Bridgewater Gestapo Tactics

[X Alan W]

Peel for sure have the resource and inclination to pursue matters, pop on over to moneysavingexpert forum and go to the parking sub forum as plenty of Peel goons hired in that arena.

 

Pretty sure that at county court and small claims you cannot actually charge for your time/effort in the manner you have asserted and that effort/time claims are capped/restricted by the courts. I might be wrong however I dont think I am. Not to say a threat of doing so wouldnt scare someone away.

Could you ask for & possibly get costs awarded if you were involved & won a court case I only know I won a court case some years back & was asked what my costs were & received payment for the amount quoted

[widebeamboy]

Could you ask for & possibly get costs awarded if you were involved & won a court case I only know I won a court case some years back & was asked what my costs were & received payment for the amount quoted

 

you can however there is I beleive a degree of reasonable applied and for example a contractor/consultant billing per day at £500 per day having had to to take a day off to attend court is as I understand it unlikley to recoup that level or recompense so a win might turn into a victory in principle and not financially. Sometime it is about the principle of course.

[jonathanA]

Peel for sure have the resource and inclination to pursue matters, pop on over to moneysavingexpert forum and go to the parking sub forum as plenty of Peel goons hired in that arena.

 

Pretty sure that at county court and small claims you cannot actually charge for your time/effort in the manner you have asserted and that effort/time claims are capped/restricted by the courts. I might be wrong however I dont think I am. Not to say a threat of doing so wouldnt scare someone away.

You are !

 

reasonable costs of course - in my examples I said I would claim 25 quid for each letter and £2 for faxes/ phone calls. I found that once you made it clear you would be attending court to defend and make a counter claim then either the case would be dropped or the other party would be prepared to discuss a settlement having stopped the legal action. Peel will no more waste time and money chasing a claim for few quid than any other business.

[mayalld]

You are !

 

reasonable costs of course - in my examples I said I would claim 25 quid for each letter and £2 for faxes/ phone calls. I found that once you made it clear you would be attending court to defend and make a counter claim then either the case would be dropped or the other party would be prepared to discuss a settlement having stopped the legal action. Peel will no more waste time and money chasing a claim for few quid than any other business.

 

You won't get £25 for a letter.

 

Whilst a professional can charge for their time to send a letter, you can only claim for the expense of sending a letter;

 

• Paper (including the paper for any rough drafts)
• Envelope
• Ink
• Postage
• Copying the letter

You aren't going to get a court to agree that a letter has cost you more than about £2

[MHS]

 

You won't get £25 for a letter.

 

Whilst a professional can charge for their time to send a letter, you can only claim for the expense of sending a letter;

 

• Paper (including the paper for any rough drafts)
• Envelope
• Ink
• Postage
• Copying the letter

You aren't going to get a court to agree that a letter has cost you more than about £2

I am sure you're probably correct. Do you know this from personal experience or from a professional point of view?

[mayalld]

I am sure you're probably correct. Do you know this from personal experience or from a professional point of view?

 

Neither

[Athy]

If you are a professional writer (which is how I'm registered with the taxman) you can probably charge for your services as well as for the raw materials.

[MHS]

 

Neither

If debt recovery companies etc can charge for their extra time, it would be unreasonable for this not to be reciprocated. If you take time away from work, it's loss of earnings. I would think that reasonable.

 

We cruised the Bridgewater peacefully back in April. We passed along it one way on the Cheshire ring.

 

Having previously cruised from Nantwich up to Skipton and back, I understand that Sonny may now get his knickers in a twist.

 

If we go north up the Bridgewater for say 3 days then head up the L&L, how long before we can now make the return?

Edited September 23, 2016 by MHS

[Trillian]

If we go north up the Bridgewater for say 3 days then head up the L&L, how long before we can now make the return?

28 days unless you buy a weeks licence.

[mayalld]

If debt recovery companies etc can charge for their extra time, it would be unreasonable for this not to be reciprocated. If you take time away from work, it's loss of earnings. I would think that reasonable.

