tim..... wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Just had another e-mail from the car park company:-

Thank you for your email in regards to the above parking charge.

We of course are happy to waiver additional charges and accept a
reduced charge of £20.00 as full and final settlement for this charge.

I suppose you can't blame them for trying.

Does show that Mr Wells many posts about legally enforceable contracts
doesn't seem to be shared by someone who actually knows.

How does it do that then?

You've gone on and on that they can legally charge you anything they want
for parking. As by parking there you've accepted their terms without
question.

So why would they ever reduce the amount they demanded as a penalty?

because, as has already been explained to you, by more than one person -

enforcing their legally enforceable charge

They don't have a legally enforceable charge. He has the till slip
that proves that he used the store when his car was in that carpark.

will cost them more than that charge.

Certainly will when he proves that they
don't have a legally enforceable charge.

So they are cutting their losses and telling you they will accept a lower
amount because it saves them aggro

They either didn't bother to read the email or have an
automated system that sent that reply automatically
or have read the email and believe that he is lying
about having a till slip that proves he did use the
store when his car was in the carpark.

It's the problem of employers paying out in bogus discrimination claims
because paying is cheaper than fighting - in reverse

Nothing like it in fact. They keep adding additional charges
to the original claim in an attempt to monster people into
paying up when they have thrown out the till slip as most
do and can no longer provide that and are too stupid to
realise that the parking company will do nothing if they
are ignored.

Fredxxx wrote in :

I think Norman must own a few car parks.

The last sign I saw said in large print "Conditions of parking". I
didn't read the rest as they were up high and I literally couldn't
read it. I was quickly scanning the notice for a duration and charge
and couldn't see any hint of either. I suspect Norm would still say I
agreed to the unreadable contract.

FWIW, the signs in the carpark outside a branch of Staples I recently
visited describe what is obviously a penalty charge. They say something
along the lines of "you agree that if you breach any of these rules you
will pay us £100". That is a penalty. There are no two ways about it.

And in a carpark outside a nearby hotel, the title of the text on the signs
is "WARNING". It seems reasonable for drivers to assume that the document
is not a contract, but - well, a warning, perhaps to do with thieves or
something. A contract isn't a warning. A contract is an agreement between
two parties.

Good luck to you, Mr Beavis!

Harry

In article ,
michael adams wrote:
seems to be on continuous loop on "Drama"


Freeview - virtually unwatchable IMO by virtue of commercials every
ten minutes - is about the best advert for cheap DVD box sets its
possible to imagine.

What is even more annoying on the minority channels is the same adverts,
sponsor bit and trails being repeated at every break. The prog is a repeat
too - but hopefully so old you've forgotten the plot.

--
*Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me*

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

In article ,
Harold Davis wrote:
FWIW, the signs in the carpark outside a branch of Staples I recently
visited describe what is obviously a penalty charge. They say something
along the lines of "you agree that if you breach any of these rules you
will pay us £100". That is a penalty. There are no two ways about it.

And in a carpark outside a nearby hotel, the title of the text on the
signs is "WARNING". It seems reasonable for drivers to assume that the
document is not a contract, but - well, a warning, perhaps to do with
thieves or something. A contract isn't a warning. A contract is an
agreement between two parties.

Good luck to you, Mr Beavis!

It's also pretty common for the 'Free Parking for 2 hours' bit to be in a
much larger font than the 'what happens if you overstay' or whatever.

If the large print said '75 quid fine if you don't observe our conditions'
they might have more chance of saying it is some form of contract. But of
course if most saw that, they'd move on to another store.

--
*Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack?

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

On 22/10/2015 16:16, Ophelia wrote:


"AndyW" wrote in message

They will.
Where I live it is common to find still valid parking stickers stuck
to the ticket machines. Passing over tickets with time still on them
is a fairly common thing.

At home we don't have to pay for parking but in the Car parks in N.
Yorks where we have to pay in advance, we hand them over to incoming
cars if we have any time leftover.


....and people say Scots and Yorkshire folks are mean....
I know of some parts of the country where they will sit in the car just
to use up the last minute of the ticket.

.....but enough about Aberdeen.....

Andy

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , News
wrote:

smile That immediately made me think of Morse, an episode [1] of
which I watched last night.

