www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-39478203
A woman has been ordered by a sheriff to pay a private parking company £24,500 in unpaid charges.
Carly Mackie ignored hundreds of penalty notices for parking etc.
|
My cup of sympathy is utterly empty.
|
She has a point. Presumably no one else could park in front of her garage doors.
|
>> She has a point. Presumably no one else could park in front of her garage doors.
They could if (1) nobody complained and (2) had a parking permit to avoid fines ;-)
|
24.5K They can go and whistle. Let's hope she doesn't own a property eh!
|
I don't think ignoring this will help. It's not really worked so far for her.
|
If the garage really does open into the car park then presumably the owner has a Right of Way across the park. So if she had merely been accessing the garage then her case would have held up.
Our company has vehicular access across a retail park, managed by Parking Eye. The right of way is ancient, derived from the Cambrian Railway which once owned the entire former sidings. When Parking Eye were finally convinced of the implications for their number plate recognition system they gave us exemptions for all staff and firm vehicles, and a hot-line for one-off exemption for any customer exceeding the 2 hours free time.
|
I have some sympathy here, if she was parking directly in front of her stepfather's garage then she was using a space that no one other than her stepfather could use or authorise otherwise they would be blocking the access to the garage.
Many years ago now we lived in a busy ish road and would park across our own drive inconveniencing no one, the council put in a controlled parking zone (CPZ) meaning that we could no longer park across our own drive during the controlled hours, and of course no one else could either, it was ridiculous.
|
Unfortunately any argument relating to fairness or how much inconvenience she was causing is totally irrelevnt. As the judge pointed out she was clearly in breach of contract and contract law does not concern its self with such matters.
|
>> As the judge pointed out she was clearly in breach of contract
>>
That perhaps is open to doubt. As I said, it depends on whatever rights the garage owner has regarding access.
|
>> Unfortunately any argument relating to fairness or how much inconvenience she was causing is totally
>> irrelevnt. As the judge pointed out she was clearly in breach of contract and contract
>> law does not concern its self with such matters.
>>
There is at least some degree of 'fairness' built into contract law, see Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/50
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_Contract_Terms_Act_1977
|
There is indeed a degree of fairness but that is concerned with the form of the contract etc. Once you accept that there was a contract in force, which does not seem to have been disputed, you cannot argue that the consideration is unreasonable.
|
What's not apparent from any of the reports is WHY parking is controlled by a private enforcement contractor. A clue though may be that Ms Mackie's home is described as being in the Waterfront district of Dundee, a formerly run down area now being comprehensively and expensively redeveloped. In an area of mixed commercial residential redevelopment like that uncontrolled parking is likely to cause mayhem.
Hopefully the full judgment will be published in due course.
Report in the Herald suggests it may be regarded as a test case for Scottish law in this area in which case Ms Mackie may find it easier to fund (or find pro-bono assistance) in an appeal.
|