In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:
On 09/09/2012 06:16, charles wrote:
I act as a driver for a local charity, taking people to the doctor,
etc. I ma required by law to have a "No Smoking" sign in my car when I
do this. I find that intrusive.

It's off those signs. You have to have them on all office doors too.

Only on the entrance to the building - but it's my car (private property)
in which I am giving some a lift.

Well, apparently there's one exemption. I don't recall seeing one on 10
Downing St...

don't do as I do - do as I say.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.

it could certainly require a new head lining. You really can't get the
nicotine smoke deposits out of that.

You certainly can. Smoke deposits are all water soluble. Modern headlining
is commonly synthetics.

My sister bought a car that smelled of fag smoke. The firm said they'd
valet it and so they did but the smell never went. If the car had been
locked up for a while the smell was real bad. The car was repeatedly
cleaned but the smell was there right to day when she crashed it and
wrote it off. Maybe the cleaners weren't trying.
Bill

gremlin_95 wrote:
On 09/09/2012 18:32, stuart noble wrote:
On 09/09/2012 10:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.

it could certainly require a new head lining. You really can't get the
nicotine smoke deposits out of that.

You certainly can. Smoke deposits are all water soluble. Modern headlining
is commonly synthetics.


I can't believe that. Much as I still love the stuff, I'm under no
illusions about the mess it leaves behind

I've valeted plenty of cars which have been smoked in and have a product
which you spray on and the nicotine deposits literally melt and run off
ready to be wiped off. It is harder getting rid of the smell though.

Those will be the components that *aren't* water soluble.

Tim

On 09/09/2012 21:08, Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.

it could certainly require a new head lining. You really can't get the
nicotine smoke deposits out of that.

You certainly can. Smoke deposits are all water soluble. Modern
headlining
is commonly synthetics.

My sister bought a car that smelled of fag smoke. The firm said they'd
valet it and so they did but the smell never went. If the car had been
locked up for a while the smell was real bad. The car was repeatedly
cleaned but the smell was there right to day when she crashed it and
wrote it off. Maybe the cleaners weren't trying.
Bill
More likely didn't know what they were doing. Easy enough to remove fag
smoke smell 100%



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 09/09/2012 14:28, charles wrote:
In article , tim.....
wrote:

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.

The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it and
then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale value
and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and
conditions of the lease.

Such penalties are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Only
government bodies can fine you for not doing what you are told, everybody
else has to confine themselves to claiming for "actual loss", which in
this case is completely covered by the reduction in value as there is no
extra admin involved if they just send it to the auction whatever the
condition.

It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

No it doesn't. The Unfair Contract Terms Act applies to all contracts.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 09/09/2012 15:25, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , tim.....
writes

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , tim.....
wrote:

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left
of it
being smoked in.

The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it and
then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale
value
and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and
conditions of the lease.

Such penalties are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Only
government bodies can fine you for not doing what you are told,
everybody
else has to confine themselves to claiming for "actual loss", which in
this case is completely covered by the reduction in value as there
is no
extra admin involved if they just send it to the auction whatever the
condition.

It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

No it doesn't, it depends upon the law, and UK law specifically bans
the collection of Punitive damages in any type of contact - only the
government may punish you. Any contract clause that attempts to do so
will always be void.

But I can enforce a published parking charge on private land?

Only to recover any loss you have incurred. The charge may not be punitive.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 09/09/2012 06:16, charles wrote:
In article ,
Graham. wrote:
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 21:46:19 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 13:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Owain wrote:

In Scotland, a person in control of the premises (which includes
vehicles used primarily for business purposes) knowingly permitting
smoking is liable to receiving a Fixed Penalty Notice of £200 or being
prosecuted and receiving a fine of £2,500.

Fairly sure that something similar applies in England as well.

I am told smoking is not allowed in my (leased) co car, even during
private use.

There is a sign, on the back of the VEL holder.
It's not an issue for me as I don't smoke and would never allow a
passenger to do so. What others chose to do in their own co cars is
their own business and there is certainly no pro-active enforcement or
spying going on by our management or the leasing co.

I act as a driver for a local charity, taking people to the doctor, etc. I
ma required by law to have a "No Smoking" sign in my car when I do this. I
find that intrusive.

I've just purchased a sign for my deck area;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...ls_o01_s00_i00


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 09/09/2012 20:07, Andy Champ wrote:
On 09/09/2012 06:16, charles wrote:
I act as a driver for a local charity, taking people to the doctor,
etc. I
ma required by law to have a "No Smoking" sign in my car when I do
this. I
find that intrusive.