We're part way through the whole lot. Doing Series 4 at the minute.

Excellent. Just finished Series 3 here. I think of Morse as recent,
but Series 3 was now *25* years ago. Interesting to see that some
characters are using early 'brick' mobiles, and desktop PCs are starting
to appear.
--
Graeme

In message , michael adams
writes
"News" wrote in message
...

[1] Complete with Patricia Hodge, always a bonus. Must watch some Rumpole.

ISTR that's the one with Patsy Byrne, again typecast as "nursey"; same
as in "Blackadder" with Miranda Richardson.

Well remembered, that man. I find the episodes long enough ago that I
have forgotten enough to make them enjoyable again.

Complete box sets of Rumpole (new) go for around £20 from Amazon
marketplace sellers. The original BBC Play for Today episode used
to be avilable singly, as well, but I can't seem to find it.

Boxed DVD sets are great, but, having watched one, it may be another 25
years before I'll be tempted to watch again. I just watch via YouTube.
--
Graeme

"Harold Davis" wrote in message
...
Fredxxx wrote in :

I think Norman must own a few car parks.

The last sign I saw said in large print "Conditions of parking". I
didn't read the rest as they were up high and I literally couldn't
read it. I was quickly scanning the notice for a duration and charge
and couldn't see any hint of either. I suspect Norm would still say I
agreed to the unreadable contract.

FWIW, the signs in the carpark outside a branch of Staples I recently
visited describe what is obviously a penalty charge. They say something
along the lines of "you agree that if you breach any of these rules you
will pay us £100". That is a penalty. There are no two ways about it.

So what? Penalty clauses in contracts are perfectly legal, and enforceable.

And in a carpark outside a nearby hotel, the title of the text on the signs
is "WARNING". It seems reasonable for drivers to assume that the document
is not a contract, but - well, a warning, perhaps to do with thieves or
something. A contract isn't a warning. A contract is an agreement between
two parties.

Breach of the parking conditions is breach of the contract you have agreed to enter
into by parking there. It's a warning not to break the rules, otherwise there will
be a legally enforceable extra charge. And it draws attention to that in a massive
way - something that others here wrongly claim is always hidden away in the small
print.

When something says WARNING in big letters that you obviously notice, it's as well
to check what it's a warning about, not just ignore it, isn't it?

Good luck to you, Mr Beavis!

He's lost unanimously at every step of the way so far. He has no hope of succeeding
with any further futile attempts.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Harold Davis wrote:
FWIW, the signs in the carpark outside a branch of Staples I recently
visited describe what is obviously a penalty charge. They say something
along the lines of "you agree that if you breach any of these rules you
will pay us £100". That is a penalty. There are no two ways about it.

And in a carpark outside a nearby hotel, the title of the text on the
signs is "WARNING". It seems reasonable for drivers to assume that the
document is not a contract, but - well, a warning, perhaps to do with
thieves or something. A contract isn't a warning. A contract is an
agreement between two parties.

Good luck to you, Mr Beavis!

It's also pretty common for the 'Free Parking for 2 hours' bit to be in a
much larger font than the 'what happens if you overstay' or whatever.

Even the Sun can't put everything in its headlines.

If the large print said '75 quid fine if you don't observe our conditions'
they might have more chance of saying it is some form of contract. But of
course if most saw that, they'd move on to another store.

That's funny, I thought he was claiming it was on a sign he obviously noticed with
"WARNING" at the top in big letters. It would only not be seen by those who
deliberately want to ignore it.

In article ,
AndyW wrote:
...and people say Scots and Yorkshire folks are mean....
I know of some parts of the country where they will sit in the car just
to use up the last minute of the ticket.

....but enough about Aberdeen.....

;-)

Brother who lives in the area says they have abolished parking charges at
the main hospital. Which means you can never find a parking space.

--
*It ain't the size, it's... er... no, it IS ..the size.

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

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
It's also pretty common for the 'Free Parking for 2 hours' bit to be in a
much larger font than the 'what happens if you overstay' or whatever.

Even the Sun can't put everything in its headlines.

Quite. And also often publishes lies and misinformation in the text below.
So your point is?

If the large print said '75 quid fine if you don't observe our
conditions' they might have more chance of saying it is some form of
contract. But of course if most saw that, they'd move on to another
store.

