwr |
One other thing is if it is a official signage it is not bilingual.
But to be honest you don't stop to read a contract to park, we tried to pay at machinesome but they had notices saying that they are out of order. | | | |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 19:23 - Feb 21 with 1999 views | exiledclaseboy |
Whenever you read a Controversial Jack pronouncement on anything legal read it in the context of the information in the link below.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land
This is the philosophy he follows. It's harmless enough in the main if a bit dotty and almost entirely incorrect but in the wrong hands when these people start dishing out "advice" it can become quite dangerous. It tends to appeal to the vulnerable and simple minded who try to use it to get out of paying debts and sometimes they even try it to get out of criminal charges. It invariably, absolutely without exception, fails miserably but they are the most convinced people you'll ever come across. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 19:56 - Feb 21 with 1960 views | sherpajacob |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 19:19 - Feb 21 by owainglyndwr |
One other thing is if it is a official signage it is not bilingual.
But to be honest you don't stop to read a contract to park, we tried to pay at machinesome but they had notices saying that they are out of order. |
I believe the bilingual thing only applies to public/ council stuff, not private car parks.
The machines being out of order is your key.
Go to Morrison's, tell them you tried to pay, show them your receipt, give them a story about Xmas, long queues at checkout, long wait in restaurant, took ages to find a parking space and 45 minutes to exit car park because it was chokka.
Get them to email parking eye to cancel and copy you into email.
Job done. | |
| |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 19:59 - Feb 21 with 1953 views | Jackfath |
Tell them you had the runs and were in the toilets for a good 15 mins. |  |
| |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:02 - Feb 21 with 1942 views | sherpajacob |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 19:59 - Feb 21 by Jackfath |
Tell them you had the runs and were in the toilets for a good 15 mins. |
A,sick child or elderly relative are always useful. | |
| |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:03 - Feb 21 with 1936 views | sherpajacob |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 19:59 - Feb 21 by Jackfath |
Tell them you had the runs and were in the toilets for a good 15 mins. |
15 minutes, that's less time than normal, how are you supposed to read the racing post in 15 minutes | |
| |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:04 - Feb 21 with 1935 views | Jackfath |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:02 - Feb 21 by sherpajacob |
A,sick child or elderly relative are always useful. |
Not to mention the fact that the self serve tills NEVER work and the assistant ALWAYS has to come and rescue the situation. | |
| |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:27 - Feb 21 with 1908 views | controversial_jack |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 19:12 - Feb 21 by exiledclaseboy |
Apart from the first six words which are factually correct, the rest is abject nonsense. [Post edited 21 Feb 2017 19:16]
|
How so? | | | |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:30 - Feb 21 with 1899 views | Highjack |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 19:15 - Feb 21 by exiledclaseboy |
It has been argued and summarily dismissed as being wrong. |
Yes it usually is when millions of pounds are involved. | |
| |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:33 - Feb 21 with 1892 views | exiledclaseboy |
I've been through this with you before.
The DVLA does not become the owner of your car when you register it. You do not hand over deed and title to your car to the DVLA when you register it. The term "registered keeper" was used deliberately instead of "owner" when the law was framed partly to avoid the government becoming involved in disputes over ownership. The government is not concerned with who is the legal owner of a car, only who is responsible for its use on the road and for taxing it. In most cases that's the owner who is also the registered keeper, in many cases the owner and registered keeper are different. The government does not own your car, the government has no interest in owning your car. Why you think it would is beyond me. | |
| |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:33 - Feb 21 with 1891 views | Highjack |
If you're that worried just stump up the cash. At least you can be certain they'll go away then. They'll have your money for a quick bit of blackmail so they'll be happy and you'll have your peace of mind. Everyone's a winner. | |
| |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:35 - Feb 21 with 1886 views | controversial_jack |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:30 - Feb 21 by Highjack |
Yes it usually is when millions of pounds are involved. |
I think he's confused between right and wrong. | | | |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:35 - Feb 21 with 1884 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:30 - Feb 21 by Highjack |
Yes it usually is when millions of pounds are involved. |
Also wrong. The charge for releasing the information covers costs only. [Post edited 21 Feb 2017 20:36]
| |
| |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:42 - Feb 21 with 1878 views | controversial_jack |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:33 - Feb 21 by exiledclaseboy |
I've been through this with you before.