It's off those signs. You have to have them on all office doors too.

Well, apparently there's one exemption. I don't recall seeing one on 10
Downing St...

Andy

Or the House of Commons bar.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.

it could certainly require a new head lining. You really can't get the
nicotine smoke deposits out of that.

You certainly can. Smoke deposits are all water soluble. Modern
headlining
is commonly synthetics.

My sister bought a car that smelled of fag smoke. The firm said they'd
valet it and so they did but the smell never went. If the car had been
locked up for a while the smell was real bad. The car was repeatedly
cleaned but the smell was there right to day when she crashed it and
wrote it off. Maybe the cleaners weren't trying.

The smell lingers because the deposits penetrate to the bits that you
can't get with a surface clean. A lot of cars have cloth seats or a head
lining with small holes in it, so the smoke gets through the pores and
contaminates the foam behind the porous surfaces. To clear the smell
from the headlining, you have to remove it and clean behind it. The same
with seats, you need to remove the covers and clean them and the foam.

You also need to remove and clean the carpets, and clean the underlay or
other backing.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

charles wrote:
In article , tim.....
wrote:

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.
The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it and
then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale value
and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and
conditions of the lease.

Such penalties are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Only
government bodies can fine you for not doing what you are told, everybody
else has to confine themselves to claiming for "actual loss", which in
this case is completely covered by the reduction in value as there is no
extra admin involved if they just send it to the auction whatever the
condition.

It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

Is the correct answer.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 09/09/2012 21:33, John Williamson wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , tim.....
wrote:

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.
The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it and
then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale value
and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and
conditions of the lease.

Such penalties are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Only
government bodies can fine you for not doing what you are told,
everybody
else has to confine themselves to claiming for "actual loss", which in
this case is completely covered by the reduction in value as there is no
extra admin involved if they just send it to the auction whatever the
condition.

It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

Is the correct answer.

No it isn't. The Unfair Contract Terms Act applies to all contracts.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 09/09/2012 21:33, John Williamson wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , tim.....
wrote:

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left
of it
being smoked in.
The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it and
then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale
value
and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and
conditions of the lease.

Such penalties are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Only
government bodies can fine you for not doing what you are told,
everybody
else has to confine themselves to claiming for "actual loss", which in
this case is completely covered by the reduction in value as there
is no
extra admin involved if they just send it to the auction whatever the
condition.

It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

Is the correct answer.

No it isn't. The Unfair Contract Terms Act applies to all contracts.

"I agree to pay the owner of this vehicle the sum of £5,000 (Five
thousand pounds only) if it is found to be contaminated by tobacco smoke
at the termination of the rental period"

If you are a private individual, this may not be enforceable, but if you
are hiring the vehicle in the course of your business, then you are
deemed to have carried out due diligence and negotiations before
signing, and have agreed to the terms of the contract as printed in
full. There is a difference between contracts between businesses and
those between private individuals and businesses.

The act you refer to only applies where the consumer (i.e. an
individual) is doing business with a Company. The act says:-

"(a)(The consumer) neither makes the contract in the course of a
business nor holds himself out as doing so; and
(b)the other party does make the contract in the course of a business; and
(c)in the case of a contract governed by the law of sale of goods or
hire-purchase, or by section 7 of this Act, the goods passing under or
in pursuance of the contract are of a type ordinarily supplied for
private use or consumption."

So the act only applies to individuals *not acting in the course of
their business*. If you, acting as The Medway Handyman, for example,
sign a lease for a vehicle, or sign a contract for mobile phone serice,
the rules applying to those contracts under the act are not the same as
those which apply if you lease the same vehicle or use the same mobile
phone for your own private use.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 08/09/2012 23:32, Graham. wrote:
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 21:46:19 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 13:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Owain wrote:

In Scotland, a person in control of the premises (which includes
vehicles used primarily for business purposes) knowingly
permitting smoking is liable to receiving a Fixed Penalty Notice
of £200 or being prosecuted and receiving a fine of £2,500.

Fairly sure that something similar applies in England as well.

I am told smoking is not allowed in my (leased) co car, even during
private use.

The no smoking in a company vehicle law only applies where more than one
employee normally drives the vehicle or travel as work related
passengers I think.

Most companies just ban it outright though, as the lingering smell and
possible burns affect the resale value of the vehicle.