 

We cruised the Bridgewater peacefully back in April. We passed along it one way on the Cheshire ring.

 

Having previously cruised from Nantwich up to Skipton and back, I understand that Sonny may now get his knickers in a twist.

 

If we go north up the Bridgewater for say 3 days then head up the L&L, how long before we can now make the return?

 

Unreasonable or not, companies are employing somebody to deal with you. They can show an ACTUAL cost of doing so.

 

Yours is a notional cost, because you are actually spending your spare time on it.

 

If you pay a solicitor to send a letter for you, you could claim that cost (but NOT the cost of your time for instructing the solicitor).

 

You can probably claim for the cost of having a mate who writes better letters than you!

[MHS]

28 days unless you buy a weeks licence.

And yet you can stay on for iirc 7 days straight.

[Trillian]

And yet you can stay on for iirc 7 days straight.

Yes, my understanding is you get up to 7 days as part of the reciprocal agreement but if you want to come back on again you must wait for 28 days first.

[Jim Riley]

just to clarify, re charges for unwarranted "parking" ticket, I proposed putting a notice on the boat / car in a prominent position, making it clear that there would be a charge if the ticket was issued in error. The operative issuing the ticket is then entering an agreement by sticking the ticket on the vehicle?????

[mayalld]

just to clarify, re charges for unwarranted "parking" ticket, I proposed putting a notice on the boat / car in a prominent position, making it clear that there would be a charge if the ticket was issued in error. The operative issuing the ticket is then entering an agreement by sticking the ticket on the vehicle?????

 

Nope, it doesn't work.

 

There is a complex interplay of contractual offers and acceptances when it comes to implicit acceptance of a contract.

 

To take the example that you quote of parking (presumably in a private car park);

 

The owner of the car park sets out the terms and conditions upon which he is prepared to do business, and invites you to accept those terms (by parking) or reject them (by going and finding somewhere else to park. He doesn't offer an option to park on your own terms instead.

 

Having accepted his terms (by parking), it isn't open to you to unilaterally change the terms (to add a term regarding parking tickets), as the owner of the car park has had no opportunity to accept or reject your counter offer.

[Richard10002]

just to clarify, re charges for unwarranted "parking" ticket, I proposed putting a notice on the boat / car in a prominent position, making it clear that there would be a charge if the ticket was issued in error. The operative issuing the ticket is then entering an agreement by sticking the ticket on the vehicle?????

 

Probably not, but have a go and see what happens when you bill them and get to court

 

Nope, it doesn't work.

 

There is a complex interplay of contractual offers and acceptances when it comes to implicit acceptance of a contract.

 

To take the example that you quote of parking (presumably in a private car park);

 

The owner of the car park sets out the terms and conditions upon which he is prepared to do business, and invites you to accept those terms (by parking) or reject them (by going and finding somewhere else to park. He doesn't offer an option to park on your own terms instead.

 

Having accepted his terms (by parking), it isn't open to you to unilaterally change the terms (to add a term regarding parking tickets), as the owner of the car park has had no opportunity to accept or reject your counter offer.

 

But... when the ticket is affixed to the car/boat, the owner has the vicarious ability to read the notice which effectively says, "I am happy for you to fix a ticket to my vehicle if I have contravened your terms but, if you do so in error, I will charge you at the rate of £25 per hour for my time in proving so"

 

This gives the operator a chance to think very carefully about whether the ticket is legitimate.

 

I would guess that someone has tried this in the past, and that it will have been through the courts, but I dont know where to find it.

[David Mack]

 

Nope, it doesn't work.

 

There is a complex interplay of contractual offers and acceptances when it comes to implicit acceptance of a contract.

 

To take the example that you quote of parking (presumably in a private car park);

 

The owner of the car park sets out the terms and conditions upon which he is prepared to do business, and invites you to accept those terms (by parking) or reject them (by going and finding somewhere else to park. He doesn't offer an option to park on your own terms instead.