That's funny, I thought he was claiming it was on a sign he obviously
noticed with "WARNING" at the top in big letters. It would only not be
seen by those who deliberately want to ignore it.

Most aren't like that.

--
*Rehab is for quitters.

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

"AndyW" wrote in message
...
On 22/10/2015 16:16, Ophelia wrote:


"AndyW" wrote in message

They will.
Where I live it is common to find still valid parking stickers stuck
to the ticket machines. Passing over tickets with time still on them
is a fairly common thing.

At home we don't have to pay for parking but in the Car parks in N.
Yorks where we have to pay in advance, we hand them over to incoming
cars if we have any time leftover.


...and people say Scots and Yorkshire folks are mean....
I know of some parts of the country where they will sit in the car just to
use up the last minute of the ticket.

....but enough about Aberdeen.....

LOL I won't ask how you know that)

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Norman Wells" wrote in
:

"Harold Davis" wrote in
message ...
Fredxxx wrote in :

I think Norman must own a few car parks.

The last sign I saw said in large print "Conditions of parking". I
didn't read the rest as they were up high and I literally couldn't
read it. I was quickly scanning the notice for a duration and charge
and couldn't see any hint of either. I suspect Norm would still say
I agreed to the unreadable contract.

FWIW, the signs in the carpark outside a branch of Staples I recently
visited describe what is obviously a penalty charge. They say
something along the lines of "you agree that if you breach any of
these rules you will pay us £100". That is a penalty. There are no
two ways about it.

So what? Penalty clauses in contracts are perfectly legal, and
enforceable.

No they're not. You're wrong about that.

Liquidated damages clauses may, however, be enforceable, provided the
payment stipulated is not "extravagant and unconscionable".

And of course sometimes there is a grey area, and something that looks like
a penalty may be held to be a liquidated damages clause.

The first thing the court has to decide in such cases is whether the
stipulated payment is a penalty, in the sense that excludes its being a
payment for liquidated damages.

If it is, it's unenforceable, and that's the end of the case.

If it's a liquidated damages clause, it may be enforceable.

Then the issue is whether the payment would be extravagant or
unconscionable. "Unconscionable" is of course an equity term.

And in a carpark outside a nearby hotel, the title of the text on the
signs is "WARNING". It seems reasonable for drivers to assume that
the document is not a contract, but - well, a warning, perhaps to do
with thieves or something. A contract isn't a warning. A contract is
an agreement between two parties.

Breach of the parking conditions is breach of the contract you have
agreed to enter into by parking there. It's a warning not to break
the rules, otherwise there will be a legally enforceable extra charge.

If the clause is just "in terrorem", to scare a party into meeting their
obligations, it's not enforceable.

You've posted a large number of articles to this thread, and you still
don't get one of the most basic points.

Have a look up about "extravagant and unconscionable".

Here's the Appeal Court judgment in the Beavis case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/402.html

If Mr Beavis had left, either the space would have remained empty or it
would have been taken by another driver for free. In either case, there
would have been no loss to the car park management company (Parking Eye) in
respect of payments received from drivers.

However, if too many cars remained parked there for a long time, the owner
of the car park (the British Airways Pension Fund) might get narky and up
Parking Eye's rent or give the management contract to someone else. Why
might they? Presumably the idea is that that would be because Lidl can
afford to pay the pension fund a higher rent the smaller the number of cars
that stay in their carpark for a long time; therefore more dosh for the
pension fund. (I'm guessing, because I don't know that the pension fund was
the landlord for the Lidl store as well as for the carpark.) Yes, this is
quite tenuous, which presumably is one of the reasons the Supreme Court
granted leave to appeal.

AIUI, the pension fund didn't give evidence.

I hope they do to the Supreme Court.

Do you get it, Norman? It's not just a matter of foot-stamping and saying
that landowners can lay down the rules so long as they stick up a notice.

Car park management of this kind has a strong whiff of the protection
racket about it.

Harry

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
seems to be on continuous loop on "Drama"


Freeview - virtually unwatchable IMO by virtue of commercials every
ten minutes - is about the best advert for cheap DVD box sets its
possible to imagine.

