Jbif, thanks, I'd seen most of those, but all the NCP threads refer to claims of byelaws being breached. There is no such breach here - no mention of byelaws.
Annoyingly I can't check the state of the signage on google maps as, unsurprisingly, street view is not available at the airport.
|
There is no such breach here - no mention of byelaws. >>
Can you tell us which Airport Car Park it was?
|
Yes, it was BHX Long Stay 1.
Spaces shown here: tinyurl.com/yf2xx6k
In the driver's defence, at 5:30 am it was dark, raining, and all the spaces were full except the fifth from top. Apparently the signs were not spotted then, although there is a "10 minutes max" sign about 40 cm across affixed to the pay machine visible as a white shelter in the image.
Driver can't remember seeing any terms and conditions signage.
|
terms and conditions >>
All I can find is the t&c from: www.ncp.co.uk/nbook/ncpbook.asp
Parking Charge Notices issued for breaches of parking restrictions
31. We and our Agent may issue Parking Charge Notices for breaches of the restrictions, including but not limited to, parking:
a. in an area in the Car Park not specifically designated for parking, or in a restricted area in the Car Park;
b. beyond the bay markings in a single designated Car Parking bay; and
c. a Vehicle in a bay reserved for another purpose, including but not limited to: .... etc. ec.
32. Details of the procedure from time to time in force for paying a Parking Charge Notice or appealing against the issue of a Parking Charge Notice are set out on the back of each Parking Charge Notice.
I do not see any mention of bye-laws for Airport car parks.
What does the charge notice say regarding appeals?
See the post on the pepipoo link by "ormy" dated at Fri, 17 Jul 2009 - 15:59
|
|
|
Gordon says: >> They have suffered no loss, no harm, and while they are owed an apology, they have no right to impose a fine. >>
How are they (NCP) to keep people out of the ten minute bays other than by fining them?
It is incredibly annoying to arrive at an airport or station to find the picking-up and dropping-off bays all in use, but that's life.
If, however, they're being used by someone who leaves a car there for three days then the level of inconvenience is huge. If NCP allow that it's just unfair to people trying to use the ten minute bay for ten minutes.
So Gordon and/or his driver should admit he/she/they are legally and morally in the wrong, pay up and look big.
|
Optimist, I should be absolutely clear - I do not defend in any way my car having been parked in a 10 minute bay. It should not have happened, and I will make sure the driver never does it again.
But I also agree with you that the people inconvenienced have been other car park users, and I don't see how paying NCP a large sum of money will help those users?
I am now clear that there is no legal basis for the large charge.
Morally, parking there was clearly wrong, but I don't see how paying NCP helps rolsolve the error (perhaps someone could suggest a suitable charity to receive the money?). All I can usefully do is to make sure that it does not happen again.
|
(perhaps someone could suggest a suitable charity to receive the money?)
Here's a thought, Gordon. Why not, as it's that time of year, give the money to Children in Need and write a letter to NCP telling them that they have no legal right to demand this money from you but as a gesture you have donated the amount of the 'fine' to CiN. Imagine the media stories if they then wrote back demanding the money from you - "Parking Giants Steal From Children" etc, etc.
Just a thought.... :-)
|
Badwolf, I love the idea.
Any legal types on here know if I would be potentially putting the driver at a disadvantage by taking that course of action?
|
Badwolf I love the idea.
So you have no problem with paying the money, you just don't want to give the money to NCP?
Slightly TIC, but what does "the driver" as opposed to "the keeper" say about this. Does he/she think they should pay?
We don't seem to have heard their opinion (I think I know why).
|
drbe, the driver was working for my company, was on company time, and I accept it was an error. I don't regard the charge as their problem, whether it gets paid or not and whomever it gets paid to.
As the registered keeper, I don't acknowledge there is any debt owed to NCP.
I do acknowledge that my car has probably caused other people inconvenience, so I am willing to make a gesture to make moral amends for that. Hence the charity donation idea.
|
I get it now.
This is a long stay car park so the only place where there'll be ten minute parking is by the barriers and paystation.
If you park there you must be a bit dumb and - as a businessman - you must know that stupidity costs in this life.
Put it down to experience.
|
. Hence the charity donation>> idea.
>>
What an interesting concept.
We rent/buy/borrow/hire something from a company and fail to comply with their T & Cs.
What do you seriously expect that company to do? Come round to your house and shout through the letterbox? Have thickset men waiting for you when you drive your car away from its parking place?
No. Of course not. They have asked you for money for the breach of T & Cs - quite reasonably, in my opinion.
If every time there was a dispute between a customer and a supplier we said "it's OK. I have sent the disputed amount to ----------" (fill in the name of your favourite charity) commerce would collapse.
If you are not doing to ask the driver to pay up, then I think you should take reponsibility for his actions and pay up.
|
drbe, what is the loss that I am compensating them for?