 

Having accepted his terms (by parking), it isn't open to you to unilaterally change the terms (to add a term regarding parking tickets), as the owner of the car park has had no opportunity to accept or reject your counter offer.

 

And what happens if you write to the parking company's registered office along the following lines:

 

I write to advise that I will be parking vehicle registration number X in your car park at Y between dates A and B. This parking will take place on the following terms. [set out your terms]. By permitting the aforementioned vehicle to enter your car park you agree that the terms and conditions set out in this letter will apply and that any other terms and conditions displayed at the car park or elsewhere shall have no effect.

[mayalld]

 

Probably not, but have a go and see what happens when you bill them and get to court

 

But... when the ticket is affixed to the car/boat, the owner has the vicarious ability to read the notice which effectively says, "I am happy for you to fix a ticket to my vehicle if I have contravened your terms but, if you do so in error, I will charge you at the rate of £25 per hour for my time in proving so"

 

This gives the operator a chance to think very carefully about whether the ticket is legitimate.

 

I would guess that someone has tried this in the past, and that it will have been through the courts, but I dont know where to find it.

 

It is STILL an attempt to unilaterally rewrite the terms of the contract,

 

And what happens if you write to the parking company's registered office along the following lines:

 

I write to advise that I will be parking vehicle registration number X in your car park at Y between dates A and B. This parking will take place on the following terms. [set out your terms]. By permitting the aforementioned vehicle to enter your car park you agree that the terms and conditions set out in this letter will apply and that any other terms and conditions displayed at the car park or elsewhere shall have no effect.

 

It wouldn't work.

 

You would arrive at the car park to find their terms and conditions still on display, and if you park you accept them.

 

Your counter offer of alternate terms was never accepted, and you can't force them to take a positive step to reject them.

[Jim Riley]

however a ticket issued in error isn't within the terms of their contract either??

[Mac of Cygnet]

Reported on grounds of extreme boredom.

[Guest]

 

Unreasonable or not, companies are employing somebody to deal with you. They can show an ACTUAL cost of doing so.

 

Yours is a notional cost, because you are actually spending your spare time on it.

 

If you pay a solicitor to send a letter for you, you could claim that cost (but NOT the cost of your time for instructing the solicitor).

 

You can probably claim for the cost of having a mate who writes better letters than you!

Suppose one doesn't have any spare time?

[ditchcrawler]

28 days unless you buy a weeks licence.

I think someone posted you can buy a 3 day licence

[Richard10002]

I think someone posted you can buy a 3 day licence

 

3 day, 7 day, 14 day, 21 day, 28 day permits are available.

[Gordalec]

While moored in front of the op in Sale this Sunny Smith character approach me and started on about the rules, l explained that I read the same as I use this route every year, he then started reading me the riot act so I put the boat in gear and waved goodbye. While walking back to my boat in Lymm the following day I spotted the same Smith character approach the op's boat yet again and hold what appeared to be a tablet against the window then move on to the boat behind, at this point the lady on the op's boat came on deck and required as to what he was doing taking pictures through here window,Smith got quite nasty and told here she should know who he was as they had spoken in Sale the day before. I consider approaching the same vessel within 15 hours with the attitude that Smith has as totally out of order

[Guest]

How this "character" hasn't ended up face first in the water by now is beyond me. Whether a legitimate "force" or not, he's being creepy and invasive and if he is an official, he is in no way behaving like one.

[Retardedrocker]

You won't get £25 for a letter.

 

Whilst a professional can charge for their time to send a letter, you can only claim for the expense of sending a letter;

 

 

• Paper (including the paper for any rough drafts)
• Envelope
• Ink
• Postage
• Copying the letter

You aren't going to get a court to agree that a letter has cost you more than about £2

It's surprising what courts will agree these days.

 

Some years ago I took a number of credit card providers to court over unreasonable charges. In one particularly memorable case, I claimed (and received) interest in restitution, which means I charged them compound interest on the sum unlawfully levied at their own (exorbitant) rate.

 

It was a lot of fun.

 

T.