SteveW

On 09/09/2012 22:10, John Williamson wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 09/09/2012 21:33, John Williamson wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , tim.....
wrote:

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left
of it
being smoked in.
The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it and
then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale
value
and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and
conditions of the lease.

Such penalties are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Only
government bodies can fine you for not doing what you are told,
everybody
else has to confine themselves to claiming for "actual loss", which in
this case is completely covered by the reduction in value as there
is no
extra admin involved if they just send it to the auction whatever the
condition.

It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

Is the correct answer.

No it isn't. The Unfair Contract Terms Act applies to all contracts.

"I agree to pay the owner of this vehicle the sum of £5,000 (Five
thousand pounds only) if it is found to be contaminated by tobacco smoke
at the termination of the rental period"

If you are a private individual, this may not be enforceable, but if you
are hiring the vehicle in the course of your business, then you are
deemed to have carried out due diligence and negotiations before
signing, and have agreed to the terms of the contract as printed in
full. There is a difference between contracts between businesses and
those between private individuals and businesses.

The act you refer to only applies where the consumer (i.e. an
individual) is doing business with a Company. The act says:-

"(a)(The consumer) neither makes the contract in the course of a
business nor holds himself out as doing so; and
(b)the other party does make the contract in the course of a business; and
(c)in the case of a contract governed by the law of sale of goods or
hire-purchase, or by section 7 of this Act, the goods passing under or
in pursuance of the contract are of a type ordinarily supplied for
private use or consumption."

So the act only applies to individuals *not acting in the course of
their business*. If you, acting as The Medway Handyman, for example,
sign a lease for a vehicle, or sign a contract for mobile phone serice,
the rules applying to those contracts under the act are not the same as
those which apply if you lease the same vehicle or use the same mobile
phone for your own private use.

Surely that is a penalty clause and penalty clauses are not permitted
under English law from what I have been told in the past. Liquidated
damages are allowed, but can only cover true losses.

SteveW

On Sunday, 9 September 2012 20:07:08 UTC+1, Andy Champ wrote:
It's off those signs. You have to have them on all office doors too.

I've seen them on a Challenger tank, and also the footplate of a steam loco. I don't think either were _entirely_ serious.

SteveW wrote:
On 09/09/2012 22:10, John Williamson wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 09/09/2012 21:33, John Williamson wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , tim.....
wrote:

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left
of it
being smoked in.
The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it
and
then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale
value
and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and
conditions of the lease.

Such penalties are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Only
government bodies can fine you for not doing what you are told,
everybody
else has to confine themselves to claiming for "actual loss",
which in
this case is completely covered by the reduction in value as there
is no
extra admin involved if they just send it to the auction whatever the
condition.

It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

Is the correct answer.

No it isn't. The Unfair Contract Terms Act applies to all contracts.

"I agree to pay the owner of this vehicle the sum of £5,000 (Five
thousand pounds only) if it is found to be contaminated by tobacco smoke
at the termination of the rental period"

If you are a private individual, this may not be enforceable, but if you
are hiring the vehicle in the course of your business, then you are
deemed to have carried out due diligence and negotiations before
signing, and have agreed to the terms of the contract as printed in
full. There is a difference between contracts between businesses and
those between private individuals and businesses.

The act you refer to only applies where the consumer (i.e. an
individual) is doing business with a Company. The act says:-

"(a)(The consumer) neither makes the contract in the course of a
business nor holds himself out as doing so; and
(b)the other party does make the contract in the course of a business;
and
(c)in the case of a contract governed by the law of sale of goods or
hire-purchase, or by section 7 of this Act, the goods passing under or
in pursuance of the contract are of a type ordinarily supplied for
private use or consumption."

So the act only applies to individuals *not acting in the course of
their business*. If you, acting as The Medway Handyman, for example,
sign a lease for a vehicle, or sign a contract for mobile phone serice,
the rules applying to those contracts under the act are not the same as
those which apply if you lease the same vehicle or use the same mobile
phone for your own private use.

Surely that is a penalty clause and penalty clauses are not permitted
under English law from what I have been told in the past. Liquidated
damages are allowed, but can only cover true losses.

In a contract where you, *as a consumer*, are doing business with a
business *during their normal course of business*, you are correct.