The DVLA does not become the owner of your car when you register it. You do not hand over deed and title to your car to the DVLA when you register it. The term "registered keeper" was used deliberately instead of "owner" when the law was framed partly to avoid the government becoming involved in disputes over ownership. The government is not concerned with who is the legal owner of a car, only who is responsible for its use on the road and for taxing it. In most cases that's the owner who is also the registered keeper, in many cases the owner and registered keeper are different. The government does not own your car, the government has no interest in owning your car. Why you think it would is beyond me. |
They become the legal owners of the vehicle, that's why they can sell your details, without your permission The police, can seize your car under certain circumstances, which if it is private property they wouldn't be able to do , But you own the equity in the car. | | | |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:44 - Feb 21 with 1864 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:42 - Feb 21 by controversial_jack |
They become the legal owners of the vehicle, that's why they can sell your details, without your permission The police, can seize your car under certain circumstances, which if it is private property they wouldn't be able to do , But you own the equity in the car. |
No they don't. They really, really, really don't. | |
| |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:47 - Feb 21 with 1856 views | controversial_jack |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:35 - Feb 21 by exiledclaseboy |
Also wrong. The charge for releasing the information covers costs only. [Post edited 21 Feb 2017 20:36]
|
£2.7 million profit in 2011, goodness knows how much they make today. Covering costs ; snigger! | | | |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:51 - Feb 21 with 1850 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:47 - Feb 21 by controversial_jack |
£2.7 million profit in 2011, goodness knows how much they make today. Covering costs ; snigger! |
Not profit. | |
| |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 21:22 - Feb 21 with 1803 views | perchrockjack |
I thought I could be obtuse Andrew but controversial is different gravy.
You re a patient man
Is he a Welsh speaker | |
| |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 21:28 - Feb 21 with 1793 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Parking at Morrisons Neath on 20:32 - Feb 20 by JC55DUB |
They wouldn't have to demonstrate financial loss. If you read the Supreme Court ruling...
"..The broader test the Court propounded lies in the context of commercial justification for clauses that might otherwise be regarded as penal — is there some other reason which justifies the discrepancy between the amount payable under the clause and the amount payable by way of damages at common law?
“A damages clause may properly be justified by some other consideration than the desire to recover compensation for a breach.” (para. 28).
The principle engages broader social and economic considerations, one of which is that the law will not generally make a remedy available to a party whose adverse impact on the defaulter significantly exceeds any legitimate interest of the innocent party.
The true test, the Court held at para. 32, is whether:
“the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interests of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation”.
Applying these principles to Mr Beavis’s case, they decided that whilst the penalty rule was engaged, the £85 charge was not a penalty since ParkingEye had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The company was managing car parks in the interests of the retail outlets, their customers and the public at large and had 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. ParkingEye could not charge a sum out of all proportion to its interests but there was no reason to suppose that £85 was out of all proportion. There was no suggestion about what an unreasonable charge might be.
Lord Mance, at para. 198 of his judgment acknowledged that the charge had a deterrent effect but concluded that it has to be and was set at a level which enables managers to recover the cost of operating the scheme. It is hence commercially justifiable." |
That's interesting.
So while I had said that 'reasonable costs' would be administration etc. they have ruled that it is reasonable to impose a high penalty charge as it's part of why they run the business. Thus 'financial loss' has been read quite widely and taken in a broader commercial context than the courts would normally do (or at least, used to do). No wonder it ended up at the Supreme Court. Huge implications going forward for such punitive charges. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
