Counter the Attack, Unexpected Response to Parking Charge Notice |
Counter the Attack, Unexpected Response to Parking Charge Notice |
Sat, 15 Jun 2019 - 11:13
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 27 Oct 2012 Member No.: 57,938 |
I have now fought off 3 parking actions - in each case the companies turned shy of me.
I have not bothered with appeal procedures as I assert that I have never entered into any agreement with them in the first place. Appeals are about fines - not charges! Firstly, I have affixed small but visible notices around my number plates which say "NO PARKING CONTRACTS ACCEPTED". If they take pictures of my number plates, these words show up as they are tightly aligned to the numbers. This means no company can claim that they were unaware of my terms and conditions when I entered the car park. If they use these camera methods, that is their problem. In fact, because so much parking company signage is buried within a car park rather than at the entrance, it is clear to anyone that I have set out my terms before they set out theirs. Secondly, I have introduced my own charges to them. There is a clearly displayed tariff of charges in my car windows in relatively small print but not too small to read, which covers any eventuality and any company 'trying it on'. It sets out costs for responding to letters "£25 per letter" and a whole host of other costs associated with my collecting evidence with photography, recordings of interviews with shop staff, video creation and other items. I involve everyone. The above means that the first thing that happens when a company writes to me demanding money is that they receive a bigger demand back, across 3 or 4 pages and containing a myriad of escalating charges and threats of action. If the company are stupid enough to proceed with their harassment of me, they will get trapped in a very lengthy and expensive court case which no company has so far risked embarking upon. I realise that such an approach could look 'crazy' but I have been careful to keep the language concise, and very much based on realities of contract law rather than pie in the sky assertions. My case rests on the assumption that it will be very hard for a company to defeat the terms and conditions imposed by the driver (or owner as opposed to just the owner) entering their land, who has clearly stated that he will not agree to the imposition of un-agreed charges upon the 'driver or owner', and, where the parking company has failed to make the driver aware of their own terms and conditions at the point of entrance. Even so, I have not ever disclosed who precisely the driver was. The complexity mirrors their own complexity and assumptions. Another point is that my contract also seeks to embroil the commissioning company into the argument. So, Waitrose for example, consequently also received many charges on invoices, discovering that they had unwittingly 'accepted' investigation of all of their trading practices. They had 'agreed' to having their practices published on a website and they would pay for the setting up and maintenance of the website. By the time they received the first invoice, I had already interviewed staff about wrongly priced and labelled items in the store and Waitrose were getting the bill for the research, the recordings and the photographs of signage - all of which was set out in the terms and conditions written on my car. If they wanted copies of my research they could have them, the costs amounting to hundreds of pounds. Furthermore, all directors of the store company whether creative, accounting, company secretary, store development etc were emailed with a copy of the invoices which I imagine may well have governed discussion at the following board meeting, given the risks to reputation. A lot of work went into the this, more than many people would embark on. My logic is simple. 'If you can impose non-agreed contracts upon me, then I can impose non-agreed contracts upon you - using your own logic of acceptance. So far, all companies have found the nearest exit by which to disappear. Now my templates are ready and any future actions will be far more simple to administer. At any car park, where any company clearly set out ALL their terms and conditions at the entrance to a car park, so that I may freely decide whether or not to enter their land, I have absolutely no argument with that. Yet almost none of them do because they are hoping for soft targets to charge. It is only after parking inside that the complex rules and £100 type charges start to appear - too late! In this model I have used, the company(ies) agree to my contract first and I most clealry establish that I do not agree to theirs. I hope this offers food for thought and am delighted to have these ideas developed. Happy days. PS. Look out for the story about a notorious car clamper, operating once in a northern tourist spot, as many used to, having to pay £65,000 in costs after he clamped someone! Coming soon! Someone I know well has taken the villain to the cleaners. This post has been edited by Twizzle: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 - 11:20 |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2019 - 20:19
Post
#2
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 27 Oct 2012 Member No.: 57,938 |
There is a growing problem of people driving on to city, town and country car parks and finding that they are becoming liable to, not even a parking fee but an admission fee. According to this relatively new form of trading, you have already accepted a contract for paying any amount, simply because you drove on to the land, even though you were not asked if you wanted to be involved in the contract.
Although some may say, "if you don't like the terms leave", the companies involved are making it harder to find the terms. Even then they do not explain that you have time to leave if you disagree. Take Waitrose for example. 1st sign: Simply says Waitrose Car Park. Even this is untrue because once inside, you may discover that you are in a Britannia Parking Car Park in there terms, not a Waitrose Car Park at all. 2nd sign: says see term and conditions. 3rd sign: see terms and conditions. ALL THE ABOVE SIGNS ARE AT HIGH LEVEL IN SMALL WRITING AND UNLIT. So where are the terms and conditions? To find the terms and conditions, you will have to park your car. ( I suggest you lock it.) Locate a walkway that will take you into a shopping precinct. Walk past 4 stores, 1 selling cameras, 1 selling hi fi equipment, a restaurant and 2 other stores. Walk to the entrance of Waitrose. There, at very low level and unlit, you will find the terms and conditions. You left your car around 5 minutes ago! When the store is closed, the terms and conditions are covered - but the car park enforcement still operates. Nowhere in the car park, is there any sign that tells you where the terms and conditions are displayed. There is no where in the car park any sign that tells you that you must walk to the Waitrose store or that you even have to buy anything there. Yet this is the only place you will be able to find the terms and conditions. Upon entering the car park, you are forced into a one-way system that brings you out in a different street eventually. So if you were able to see any signs warning of charges you would be unable to avoid entering the car park. In other words. No one parking can find out the terms, yet they will insist that you have accepted a contract. Being in the car park is counted as parking. I know that such systems had the original task of keeping the bays free for customers. However, mission creep means that the parking company make their money from "fines" (by another name). Therefore, the company, Britannia have ensured that the terms are hard to find and that nowhere at the entrance is there any reference to the terms, the £80 or whatever other parking charges apply. It is a venus fly-trap. Given the Car Park has one big sign at the entrance saying "Waitrose Car Park", that is all I need to accuse the company of unfair trading. I can't imagine why anybody would agree to any term, no matter how reasonable or how ridiculous, no matter how mild or extreme, without first being aware that you were liable in any way for any charge. If you bought a new car, would you think it reasonable that Mercedes had charged you £20 for them driving your new car out of the showroom into their car park, simply because of a hidden sign! (I know not of such a scheme). But this is the same madness we are talking about. If you're a turkey voting for Christmas, than carry on playing their games - if not, HIT BACK if you are caught out by a dodgy term or charge. The best defence is attack - start issuing invoices to them and let the courts sort it out. |
|
|
Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 18:54
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 240 Joined: 7 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,244 |
There is a growing problem of people driving on to city, town and country car parks and finding that they are becoming liable to, not even a parking fee but an admission fee. Eh,no. You don't become liable to a parking charge just by driving into private land. You become liable if, after having been given sufficient opportunity to read the signs and make up your mind whether you want to accept the terms or not. If you then park up, you are deemed to have accepted the terms of the contract. If you do not agree, you leave. A few minutes grace period to read the signs and decide is usually allowed. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 04:44 |