Contracts between "equal partners" such as a house sale or one business
making a transaction with another can be enforced as written (Or, in
exceptional cases, as verbally agreed). We could make an agreement for
me to buy your house, for instance, and in the contract, it could state
that if either party withdrew before completion, but after exhcnge of
contract, damages of twice the agreed price would be payable. If we both
signed that contract, we would both be bound by it, and no court would
uphold an appeal against that clause. They might hold the contract to be
null and void, but they would not alter a single clause in that
contract. This is why most people employ a legal representative to draw
up such contracts.

Think of the "fines" payable by construction companies working on
Motorways in the UK. If they overrun, they are charged a penalty (The
last I heard) of about £10,000 per mile per lane per day they overrun
the contract period, with a smaller bonus if they finish early. This has
been enforced by the courts on the few occasions the case has ended up
there.

In most cases, in reality, as long as the sum mentioned in what you are
calling a penalty clause is not too outrageous, then the court will
accept that sum as being equivalent to liquidated damages, saving
everybody the time and expense of having to prove the amount of such
damages, which can often exceed the sums involved. The art of writing a
contract is to get the agreed damages to be acceptable to both parties
before signing. In the case of the car lease mentioned here, both
parties are businesses and have agreed to the terms, and the court would
be very reluctant to alter those terms. The hirer could have refused the
contract unless it was altered, and the vehicle owner could have refused
the contract if the hirer attempted to alter the terms. Once it's
signed, though, the contact has to be binding, otherwise the whole
framework of doing business becomes suspect.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote:

"Andy Burns" wrote:

Tim Lamb wrote:

But I can enforce a published parking charge on private land?

Probably not until next month

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...made#article-3

That only affects the way that they can enforce the charge.

The O/P *WAS* asking about enforcement!

Up until now it seems that staying schtum, never replying to the
ParkingCo, they would make lots of threatening noises, never take legal
action, and finally go away.

but he said "can" not "will"

(and he was implying the the negative)

tim

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 22:27:48 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

And this is currently unavailable and we don't know when or if this
item will be back in stock. Never if I have anything to do with it.

Why? I think it's very sensible sign. It tells me to avoid an area
frequented by stinky, anti-social people.


--
Cheers
Dave.

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , tim.....
writes
It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

No it doesn't, it depends upon the law, and UK law specifically bans the
collection of Punitive damages in any type of contact - only the
government may punish you. Any contract clause that attempts to do so
will always be void.

But I can enforce a published parking charge on private land?

That's not damages for breach of contract, it's a charge for the actual
goods/service that you are selling. (And can legally be whatever amount
that you want it to be - that the customer will pay).

So, provided I have a clearly visible/worded notice explaining the charge
applicable to unwanted parking on gateway access aprons, I am at liberty
to detain, without damage, any such vehicle?

No, the new law prohibits you from immobilising the vehicle either by
clamping it or by moving it behind a fence that you restrict access to (with
or without charge).

But you are entitled to make a charge for the parking, and subject to you
"ticketing" the vehicle in the correct way you are entitled to collect that
charge through the courts if they don't pay up.

That fact that this might be more hassle that it's worth doesn't negate the
legality, which is all that I am discussing.

There's also a new law that entitles you to move the vehicle if it's causing
an obstruction, but you have to respect rule 1 when you do so.

tim

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 14:56:29 +0100, tim..... wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , tim.....
wrote:

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of
it being smoked in.

The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it
and then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale
value and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and
conditions of the lease.

Such penalties are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Only
government bodies can fine you for not doing what you are told,
everybody else has to confine themselves to claiming for "actual
loss", which in this case is completely covered by the reduction in
value as there is no extra admin involved if they just send it to the
auction whatever the condition.

It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

No it doesn't, it depends upon the law, and UK law specifically bans the
collection of Punitive damages in any type of contact - only the
government may punish you. Any contract clause that attempts to do so
will always be void.

Tell that to Ryanair.

So which of Ryanair's fees is a penalty for breach as opposed to a charge
for a service?

tim

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , tim.....
writes

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
. ..

No it doesn't, it depends upon the law, and UK law specifically bans the
collection of Punitive damages in any type of contact - only the
government may punish you. Any contract clause that attempts to do so
will always be void.

But I can enforce a published parking charge on private land?

That's not damages for breach of contract, it's a charge for the actual
goods/service that you are selling. (And can legally be whatever amount
that you want it to be - that the customer will pay).

Digging further... it appears that the only legal means of detaining
vehicles for the purpose of enforcing a published charge is a permanent
visible barrier. I wonder if they have considered those rising posts?

