HJ Telegraph Today - supermarket car park ticket

Honest John Back Room » Motoring discussion
View Threaded
Sat 18 Sep 2010 20:45
HJ Telegraph Today - supermarket car park ticket - daveyjp

A reader is saying they received a ticket from a private parking company for overstaying at a supermarket.

HJ advice:

"Send them £10 and an accompanying letter stating you consider this to be "adequate compensation for your minor breach of contract".

No HJ the advice is to ignore the ticket, don't contact them and then ignore every other piece of threatening mail they send you. If they send Court papers, check they are real and then file a robust defence. You will win.

If the parking is free no contract has been entered into, therefore there can be no breach.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 18 Sep 2010 21:35
HJ Telegraph Today - supermarket car park ticket - Avant

"If the parking is free no contract has been entered into, therefore there can be no breach."

I think it depends on whether the terms and conditions of parking are brought to the attention of the driver BEFORE parking. If they are, (s)he is bound by them: if not, then the contract can be valid free of the terms.

Davey is right that if something is free, there is no contract (normally) but the terms, if visible, are saying that after x hours it isn't free. Therefore there is consideration at that point, and therefore a contract.

Edited by Avant on 18/09/2010 at 21:52

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 18 Sep 2010 21:38
HJ Telegraph Today - supermarket car park ticket - daveyjp
By reading this post you have entered into a contract to pay me £1,000.

Would I win in Court?
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 18 Sep 2010 21:50
HJ Telegraph Today - supermarket car park ticket - Avant

No, because you didn't tell me about it before I posted.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 19 Sep 2010 13:52
HJ Telegraph Today - supermarket car park ticket - Cliff Pope

No, because you didn't tell me about it before I posted.

Anyone who makes a further post on this or any other thread will be deemed to have entered into a contract with me to pay me £1000.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 19 Sep 2010 15:12
HJ Telegraph Today - supermarket car park ticket - Avant

Good try Cliff - but what's the consideration on your side to make the contract valid?

Even then it would only be an offer which, even if we believed that all Popes are infallible, we could still - perhaps ungratefully - reject. :)

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 19 Sep 2010 20:03
HJ Telegraph Today - supermarket car park ticket - daveyjp
My only response to that reponse is

'oh dear'.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 19 Sep 2010 23:27
HJ Telegraph Today - supermarket car park ticket - martint123
My only response to that reponse is 'oh dear'.

Indeed - on "the old forum" there was a complete sticky thread at www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&...6 on how to fold the demand and bin it.

I can't remember the author, so difficult to find now.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 20 Sep 2010 13:59
HJ Telegraph Today - supermarket car park ticket - redviking

People seem to forget, a private car parking company CANNOT issue a fine. They can only issue an invoice....disguised as a fine.

They dont know who the driver is, these PPC are nothing but scammers and con men

There is not a case in this country where a PPC has taken someone to court and won, there are cases where the driver has taken them to court, and they have won

Anyone who hands money over to these illegal companies is a fool, even the courts and parliment agree with that.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 20 Sep 2010 16:36
HJ Telegraph Today - supermarket car park ticket - LucyBC
There is at least one case where the private parking company won:

Combined Parking Solutions -v- Stephen J Thomas (2008)

and they have never stopped quoting it since - although some very unusual circumstances applied.

In letters to people who appeal Excel Parking claim it to be a "precedent" which it is not as it was in the lower court. Furthermore the special circumstances were that Mr Thomas manipulated some of the documentation on his computer -- which did not please the judge who (understandably) distrusted everything else in his evidence and found for the parking company ordering Mr Thomas to pay the parking charge.

That said I am largely against responding in any way unless there is a court claim sent by the court - not just a letter from the parking company threatening "imminent court action.

The reason is that responding at all merely seeks to confirm they have the correct address. Under no circumstances should a driver enter any "appeals" process - which largely comprises the parking company deciding whether you should pay them or not - as all you are doing is providing them with information which they may find useful at a future date.

However it is not true that these charges are illegal or indeed always unenforceable. It is the case that it is very difficult to enforce and the odds are very much stacked in the driver's favour in the unlikely event that the case gets to court.

But there is the basis for a payment to be charged if you park in a car park and do not comply with their terms and conditions.

Assuming the warning signage is unmissable and the terms and conditions posted you can be deemed to be entering into a contract by using the car park and - in theory at least - the terms of that contract can be enforced through the courts if you breach that contract.

Where it all falls apart is that:

1. No element of any charge can be punitive or seen as a fine and judges have historically thrown out the few cases that have come before them on the basis that the amounts charged and further additional "costs" added have been punitive. So Honest John's £10 suggestion may have some merit if it dissuades them from endless communications which many people find distressing, particularly if the keeper was the driver, parked there and has already admitted it.

2. While a stamp and an envelope to send endless letters is cheap the parking company will have to pay to issue proceedings. Given the high chance of losing they are understandably very reluctant to do so.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link