New case law from Scunthorpe County Court. It basically says that the agent (in the case of most MSAs its CP+) who manages parking for a landowner CANNOT issue fines nor pursue them through the courts. what is even more interesting in the case of MSAs would be the question of who the land owner actually is - the MSA or a government body.
confirmation
by pitano1 » Wed May 30, 2012 9:37 pm
we know this,but it is nice to have confirmation from the judge…
Parking company comes a cropper in court
Back in February 2011, a First Tier Tax Tribunal ruled that Vehicle Control Services, a private parking company which did not have an interest in a car park which it was only managing on behalf of a landowner, was not entitled to sue trespassers as principal.
VCS and their parent company Excel happily continued to issue court claims while they appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
However, in March 2012, the Upper Tier Tribunal agreed with the First Tier Tribunal that VCS had insufficient interest in the car parks to pursue a trespass claim and decided that there was no contract between the motorists and VCS.
This was confirmed on 16th May 2012 when VCS lost their case (VCS v Ronald Ibbotson) at Scunthorpe County Court.
The Judge ruled that only the landowner can take the matter to court and not people acting as their agents (VCS) and that the landowner then has to prove damages.
VCS have also been ordered by the court to explain why they issued a claim when they had no lawful contractual assignment of authority to do so.
ONLY THE LAND OWNER CAN TAKE THE MATTER TO COURT.
oh dear,what are all the ■■■■■■■ parasitical companys,that lurk in supermarket,and mc`donalds car parks
going to do now.
Goldfinger:
Are you saying this covers supermarket car parks too, where you’re only allowed to park say for around 4 hrs?
That it seems is where the legal case originated. What it seems to say is that if the “parking control company” in other words the agent of the landowner, or the person who is renting/leasing the land decides to issue a “fine” or “penalty” for trespass they cannot do so if they dont intend to pass that fine to the landowner. In other wordsthe likes of CP+ who have for years fleeced people can no longer do so, nor could they legally do so in the past because they do not own the land upon which they are attempting to impose a penalty for trespass. Trespass in this case being staying for longer than the alloted two hours.
What it seems to say is that if the “parking control company” in other words the agent of the landowner, or the person who is renting/leasing the land decides to issue a “fine” or “penalty” for trespass they cannot do so if they dont intend to pass that fine to the landowner.
So I imagine provided they pass the fine to the MSA operator they will be legal to fine the [zb] out of you legally. Plus of course their own exorbitant admin fees and fine recovery costs etc etc
I remember the dumb [zb] who clamped me at Swindon truck stop one day, he just clamped the trailer, I called Fed Ex who just said ‘Drop the trailer and leave, we will negotiate later’ I did so and the guy came running after me shouting that I couldnt just drop it, I pointed out that I had just done that very thing and that Fed Ex would be in touch. In the end he begged me to remove it and took the clamp off… silly man, he could have got all he wanted if he had just clamped the truck
As I understand it the land owner has to prove damages in order to claim on trespass grounds, on that basis they will have no grounds if you are a customer and have a receipt to prove that you purchased something while you were parked there.
Does anyone seriously think this means that you will be able to park in an MSA for free?
All that will happen is that the land owner will start to issue penalties themselves, rather than sub-contracting the work out. Whether the land owner is the MSA operator or the Government, they’ll do it.
I wonder if I have legal grounds to invoice the government for leaving me out of pocket when I didn’t elect them?
Seriously though, don’t jump for joy too much about such a legal “victory” here folkls. Without legal enforcement being possible, who’s going to stop the brudders camping at MSA’s on a now perfectly legal basis?
No one is going to be clamping them, as the clamping is always done when the driver & co. is not about to confront the clampers. I don’t think I’ve seen an unattended traveller vehicle in my life, so nothing loath is going to happen to THEM, but anyone ELSE parked up?
Kinda makes me want to use MSA’s Less rather than more shall we say!
It is an interesting case and I would try and use it to my benefit.
If it was a legitimate parking ticket from a named MSA then it could more easily be passed on to a customer.
Dear Tescobury
You delayed me loading in Doncaster, due to European law my driver has to park up before 13 hours work
Enclosed is my bill for 4 hours demurrage and an itemised parking ticket for 27 quid. Kerching.
i parked at ALDI in Derby when I went to the hospital, my missus went shopping and we later got a parking ticket, they went to the expense of getting the details from DVLA and issuing me a pretend fine. This isn’t even policed by a jobsworth on minimum wage, it is done by ANPR cameras at the entrance.
I wrote to ALDI enclosing the hospital letter and the till receipt which was about £80 threatening ALDI with plagues of locusts and roaming travellers camping on their land. A lady rang me, apologising and said the parking ticket had been cancelled.
I do hope the case brings this into the open, as these cowboys are having our pants down on a daily basis.
Another car park in Derby is privately owned and has lovely white lines laid out, the problem is they are too narrow and too short to fit a large car into, so anyone parking with anything much bigger than a Micra is getting clamped and fined for being outside the box. The police are there constantly preventing violent reactions but their hands are tied if you park outside the box.