Also, what constitutes an authorised person? I can see the Police and
Local Authority fit but what about the actual landowner?

The intend of the law is to completely eradicate private clamping, so on
that basis the landowner should not be an authorised person.

Whether they have actually worded it so that is the case we can only find
out if someone tries it on.

tim

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 23:54:27 +0100, tim..... wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 14:56:29 +0100, tim..... wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , tim.....
wrote:

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left
of it being smoked in.

The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it
and then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale
value and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and
conditions of the lease.

Such penalties are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Only
government bodies can fine you for not doing what you are told,
everybody else has to confine themselves to claiming for "actual
loss", which in this case is completely covered by the reduction in
value as there is no extra admin involved if they just send it to
the auction whatever the condition.

It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

No it doesn't, it depends upon the law, and UK law specifically bans
the collection of Punitive damages in any type of contact - only the
government may punish you. Any contract clause that attempts to do so
will always be void.

Tell that to Ryanair.

So which of Ryanair's fees is a penalty for breach as opposed to a
charge for a service?

£60 for printing a boarding pass? Not the true cost.


--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 22:27:48 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

And this is currently unavailable and we don't know when or if this
item will be back in stock. Never if I have anything to do with it.

Why? I think it's very sensible sign. It tells me to avoid an area
frequented by stinky, anti-social people.


What dies it say 'caution: Greenpeace activists' ?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 09/09/2012 23:52, tim..... wrote:


There's also a new law that entitles you to move the vehicle if it's
causing an obstruction, but you have to respect rule 1 when you do so.


What? So preventing a bona fide customer park in his spot, ie
obstruction, will be sufficient for me to remove the offending car?

Wow - so really there's no change?

On 09/09/2012 23:20, John Williamson wrote:
SteveW wrote:
On 09/09/2012 22:10, John Williamson wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 09/09/2012 21:33, John Williamson wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , tim.....
wrote:

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left
of it
being smoked in.
The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining
it and
then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale
value
and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and
conditions of the lease.

Such penalties are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Only
government bodies can fine you for not doing what you are told,
everybody
else has to confine themselves to claiming for "actual loss",
which in
this case is completely covered by the reduction in value as there
is no
extra admin involved if they just send it to the auction whatever
the
condition.

It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

Is the correct answer.

No it isn't. The Unfair Contract Terms Act applies to all contracts.

"I agree to pay the owner of this vehicle the sum of £5,000 (Five
thousand pounds only) if it is found to be contaminated by tobacco smoke
at the termination of the rental period"

If you are a private individual, this may not be enforceable, but if you
are hiring the vehicle in the course of your business, then you are
deemed to have carried out due diligence and negotiations before
signing, and have agreed to the terms of the contract as printed in
full. There is a difference between contracts between businesses and
those between private individuals and businesses.

The act you refer to only applies where the consumer (i.e. an
individual) is doing business with a Company. The act says:-

"(a)(The consumer) neither makes the contract in the course of a
business nor holds himself out as doing so; and
(b)the other party does make the contract in the course of a
business; and
(c)in the case of a contract governed by the law of sale of goods or
hire-purchase, or by section 7 of this Act, the goods passing under or
in pursuance of the contract are of a type ordinarily supplied for
private use or consumption."

So the act only applies to individuals *not acting in the course of
their business*. If you, acting as The Medway Handyman, for example,
sign a lease for a vehicle, or sign a contract for mobile phone serice,
the rules applying to those contracts under the act are not the same as
those which apply if you lease the same vehicle or use the same mobile
phone for your own private use.

Surely that is a penalty clause and penalty clauses are not permitted
under English law from what I have been told in the past. Liquidated
damages are allowed, but can only cover true losses.

In a contract where you, *as a consumer*, are doing business with a
business *during their normal course of business*, you are correct.

Contracts between "equal partners" such as a house sale or one business
making a transaction with another can be enforced as written (Or, in
exceptional cases, as verbally agreed). We could make an agreement for
me to buy your house, for instance, and in the contract, it could state
that if either party withdrew before completion, but after exhcnge of
contract, damages of twice the agreed price would be payable. If we both
signed that contract, we would both be bound by it, and no court would
uphold an appeal against that clause. They might hold the contract to be
null and void, but they would not alter a single clause in that
contract. This is why most people employ a legal representative to draw
up such contracts.

