Private Car Park Problem

robusto1

Hi Guys,

I have a problem and don't know where I stand !! Am hoping someone here might be able to advise me better on what I can do!

I have bought a car that's a non runner that was/is, in a private carpark- the carpark is operated by barrier and ticket system.

I live in England, the car is in Dublin....and despite my wife telling me how stupid I was... I went ahead and bought the car, I didn't think it would be a big deal.... just organise a recovery truck and get it brought over....

Well the problem I have is the carpark owners want me to pay the parking for the full term the vehicle has been there!!!!!

I can't seem to get any clear advise, I spoke to UK police they tell me its a foreign country, I ring Garda they tell me its a civil matter.

Rang citizens advice in Ireland and they gave me the number for Flac- ring Flac and they don't answer.

When I ring any solicitors in Ireland they say its most unusual and that its not an area of law they cover !!!


Anyone ever experience anything similar?

What would you do in this situation?

jface187

How much are the parking fees? maybe try cut a deal with the car park if it's a lot.

ohnonotgmail

get a low loader to drive into the car park, put the car on the back and drive out.

sydthebeat

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

get a low loader to drive into the car park, put the car on the back and drive out.

problem solved

Marcusm

There are legal issues and there are practical issues:

Who incurred the parking charges and who is liable to discharge them?
- seems to me that this cannot be anyone other than the original owner who parked the car and took the ticket at the barrier. In this regard, I assume that Ireland would follow the decision in Shoe Lane that the contract was essentially made by using the ticket machine.
- it’s hard to see that the new owner has acceded to the original parking contract even if he subsequently became aware of it. Even if the new owner had indemnified the prior owner, it’s hard to see how the parking company could enforce that through third parry rights.
- if the foregoing is true, would the parking company have any rights to distrain the goods, I.e. hold the goods of someone not a party to the parking contract.
- even if it could not legally seize the car, is the parking company obliged to allow the new owner or his/her agent into the car park to recover the goods?

The practical:

- unless the car park is of a type that a tow truck can enter and remove the car I see you having a world of pain with this one.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

There are legal issues and there are practical issues:

Who incurred the parking charges and who is liable to discharge them?
- seems to me that this cannot be anyone other than the original owner who parked the car and took the ticket at the barrier. In this regard, I assume that Ireland would follow the decision in Shoe Lane that the contract was essentially made by using the ticket machine.
- it’s hard to see that the new owner has acceded to the original parking contract even if he subsequently became aware of it. Even if the new owner had indemnified the prior owner, it’s hard to see how the parking company could enforce that through third parry rights.
- if the foregoing is true, would the parking company have any rights to distrain the goods, I.e. hold the goods of someone not a party to the parking contract.
- even if it could not legally seize the car, is the parking company obliged to allow the new owner or his/her agent into the car park to recover the goods?

The practical:

- unless the car park is of a type that a tow truck can enter and remove the car I see you having a world of pain with this one.

I don't think shoe Lane applies really in this case. It really only refers to added clauses.

Very interesting scenario though. Could it be considered in line with any other financial contract agreed using property as collateral? Ultimately the owner could not sell while debts existed? Similar to a person selling a higher purchase car?

Can the carpark actually refuse to release the property even? Questionable

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I don't think shoe Lane applies really in this case. It really only refers to added clauses.

Very interesting scenario though. Could it be considered in line with any other financial contract agreed using property as collateral? Ultimately the owner could not sell while debts existed? Similar to a person selling a higher purchase car?

Can the carpark actually refuse to release the property even? Questionable

where in any car park agreement does it say that the car is collateral?

Bigus

The amount of fees requested and the value of the car are the key issues before , any real advice could be given .

BaZmO*

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Ultimately the owner could not sell while debts existed

Surely the debt applies to the driver and the actual car.

Depending how much the debt was I would just try and drive the car out, when they refuse exit, call the police and show them the change of ownership and the date. It would certainly force the issue and give certainty and stop mounting costs.

punisher5112

Some tow companies have the likes of Isuzu dmax with the the back set up with a scoop to get cars out of such car park scenarios, you would need one of them and then access to the car park, does the person you bought it off live there or can they get you access.

I'm intrigued, is it something exotic or collectors material.....

Marcusm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I don't think shoe Lane applies really in this case. It really only refers to added clauses.