What is even more annoying on the minority channels is the same adverts,
sponsor bit and trails being repeated at every break.

People often ask me "What was you favourite interview ?
Tough question."

I never really thought it would be possible to dislike Michael
Parkinson any more than I already did. I was wrong.

"I first started using Knorr stock cubes to seal in the
flavour... people say you can't buy taste. I disagree."

Now there's a surprise!


michael adams


....

In article ,
Harold Davis wrote:
Do you get it, Norman? It's not just a matter of foot-stamping and
saying that landowners can lay down the rules so long as they stick
up a notice.

Well quite. Taken a lot of hot air to get this.

In my case I did nothing wrong or against any of their regulations. So I'm
not going to go out of my way to prove it. The parking company can do the
work themselves.

--
*Why is it that rain drops but snow falls?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
:

If the large print said '75 quid fine if you don't observe our
conditions' they might have more chance of saying it is some form of
contract.

Yes, but not of enforcing a clause of that kind within it: pure penalties
in contracts aren't enforceable.

Harry

"Harold Davis" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in
:
"Harold Davis" wrote in
message ...
Fredxxx wrote in :

I think Norman must own a few car parks.

The last sign I saw said in large print "Conditions of parking". I
didn't read the rest as they were up high and I literally couldn't
read it. I was quickly scanning the notice for a duration and charge
and couldn't see any hint of either. I suspect Norm would still say
I agreed to the unreadable contract.

FWIW, the signs in the carpark outside a branch of Staples I recently
visited describe what is obviously a penalty charge. They say
something along the lines of "you agree that if you breach any of
these rules you will pay us £100". That is a penalty. There are no
two ways about it.

So what? Penalty clauses in contracts are perfectly legal, and
enforceable.

No they're not. You're wrong about that.

Liquidated damages clauses may, however, be enforceable, provided the
payment stipulated is not "extravagant and unconscionable".

And of course sometimes there is a grey area, and something that looks like
a penalty may be held to be a liquidated damages clause.

The first thing the court has to decide in such cases is whether the
stipulated payment is a penalty, in the sense that excludes its being a
payment for liquidated damages.

If it is, it's unenforceable, and that's the end of the case.

If it's a liquidated damages clause, it may be enforceable.

Nope, since at least the Beavis decisions, you're well behind the times:

"The Judge at Cambridge County Court held that the charge had the characteristics of
a penalty in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that
was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor
manifestly excessive in its amount."

As regards the Court of Appeal:

"The Judge did not consider the clause to be an unenforceable penalty and stated
that the modern approach to deciding whether any particular clause is unenforceable
as a penalty requires an examination of its role from a number of different
perspectives, including proportionality to actual loss, deterrence and commercial
justification. In his view, although the principal object of the charge was to deter
overstaying, it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in
amount, having regard to the level of charges imposed by local authorities and
others for overstaying in public car parks. It was in his view commercially
justifiable, both from the point of view of the Pension Fund as the landowner and
Parking Eye and from the point of view of motorists at large."

http://www.trethowans.com/site/libra...parking-charge

Then the issue is whether the payment would be extravagant or
unconscionable. "Unconscionable" is of course an equity term.

Again, you're out of date.

"The Judge held that the term imposing the parking charge in this case was not
unfair within the meaning of the Regulations, because the size of the charge was
similar to those levied by local authorities and because very clear notice had been
given to consumers when they entered the car park."

And in a carpark outside a nearby hotel, the title of the text on the
signs is "WARNING". It seems reasonable for drivers to assume that
the document is not a contract, but - well, a warning, perhaps to do
with thieves or something. A contract isn't a warning. A contract is
an agreement between two parties.

Breach of the parking conditions is breach of the contract you have
agreed to enter into by parking there. It's a warning not to break
the rules, otherwise there will be a legally enforceable extra charge.

If the clause is just "in terrorem", to scare a party into meeting their
obligations, it's not enforceable.

You've posted a large number of articles to this thread, and you still
don't get one of the most basic points.

Have a look up about "extravagant and unconscionable".

Here's the Appeal Court judgment in the Beavis case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/402.html

If Mr Beavis had left, either the space would have remained empty or it
would have been taken by another driver for free. In either case, there
would have been no loss to the car park management company (Parking Eye) in
respect of payments received from drivers.