Think of the "fines" payable by construction companies working on
Motorways in the UK. If they overrun, they are charged a penalty (The
last I heard) of about £10,000 per mile per lane per day they overrun
the contract period, with a smaller bonus if they finish early. This has
been enforced by the courts on the few occasions the case has ended up
there.


While these might be called penalty clauses, they are worded as
incentive payments, where additional payments are added to the baseline
price if the work is finished before a due date.

There are other measures that can be explored if the "incentives" don't
work, such as using a third party to finish off the work with costs
placed on the original company.

Even government contracts have to avoid penalty clauses!

On 09/09/2012 16:08, Owain wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:59 pm, "ARW" wrote:
If you bring your van up to Scotland remember to affix the required No
Smoking sticker in the windscreen at the border.
Worse than the bloody French you lot at tricking us English folk into paying
fines.

Mr Salmond has to finance his Scottish Socialist Republic somehow.

And alcohol costs more up here now ;-(


Isn't that purely to profit the likes of Tesco?

I thought there isn't any more duty or VAT put on drink, the only
requirement is that the retailer doesn't charge less than some arbitrary
amount per unit of alcohol?

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 21:21:51 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 09/09/2012 21:08, Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.

it could certainly require a new head lining. You really can't get the
nicotine smoke deposits out of that.

You certainly can. Smoke deposits are all water soluble. Modern
headlining
is commonly synthetics.

My sister bought a car that smelled of fag smoke. The firm said they'd
valet it and so they did but the smell never went. If the car had been
locked up for a while the smell was real bad. The car was repeatedly
cleaned but the smell was there right to day when she crashed it and
wrote it off. Maybe the cleaners weren't trying.
Bill
More likely didn't know what they were doing. Easy enough to remove fag
smoke smell 100%

Angle-grinder.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

Bob Eager wrote:

Yes, many years ago I used to valet secondhand and hire cars.

Did you use the silicone spray which made the steering wheel
shiny as new, but slippery as a very slippery thing?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:17:21 +0100, Chris J Dixon wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:

Yes, many years ago I used to valet secondhand and hire cars.

Did you use the silicone spray which made the steering wheel shiny as
new, but slippery as a very slippery thing?

I don't think it was in common use that far back!



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 23:52, tim..... wrote:


There's also a new law that entitles you to move the vehicle if it's
causing an obstruction, but you have to respect rule 1 when you do so.


What? So preventing a bona fide customer park in his spot, ie
obstruction, will be sufficient for me to remove the offending car?

Wow - so really there's no change?

Well as the new rules are simply an extension of the current rules for
public road to now include private land, my understanding of that law is
that vehicles can only be moved after they have had a warning notice stuck
on them for a period of time (I forget how long, but it's multiple days).
So simply parking in someone else's space for a few hours isn't going to cut
it

But there is a another change from now, and it's a big one, if you do move
the car you may not charge the owner for doing so.

Nor may you move it to somewhere that you restrict the rights of the owner
to collect it (which I presume includes not telling him where you have put
it).

tim

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 23:54:27 +0100, tim..... wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 14:56:29 +0100, tim..... wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , tim.....
wrote:

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left
of it being smoked in.

The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it
and then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale
value and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and
conditions of the lease.

Such penalties are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Only
government bodies can fine you for not doing what you are told,
everybody else has to confine themselves to claiming for "actual
loss", which in this case is completely covered by the reduction in
value as there is no extra admin involved if they just send it to
the auction whatever the condition.

It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

No it doesn't, it depends upon the law, and UK law specifically bans
the collection of Punitive damages in any type of contact - only the
government may punish you. Any contract clause that attempts to do so
will always be void.

Tell that to Ryanair.

So which of Ryanair's fees is a penalty for breach as opposed to a
charge for a service?

£60 for printing a boarding pass? Not the true cost.

You misunderstand the (legal) concept of a penalty.

The quantum of a charge does not making something a penalty. If the item in
question is "core" goods/service that the supplier provides, they can charge
whatever the market will bear for those goods/service.

A penalty is something which is a "fine" for a breach of the rules. (Then,
if something is a penalty, the fee must be no more than actual cost - more
or less).

I accept that this particular charge is near the boundary between the two,
but on balance it does just look like a charge for service, BICBW IANAL
etc...

tim

On Sunday, September 9, 2012 10:27:49 PM UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,

The Medway Handyman wrote:



On 09/09/2012 06:16, charles wrote:

In article ,

Graham. wrote:

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 21:46:19 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"

wrote:



On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 13:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Owain wrote:



In Scotland, a person in control of the premises (which includes

vehicles used primarily for business purposes) knowingly permitting

smoking is liable to receiving a Fixed Penalty Notice of £200 or being

prosecuted and receiving a fine of £2,500.



