Waivers in car parks

Mr. Presentable

You know the sort of thing:

"We accept no responsibility for theft from or damage done .....etc"

Have you ever successfully challenged that? IMHO, if I pay for the parking, the car park should be responsibly for what happens to my car.

listermint

Well i would assume that the carpark has to have insurance after all you are paying to put your vehicle on their land. Maybe someone can enlighten us.

rebel.ranter

By parking in the car park you have entered into a contract with the car park company. The terms & conditions of that contract include these waivers. The T&Cs MUST be displayed clearly at the entrance of the car park. If not (e.g. if they are posted at the exit or in some other obscure location) you can challenge them.
The Terms & Conditions are not allowed to be "cover all" type terms, they must be specific.
If a sign witht he T&Cs is displayed AFTER you take a ticket but is still very clearly displayed car parks usually offer "first half hour free" type of arrangements to cover themselves, i.e. to give you the opportunity to opt out of the contract.

(There was a piece of car park contracts (contract law) in a Business Law module in a course I'm doing at the moment, it's proving very useful info lately on this forum!)

SV

Well no, you can pay all you want for the parking and you can be sure that you'll be charged for it but that doesn't mean that we will ever be responsible for your car.

You're paying for the right to park. Not for anything else. The cameras, security and everything else is just a priviledge (sp?).

Saruman

Surely though... they only do not cover if someone damages the car...
If the ceiling caved in and my car smashed then i assume they would cover it..

rebel.ranter

Oh, BTW, having said all of the above I did manage to successfully challenege the owner of the paid car park here in work. One of his workers made a nastly dent/scratch in the paint work of my car with a metal rod. I aske dto view the cctv footage with him (not knowing at the time it was one of his staff).
When the incident came up on screen (he has about 40 camreas around the place, not an exaggeration!) he apologised on his employee's behalf. It did take weeks to get the cheque though!
He did have a big disclaimer or exemption clause sign at the entrance, I have started to take notice of these a lot more recently.

maidhc

rebel.ranter wrote: »

If a sign witht he T&Cs is displayed AFTER you take a ticket but is still very clearly displayed car parks usually offer "first half hour free" type of arrangements to cover themselves, i.e. to give you the opportunity to opt out of the contract.

Ahh the good old Thonton v. Shoe Lane... one of the more colourful Tom Denning Judgments:

None of those cases has any application to a ticket which is issued by an automatic machine. The customer pays his money and gets a ticket. He cannot refuse it. He cannot get his money back. He may protest to the machine, even swear at it; but it will remain unmoved. He is committed beyond recall. He was committed at the very moment when he put his money into the machine. The contract was concluded at that time. It can be translated into offer and acceptance in this way. The offer is made when the proprietor of the machine holds it out as being ready to receive the money. The acceptance takes place when the customer puts his money into the slot. The terms of the offer are contained in the notice placed on or near the machine stating what is offered for the money. The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. He is not bound by the terms printed on the ticket if they differ from the notice, because the ticket comes too late. The contract has already been made: see Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd. The ticket is no more than a voucher or receipt for the money that has been paid (as in the deckchair case, Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council, on terms which have been offered and accepted before the ticket is issued. In the present case the offer was contained in the notice at the entrance giving the charges for garaging and saying ‘at owners risk’, ie at the risk of the owner so far as damage to the car was concerned. The offer was accepted when the plaintiff drove up to the entrance and, by the movement of his car, turned the light from red to green, and the ticket was thrust at him. The contract was then concluded, and it could not be altered by any words printed on the ticket itself. In particular, it could not be altered so as to exempt the company from liability for personal injury due to their negligence.

Mr. Presentable

So, even though you are on their property, and are paying them for the priviledge, they have no duty of care? Do they even have to be insured?

Churchy

Nipplenuts - what exactly is eating you?

If you want to claim for damage while in the car park - a vehicle condition report for each vehicle entering would have to be done. This would be essential to halt most false claims.
Claiming for theft , well dont you have your own insurance?

maidhc

nipplenuts wrote: »

So, even though you are on their property, and are paying them for the priviledge, they have no duty of care? Do they even have to be insured?

They have a duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act, but that is pretty much it. The have public liability insurance, that is probably it. If one of their customers accidently scrapes another customers car it is hardly their problem is it? They are merely renting you a space for a short period of time, and charge a fee for that!

Captain Slow IRL

Seen this place on a Men&Motors program recently - they'll pay for a new car if it is stolen while parked there - http://www.bbc.co.uk/derby/features/2004/02/bold_lane/index.shtml