Very interesting scenario though. Could it be considered in line with any other financial contract agreed using property as collateral? Ultimately the owner could not sell while debts existed? Similar to a person selling a higher purchase car?

Can the carpark actually refuse to release the property even? Questionable

The principal concern in Shoe Lane related to the added clauses but the reason why I referred to it is that it established the principal that the offer was made by the car park and the acceptance by taking the ticket and entering the car park. Privity will generally then apply in the absence of any specific allocation of the cost to third parties, ie the OP. My point is that the OP is not likely to have a liability to pay the parking fees. Likewise, for a privately owned car park he has no specific entitlement to entry other than on terms agreed with the car park owner.

The “debt” point is an irrelevant one as it is not in anyway secured on the car.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

where in any car park agreement does it say that the car is collateral?

The OP is not bound by that contract and the car is not collateral per se. While it might seem logical to suggest that they have no rights to seize or detain his property, he equally has no right to force entry to recover the car.

This stalemate is an interesting legal conundrum but one where the resolution is a negotiated settlement rather than an enforcement of rights, I suspect.

ohnonotgmail

Marcusm wrote: »

The OP is not bound by that contract and the car is not collateral per se. While it might seem logical to suggest that they have no rights to seize or detain his property, he equally has no right to force entry to recover the car.

This stalemate is an interesting legal conundrum but one where the resolution is a negotiated settlement rather than an enforcement of rights, I suspect.

it is not collateral at all. one party cannot unilaterally decide that the other parties property is collateral.

Treppen

Can't see why a towtruck can't just go in and take the car out. Probably happens every day when cars break down (assuming the ceiling isn't too low for the truck).

punisher5112

Would the private car park management not have to seek payment through the courts from the original owner/occupier that originally parked the vehicle there as it was them that agreed to any terms parking there in the 1st place.

I wonder is it a apartment style set up or a shopping centre type.....

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it is not collateral at all. one party cannot unilaterally decide that the other parties property is collateral.

There is plenty of example where this is the case. I gave one. The fact that you sold your right to an item doesnt mean the new owner automatically has a get out of jail card concerning all other claims. What if you sold something that is in a pawn shop?

Its interesting and Im not getting into an argument over it. I only asked a question. The T&A could make such a claim on the car in leu or debts owed.

OP, Could you keep us posted? Thanks

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

There is plenty of example where this is the case. I gave one. The fact that you sold your right to an item doesnt mean the new owner automatically has a get out of jail card concerning all other claims. What if you sold something that is in a pawn shop?

Its interesting and Im not getting into an argument over it. I only asked a question. The T&A could make such a claim on the car in leu or debts owed.

OP, Could you keep us posted? Thanks

you have gone off on a ridiculous tangent about pawn shops so best to leave it there

Claw Hammer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it is not collateral at all. one party cannot unilaterally decide that the other parties property is collateral.

Ever heard of a repairer's Lien?

Guy:Incognito

So are we saying anyone with an old car thats value won't be affected be an extra owner shouldn't be bothering paying for stuff like long term parking at the airport?

Just send off a change of ownership dated the day after you leave the car there for your 2 week holiday, then have the "new owner" rock up when youre back and demand the car is let out for free?

Treppen

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So are we saying anyone with an old car thats value won't be affected be an extra owner shouldn't be bothering paying for stuff like long term parking at the airport?

Just send off a change of ownership dated the day after you leave the car there for your 2 week holiday, then have the "new owner" rock up when youre back and demand the car is let out for free?

I was thinking about that too, but when it comes down to it you'll be trying to get past the barriers without a ticket and "computer says no", means you won't pass (unless you slip the guard a few quid).

Otherwise he'll have a record of your licence plate and when the car entered, so showing him a change of ownership document is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Marcusm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

There is plenty of example where this is the case. I gave one. The fact that you sold your right to an item doesnt mean the new owner automatically has a get out of jail card concerning all other claims. What if you sold something that is in a pawn shop?

Its interesting and Im not getting into an argument over it. I only asked a question. The T&A could make such a claim on the car in leu or debts owed.

OP, Could you keep us posted? Thanks

A pawning of an item is either a bailment or a pledge where physical possession of the property is transferred to secure claims against the owner (whether for cash, services or otherwise). The owner of the car is availing if the car parks service and the owner of the car park are entitled to their fee but they do not have physical possession of the car and have no rights to interfere with a sale. They can, however, make it impossible or next to impossible for the owner or any subsequent to actually gain possession setting up a showdown for a negotiated settlement.

ohnonotgmail

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Ever heard of a repairer's Lien?