Fairly sure that something similar applies in England as well.



I am told smoking is not allowed in my (leased) co car, even during

private use.



There is a sign, on the back of the VEL holder.

It's not an issue for me as I don't smoke and would never allow a

passenger to do so. What others chose to do in their own co cars is

their own business and there is certainly no pro-active enforcement or

spying going on by our management or the leasing co.



I act as a driver for a local charity, taking people to the doctor, etc. I

ma required by law to have a "No Smoking" sign in my car when I do this. I

find that intrusive.



I've just purchased a sign for my deck area;



http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...ls_o01_s00_i00



And this is currently unavailable and we don't know when or if this item

will be back in stock. Never if I have anything to do with it.



--

Tim



"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,

nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689


As we have only one female employee I was tempted to have the following notice pinned up in the staff toilet

" As a predominantly male environment we prefer the seat left UP "

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

So which of Ryanair's fees is a penalty for breach as opposed to a
charge for a service?

£60 for printing a boarding pass? Not the true cost.

How do you know how much the printer owner charges Ryanair?

In article ,
Chris J Dixon writes:
Bob Eager wrote:

Yes, many years ago I used to valet secondhand and hire cars.

Did you use the silicone spray which made the steering wheel
shiny as new, but slippery as a very slippery thing?

Reminds me one time my car was valeted (by a main dealer,
without me asking for it). They polished the windscreen
with silicone, and I couldn't see a damn thing when it
started raining. Called up Triplex to ask how to get it
off, and it's damn hard work. They did warn me that
sometimes it's impossible to remove, although I managed
to in this case.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Reminds me one time my car was valeted (by a main dealer,
without me asking for it). They polished the windscreen
with silicone, and I couldn't see a damn thing when it
started raining. Called up Triplex to ask how to get it
off, and it's damn hard work. They did warn me that
sometimes it's impossible to remove, although I managed
to in this case.

It also causes problems to car body shops when re-painting. If a silicone
polish has been used it's difficult to remove completely. Any tiny bits
remaining cause 'fish eyes' in the new paint. It seems to survive sanding
down, etc.

I dunno what they use in car washes - some form of wax? Stops the
windscreen wipers working properly. I never use car washes - but the last
time the car went to a main dealer for service, it came back like that, as
they valet it as part of the service. I complained - but of course was the
only one ever to do so...

--
*The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

En el artÃ*culo , Bob Eager
escribió:

£60 for printing a boarding pass? Not the true cost.

"A British woman who used Facebook to express her anger at Ryanairs
boarding pass reissue fee has received the support of nearly 350,000
users in just five days"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...acebook-anger-
over-Ryanair-fees.html

Can't say I have much sympathy. She agreed to the terms when she booked
the flights.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:18:07 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

So which of Ryanair's fees is a penalty for breach as opposed to a
charge for a service?

£60 for printing a boarding pass? Not the true cost.

How do you know how much the printer owner charges Ryanair?

Don't be silly.


--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:01:52 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

Can't say I have much sympathy. She agreed to the terms when she booked
the flights.

******.

On 10/09/2012 12:01, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Bob Eager
escribió:

£60 for printing a boarding pass? Not the true cost.

"A British woman who used Facebook to express her anger at Ryanairs
boarding pass reissue fee has received the support of nearly 350,000
users in just five days"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...acebook-anger-
over-Ryanair-fees.html

Can't say I have much sympathy. She agreed to the terms when she booked
the flights.


Nevertheless it's yet another PR disaster. According to friends who do a
bit of European commuting, Easyjet have a far superior reputation

En el artículo , stuart noble
escribió:

Nevertheless it's yet another PR disaster. According to friends who do a
bit of European commuting, Easyjet have a far superior reputation

I've flown both extensively and not had a problem. Yes, Easyjet has a
better reputation, but if you (generic you) don't like Ryanair's ****-
you attitude, you're free to use another airline. The problem is people
who expect above-average customer service while paying bottom-budget
prices.

The idiot woman in the Telegraph article lives in a highly affluent town
in southern England. She's probably loaded and yet chose to use a
budget airline and bitched about it when it backfired on her.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")