However, if too many cars remained parked there for a long time, the owner
of the car park (the British Airways Pension Fund) might get narky and up
Parking Eye's rent or give the management contract to someone else. Why
might they? Presumably the idea is that that would be because Lidl can
afford to pay the pension fund a higher rent the smaller the number of cars
that stay in their carpark for a long time; therefore more dosh for the
pension fund. (I'm guessing, because I don't know that the pension fund was
the landlord for the Lidl store as well as for the carpark.) Yes, this is
quite tenuous, which presumably is one of the reasons the Supreme Court
granted leave to appeal.

None of that helps you in the slightest. Tthe Court of Appeal agreed unanimously
with the County Court that Beavis didn't have a leg to stand on.

Do you get it, Norman? It's not just a matter of foot-stamping and saying
that landowners can lay down the rules so long as they stick up a notice.

Pretty much it is, actually. That's why they've won at every stage without a murmur
of dissent.

Car park management of this kind has a strong whiff of the protection
racket about it.

Don't be absurd.

"Harold Davis" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
:

If the large print said '75 quid fine if you don't observe our
conditions' they might have more chance of saying it is some form of
contract.

Yes, but not of enforcing a clause of that kind within it: pure penalties
in contracts aren't enforceable.

If you read the Court of Appeal judgement in the Beavis case, you'll find that they
are actually, and were.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
AndyW wrote:
...and people say Scots and Yorkshire folks are mean....
I know of some parts of the country where they will sit in the car just
to use up the last minute of the ticket.

....but enough about Aberdeen.....

;-)

Brother who lives in the area says they have abolished parking charges at
the main hospital. Which means you can never find a parking space.

The Welsh Government have mandated that all hospital parking should be free.

there was an item on the telly about one hospital which is in a (major) town
centre where everybody now park in the hospital to go shopping etc, so
genuine hospital visitors can no longer get a space

that's a nutty position to get into because of idealism

tim

On 24/10/2015 13:57, tim..... wrote:

there was an item on the telly about one hospital which is in a (major)
town centre where everybody now park in the hospital to go shopping etc,
so genuine hospital visitors can no longer get a space

that's a nutty position to get into because of idealism
And unnecessary. It would be simple to prevent.

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
On 24/10/2015 13:57, tim..... wrote:

there was an item on the telly about one hospital which is in a (major)
town centre where everybody now park in the hospital to go shopping etc,
so genuine hospital visitors can no longer get a space

that's a nutty position to get into because of idealism
And unnecessary. It would be simple to prevent.

Well yeah

but that's the problem with lefty idealism.

It also prevents you from asking people to "prove" their entitlement to
whatever freebie it is you are giving away today

tim

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:40:35 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Of course not. They are kept in a prison.

They enjoy it.

No surprise the likes of you believes that.

You can tell when a bird is happy.

Of course you can. Parrots talk, after all.

If you need speech to tell if someone is happy, you're retarded.

Ones in small cages without much
attention are not happy. Mine are in an indoor aviary and have the
company of other birds aswell as me.

Right. So prisoners of war were happy because they had company?

What a ridiculous comparison. Are you a member of PETA or something? That ****ed up zero tolerance association, the RSPCA on steroids.

--
A devout Muslim entered a black cab in London. He curtly asked the cabbie to turn off the radio because as decreed by his religious teaching, he must not listen to music because in the time of the prophet there was no music, especially Western music which is the music of the infidel.
The cab driver politely switched off the radio, stopped the cab and opened the door.
The Arab asked him, "What are you doing?"
The cabbie answered, "In the time of the prophet there were no taxis, so **** off and wait for a camel!!"

On 03/11/2015 00:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:40:35 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Of course not. They are kept in a prison.

They enjoy it.

No surprise the likes of you believes that.

You can tell when a bird is happy.

Of course you can. Parrots talk, after all.

If you need speech to tell if someone is happy, you're retarded.

Ones in small cages without much
attention are not happy. Mine are in an indoor aviary and have the
company of other birds aswell as me.

Right. So prisoners of war were happy because they had company?

What a ridiculous comparison. Are you a member of PETA or something?
That ****ed up zero tolerance association, the RSPCA on steroids.