There is a lot more to this whole scenario than meets the eye.
Firstly, trespass is not an offence (with a few exceptions, railways, dockyards, etc) unless damage is caused. Any action for trespass must show proof of damage or include an action for damage caused.
Secondly, overstaying a period in a freely available (no barrier or ticket system) carpark is not a breach of contract because no contracty exists between the driver and the carpark owner. This is because there is no agreed ‘consideration’ (legal term for mutual performance) on the part of the driver. (A promise of something for free is NOT a contract).
These are the two main reasons that the likes of CP cannot enforce their ‘charges’.
Now, to get to MSAs. If they had a ‘collect ticket’ system, like airports do, a contract would exist if a driver overstayed. A contract would have come into existence when the driver acepted the terms of the ticket that said a payment was due after 2 hours (for example).
Would a MSA do this? I doubt it - it would put off too many potential customers who would carry on to the next one.
OnlyAlan:
There is a lot more to this whole scenario than meets the eye.
Firstly, trespass is not an offence (with a few exceptions, railways, dockyards, etc) unless damage is caused. Any action for trespass must show proof of damage or include an action for damage caused.
Secondly, overstaying a period in a freely available (no barrier or ticket system) carpark is not a breach of contract because no contracty exists between the driver and the carpark owner. This is because there is no agreed ‘consideration’ (legal term for mutual performance) on the part of the driver. (A promise of something for free is NOT a contract).
These are the two main reasons that the likes of CP cannot enforce their ‘charges’.
Now, to get to MSAs. If they had a ‘collect ticket’ system, like airports do, a contract would exist if a driver overstayed. A contract would have come into existence when the driver acepted the terms of the ticket that said a payment was due after 2 hours (for example).
Would a MSA do this? I doubt it - it would put off too many potential customers who would carry on to the next one.
So, maybe not so simple.
there are notices around the MSA car parks, that say if you park or enter the services, you agree to the terms and conditions, and therefore agree to any fines you incure under their rules. Is this legal, or just the MSA’s chancing their arm and hope you’ll pay up without a fuss ?
There are no fines, fines are paid to magistrates courts, judicial judgements and are for breaking laws made in parliament.
The nearest the Supermarkets & MSA could describe it as is MULCT which means to deprive or deceive someone of money.
mulct
   [muhlkt]
verb (used with object)
1.
to deprive (someone) of something, as by fraud, extortion, etc.; swindle.
2.
to obtain (money or the like) by fraud, extortion, etc.
3.
to punish (a person) by fine, especially for a misdemeanor.
Misdemeanor (noun) a crime considered to be one of the less serious types of crime.
MSA’s are simply not going to give up such a sizable revenue source. Wording and procedure will change and a charge will continue to be levied. The only thing this does is define it and the way it will now. Leaving no get out clause or dodging it.
Whether they stick a barrier system in or go back to employing a parking man again. Or just have the enforcement companies hand over the fine and allow the wording of signage etc to be that admin fees etc apply on top of the fine to pay for collection of it.
Realistically all this will do is increase parking charges and size of fines
Or more worryingly still MSAs will reduce the truck parking available as it is now a non revenue earning expense.
Hardly a victory and a major PITA for those who use them happily already The paying folk being shafted by the freeloaders. That should be this countries motto
Hombre:
New case law from Scunthorpe County Court. It basically says that the agent (in the case of most MSAs its CP+) who manages parking for a landowner CANNOT issue fines nor pursue them through the courts. what is even more interesting in the case of MSAs would be the question of who the land owner actually is - the MSA or a government body.
confirmation
by pitano1 » Wed May 30, 2012 9:37 pm
we know this,but it is nice to have confirmation from the judge…
Parking company comes a cropper in court
Back in February 2011, a First Tier Tax Tribunal ruled that Vehicle Control Services, a private parking company which did not have an interest in a car park which it was only managing on behalf of a landowner, was not entitled to sue trespassers as principal.
VCS and their parent company Excel happily continued to issue court claims while they appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
However, in March 2012, the Upper Tier Tribunal agreed with the First Tier Tribunal that VCS had insufficient interest in the car parks to pursue a trespass claim and decided that there was no contract between the motorists and VCS.
This was confirmed on 16th May 2012 when VCS lost their case (VCS v Ronald Ibbotson) at Scunthorpe County Court.
The Judge ruled that only the landowner can take the matter to court and not people acting as their agents (VCS) and that the landowner then has to prove damages.
VCS have also been ordered by the court to explain why they issued a claim when they had no lawful contractual assignment of authority to do so.
ONLY THE LAND OWNER CAN TAKE THE MATTER TO COURT.
oh dear,what are all the [zb] parasitical companys,that lurk in supermarket,and mc`donalds car parks
going to do now.
As far as I am aware " case law" can only be set by a judgement in the high court so this judgement sets no binding precedent on anyone, but I stand to be corrected.
The paying folk being shafted by the freeloaders. That should be this countries motto