I recently had to cancel an event I was attending. I've still paid the full fee - they would have made a loss because of me otherwise. NCP have made no loss.
|
It isn't a loss. Who said it was?
The driver of your car did a stupid thing that was against the NCP T&C's I imagine you signed up to when you booked.
|
|
So if no loss on what basis can they fine the driver? A penalty is illegal under contract law.
|
It isn't a loss. Who said it was? The driver of your car did a stupid thing that was against the NCP T&C's I imagine you signed up to when you booked.
This whole scenario reminds me of the bank charges furore. People in their thousands have challenged returned direct debit fees (and the like) on the grounds that they are punitive rather than reflecting the true cost to the bank. My bank (The Royal Bank of Scotland) have recently reduced their unpaid item fee from £38 to £5 in recognition of this.
As Gordon has said on more than one occasion, he is quite happy to admit that his driver was wrong to park where he did. However, NCP have suffered absolutely no financial loss whatsoever and yet still demand £50 (if paid promptly) for what amounts to an oversight.
The 'punishment' must fit the 'crime'.
|
|
I am now clear that there is no legal basis for the large charge. >>
Hmm. Look at jbif's post again.
I don't see the difficulty. If you rent a DVD and take it back late they'll charge you for infringement of their T&C's. You local library will charge you if you've overdue books because that's a breach of their T&C's.
NCP are doing exactly the same thing and, let's face it, this is not like overstaying half an hour in a supermarket car park.
|
The difference here is that Gordon's driver paid for, and used, the three days parking. He did not deprive NCP of any income, or any potential income, by occupying the wrong parking space.
If I rent a DVD and return it late, I would expect the DVD shop to charge me a 'fine' as I have prevented them from earning further income on the DVD.
NCP have had their pound of flesh and now want seconds....
|
Gordon's driver paid for, and used, the three days parking >>
I've probably missed it but where do you get that from? The barriers were out of order when the car left the car park so............
Edited to acknowledge Gorddon's post below. I'm thick so don't see how you pay in a car park where the barriers aren't working. Sorry.
Edited by Optimist on 13/11/2009 at 14:37
|
The parking was pre-paid and the normal procedure is that the ticket is put in the machine and you then give the code to zero the balance and get out.
The full fee was therefore paid in advance. The only problem with the barriers being out of order would be for the driver to prove when they left.
EDIT: Optimist, the system is through airportparking.co.uk : We use them a lot, very good value. I would never condone leaving without paying, that's theft, pure and simple, whether the barriers are working or not.
Edited by Gordon M on 13/11/2009 at 14:40
|
|
Optimist, T&Cs can rightly allow them to charge the driver for any losses incurred.
In your examples they would have been unable to rent the DVD to another customer, or to loan the books to another member, necessitating either a loss of income or a cost to replace the item so that they could lend it out.
I would not argue in the slightest in those situations.
Here they have lost no income. The correct charge of £22 was paid, and the car removed from the carpark in time, but the car was left in an inappropriate place in the carpark, probably causing inconvenience to some other customers. On behalf of the driver, I would happily apologise to both NCP and those customers for that inconvenience.
But. NCP have suffered no loss. The correct parking fee was paid. Under contract law they have no legal right to penalise the driver, only recover reasonable losses.
Morally the driver is in the wrong, but I don't see that paying NCP will help that. I do think that doing something to benefit the wider community would be appropriate though, hence I like the Children in Need idea - a far better place for the cash to go. If there are no legal downsides to the idea, I intend to do that.
|
Let me get this right - you believe you shouldn't pay the £50 fine but what difference will it do paying £50 to a charity? If you wish to donate to charity, then do so. But I cannot understand the principle of refusing to pay NCP's "fine" and giving it to charity instead. Doesn't make sense!
By all means, donate to charity but don't do so because NCP are annoying you! Donate because you want to.......
|
|
Well, it's NCP's car-park - The person that parked there for three days (in a ten minute bay) did not abide by their rules and subsequently got penalised (not too harshly) for doing so - there may be all kinds of loopholes for, legitimately, not paying it, morally questionable in my eyes. Hardly a selfless act. It's like those ignorant, selfish gits who park in the "customer pick up bays" at supermarkets whilst legitimate users are left isolated. Says a lot about what's wrong with society.
|
PU, I agree with you that it has inconvenienced completely unfairly a group of people (car park users). I am also happy to take the driver's word that this was completely unintentional.
So, an oversight has inconvenienced a group of people. How does me paying money to a completely different group who have suffered no inconvenience or loss help mitigate the damage? I don't believe it does.
The offer of a payment to a charity is a separate matter entirely. It's intention is to clarify that the motivation is not financial gain, and an acceptance that the driver is morally in the wrong.
Edited by Gordon M on 13/11/2009 at 15:24
|
Gordon ...... if there was no penalty for parking in the 10 minute bays everyone would do it because it saves you having to move your idle backside more than about 25 yards.
That's what the penalty is for: to stop everyone doing it. Will your driver do it again? I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
