Safe Speed Forums

I would agree, if that's what had happened. But, AIUI, the deemed contract is payment of a parking charge if the vehicle is left for more than one hour. In this case, AIUI, Edbad did not park for longer than one hour so there was no question of a parking charge on that account. It appears that he has been 'fined' for (allegedly) parking incorrectly. That is the issue I was addressing. What breach has occurred if a person parks incorrectly?

Right, I'm with you now. Ultimately it depends on exactly what the signage says. It might say that you agree to pay £40 for parking outside of a marked bay, although this would be a bit controversial since that would mean they are actually offering the service of allowing you to park like that in exchange for the payment. So in theory you could block up their car park entrance, pay the £40 to do so, and leave it like that indefinitely, and they wouldn't be able to ask you to move or interfer with the vehicle, otherwise they would be in breach of the contract. And that would be quite an insane situation.

There is also something called the 'contra preferentum' rule, which means that the person who has the privelege of drawing up the wording of an agreement should have any ambiguity interpreted against their interests. It applies to exclusion clauses and the like, but it might apply to something like this as well. If it did, it would mean 'outside marked bays' would have to be interpreted as narrowly as possible against the party who worded the sign: ie it would be interpreted only to mean in a totally different area to the bays, and not across two bays.

Exactly. My point was that (in all probability) it will be hard to show a breach of contract by reason of the 'incorrect' parking (for the reasons you've described) - and even if a breach is shown, what's the loss? And if there's no loss, there's no damages for breach.

edited

sorry everyone, do not have a scanner, however the following is taken off a photo of the sign in the car park.
Euro Car Parks.
Customer car park only.
This car park is patrolled. Failure to comply with the following may result in a £50 penalty ticket.
Parking limited to one hour.
Orange badge holders only in disabled bays.
Park only in marked bays.
Offenders will be clamped..£50.

edited

Johno, hypothetically, should it actually escalate to the point where baillifs do visit, and on the basis that they would never gain entry to my home, could they attempt to take my car from the driveway.

edited

A similar sign has appeared in our local Tesco car park, so I expect there'll be fines for parking in a parent and child space at 3 in the morning when they're all empty. But as usual bugger all done about idiots driving round the car park the wrong way and stuffing it up for everyone else (and arguably dangerous too).

I'll be voting with my wallet and going to Morrisons or Waitrose from now on. Arseholes!

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

[quote="Gatsobait
A similar sign has appeared in our local Tesco car park, so I expect there'll be fines for parking in a parent and child space at 3 in the morning when they're all empty. But as usual bugger all done about idiots driving round the car park the wrong way and stuffing it up for everyone else (and arguably dangerous too).

I'll be voting with my wallet and going to Morrisons or Waitrose from now on. Arseholes! [/quote]

[Rant mode on]
Now , local to me i stopped shopping at asda because of their parking policy - spaces for disabled ( agree with that) ,spaces for mum and kids ( ok with that) -but what about wider spaces for someone who doesn't want their car dented by the kids in a 4x4 ( now i'll defend the owners right to buy what they want) thats a tad to big for the painted spaces
Now at Tesco - do they park sensibly /respect the fact that the kids might open the doors in excitement (and risk a fine) /park in the middle of the park, mum gets kids out /dad parks car( with risk to kids) or park in two spaces , get kids out safely (and risk a fine)
Mr Tesco - the choice is yours
Perhaps a good case for voting with feet
[/rant mode off]

As in the words of a TV ad -"problem sorted - moved banks"

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Zamzara may have additional/different input but I struggle to see how a binding contract can be implied from this. The essential ingredients for a contract are offer, acceptance and consideration. I do not think this sign can be described as an offer and if there is no offer there can be no acceptance. Neither do I think that any consideration is expressed or implied. The words "£50 penalty ticket" have nothing to do with customary language for contracts (as I said before, a contractual penalty is unenforceable anyway).

They don't define properly what '£50 penalty ticket means'. I think they're on very shaky ground.

The main problem might be anti-motorist bias from the courts.

Are you sure about this? I saw a TV expose of a private ticketing company but I don't think ECP was implicated, I believe ECP is a general management company and is running this as a general service on top, although in our view it is a grey area.

Gareth

edited