PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking permit T&Cs staff car park with PPC involved
nigelbb
post Tue, 30 Oct 2018 - 15:31
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,497
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



I would welcome some thoughts on the new parking regime that is being introduced at work using a PPC for enforcement. For the moment I would prefer to omit names & full details while we kick around the discussion.

Everyone has to apply for a parking permit & agree to the T&Cs. In turn contained within the T&Cs is this paragraph:-

"Staff car parking facilities will be managed and enforced via Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and authorised staff permit holders complying with the Parking Terms and Conditions detailed on the signage situated within all staff car parks, will not be issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)."

Are additional T&Cs detailed on signs in the car park a legitimate part of the parking contract? The ruling in the famous case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking was that additional T&Cs on a sign could not be applied when the contract had already been concluded by taking a ticket. I'm unsure however whether this applies in this case as it can hardly be held that the signs were not seen or read when the driver habitually uses the car park & the contract does explicitly mention them.

My second question is whether the PPC can enforce the T&Cs by issuing a PCN. It's very clear that the parking contract is with the employer as the second paragraph of the T&Cs states:-

"By parking on the site the driver of the vehicle is entering into a contract with the Employer and abides by these Terms and Conditions."

There is no mention of the PPC in the T&Cs. The PPC is named on the signs in the car park but the name of the employer is entirely missing from those signs. I know that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 does allow 3rd parties to enforce a contract but as far as I understand it the 3rd party must be specifically mentioned in the contract as someone authorised to do so & the contract "purports to confer a benefit" on the 3rd party.

I would welcome any thoughts on the situation.

This post has been edited by nigelbb: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 - 16:19


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 3)
Advertisement
post Tue, 30 Oct 2018 - 15:31
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 30 Oct 2018 - 17:20
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,092
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Rather a convoluted one but my take on it
1/ yes they can refer to the signs, the referral to the signs is in the contract as such they aren’t varying the contract as they tried with Thornton
2/ but yes the contract isn’t with the PPC, as such any ticket from the PPC is a nullity whether it could be issued (using my point 1) or not.
3/ whether the principle could then argue you still need to pay them for a ticket issued by the PPC gets into a very complicated loop, but without thinking too long and hard I’d suggest not.

I have experience of a significantly sized fleet operator who simply doesn’t understand the difference between private parking tickets and those created by statute, they operate over 10,000 cars, never underestimate the stupidity of large organisations in failing to even try and understand private parking before setting ‘rules’.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 11:24
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,497
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 30 Oct 2018 - 18:20) *
Rather a convoluted one but my take on it
1/ yes they can refer to the signs, the referral to the signs is in the contract as such they aren’t varying the contract as they tried with Thornton

In the case of Thornton printed on the ticket he purchased from a machine was:-

"this ticket is issued subject to the conditions of issue as displayed on the premises".

On the car park pillars near the paying office there was a list, one excluding liability for "injury to the Customer"

It was held that the contract was concluded when the ticket was purchased & that the exclusion clause could not be added.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_v_Sh...ane_Parking_Ltd

This appears very similar. The contract was concluded when the parking permit was applied for & deduction from pay agreed. It would have been a simple matter to incorporate into the parking contract what is written on the signs forbidding parking on double yellow lines or grass verges etc & in particular the £70 penalty for infringement (£35 for prompt payment).

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 30 Oct 2018 - 18:20) *
2/ but yes the contract isn’t with the PPC, as such any ticket from the PPC is a nullity whether it could be issued (using my point 1) or not.

That's my interpretation too. Similar to residential parking cases where a parking space is demised in the lease the PPC cannot offer a contract for parking when the permit holder already has a prior contract to park.

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 30 Oct 2018 - 18:20) *
3/ whether the principle could then argue you still need to pay them for a ticket issued by the PPC gets into a very complicated loop, but without thinking too long and hard I’d suggest not.

Worst case would be that the employer is owed the parking charge so that a cheque for £35 made out in favour of the employer could be sent to the PPC in the full knowledge that they couldn't cash it & are unlikely to pass it on to the employer.

This post has been edited by nigelbb: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 11:25


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 07:03
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,092
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



In one above the difference you’ve missed is that in Thornton the contract was concluded (parking fee paid) before they were told of the signs, that’s clearly not the case here, you need to look at the whole scenario not cherry pick, I’d stil say it was valid.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 18th November 2019 - 11:25
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.