http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5723002
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/15576452.Firm_ordered_to_shut_down_car_park_and_re fund_controversial_fines/
Could get interesting.Council seem to be very wimpish (is that a word?)
Told smart they 'expect' them to refund......good luck with that, not least that Smart could claim them back from the council for leasing them something that they didn't actually provide - a legal to operate car park.
As for not parking as 'appeals could take months' ha, I wish I lived nearby, public highway, not relevant land simple POPLA kill.
And no 'reasonable cause' to obtain RK details from the DVLA?
Is that a whiff of a few DPA claims going in?
PS - The usual ignoramous comments at the bottom of the article.
I would say they did have reasonable cause, they had a reasonably held belief they could use it as a car park based on its previous use. The law doesn't require them to jump through every hoop for that to be reasonable. The situation once they were informed of course is very different!
As the council were responsible for incorrectly letting the parking out to Smart, would they be responsible for the refund to the parkers?
if Smart were their Agent and Smart was doing as instructed by the Council then I think yes the council should be on the hook for the refunds.
I don't read it like that, I read that the council leased it to smart.
err, thats the press...
the actual relationship/deal is yet to be ascertained.
(And if leased what does the lease say exactly...)
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)