I have but what is the relevance of that to a car park?

Peregrinus

What a car park or parking garage does is provide storage of your goods. The fact that the good in question is a motor vehicle doesn't seem to me that the legal aspects of the relationship would be different from the general leqal aspects of storage of goods.

So the question is, if I am given goods to store, am I entitled to hold on to the goods until the storage fees are paid? I think the answer is "yes"; common law recognises a "warehouseman's lien" in precisely these circumstances. But I haven't found an Irish precedent affirming this. (In my defence, I haven't looked very hard.) Anyone?

Even if common law doesn't recognise a warehouseman's lien, there may of course be one created contractually, by the terms and conditions applied by the car park operator. We don't know whether he has terms and conditions that explicitly create a lien of, if he does, whether he has brought them to the attention of customers in a way that is sufficient to create a binding contract. But none of that will matter if a lien arises at common law anyway.

Obviously, if a lien was created over the car when it was left for storage, then the OP bought the car subject to that lien. So, yeah, he has to pay the parking charges in order to recover custody of the car.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you have gone off on a ridiculous tangent about pawn shops so best to leave it there

Very rude. You know this is a discussion forum?

Marcusm

Peregrinus wrote: »

What a car park or parking garage does is provide storage of your goods. The fact that the good in question is a motor vehicle doesn't seem to me that the legal aspects of the relationship would be different from the general leqal aspects of storage of goods.

So the question is, if I am given goods to store, am I entitled to hold on to the goods until the storage fees are paid? I think the answer is "yes"; common law recognises a "warehouseman's lien" in precisely these circumstances. But I haven't found an Irish precedent affirming this. (In my defence, I haven't looked very hard.) Anyone?

Even if common law doesn't recognise a warehouseman's lien, there may of course be one created contractually, by the terms and conditions applied by the car park operator. We don't know whether he has terms and conditions that explicitly create a lien of, if he does, whether he has brought them to the attention of customers in a way that is sufficient to create a binding contract. But none of that will matter if a lien arises at common law anyway.

Obviously, if a lien was created over the car when it was left for storage, then the OP bought the car subject to that lien. So, yeah, he has to pay the parking charges in order to recover custody of the car.

This is why I love this forum, the opportunities to discover new areas. Can a normal car park (assumption, I agree) really amount to storage, the operation of a warehouse etc? Is there really a bailment (which I assume to be required) and unless the owner surrendered the keys to the car park operator, I find it difficult to see that as transferring possession or control of the goods to the car park operator (who would I imagine disclaim all obligations to keep the goods safe which is customary in bailment). Would it not simply be a licence for use fo a car parking space for a period.

In which case, absent any clear statements before issuing the ticket at the barrier, surely the car park operator’s claim is against the original and not the new owner.

I still think it’s an arm twisting situation as even if not technically liable for the charges, I don’t know that the new owner has any right to force his way onto the premises to obtain possession of the car.

TCM

As someone suggested earlier, simply drive a low loader in, put the car on it and drive out.

Marcusm

TCM wrote: »

As someone suggested earlier, simply drive a low loader in, put the car on it and drive out.

I’d be surprised if one of these was able to fit and/or manoeuvre in most barriers car parks. Many will have height restrictions as well. It would probably work at the airport long term car parks but we have not heard from the OP as to how the car park is set up.

grayzer75

Wait until its really busy, drive up to the barrier and press the buzzer. When they answer tell them you are after losing your ticket between the paystation and the car and there's cars backed up behind you - they will lift the barrier and away you go. A cheeky bastid mate of mine got a free weekends parking in Belfast doing that

Claw Hammer

Marcusm wrote: »

This is why I love this forum, the opportunities to discover new areas. Can a normal car park (assumption, I agree) really amount to storage, the operation of a warehouse etc? Is there really a bailment (which I assume to be required) and unless the owner surrendered the keys to the car park operator, I find it difficult to see that as transferring possession or control of the goods to the car park operator (who would I imagine disclaim all obligations to keep the goods safe which is customary in bailment). Would it not simply be a licence for use fo a car parking space for a period.

In which case, absent any clear statements before issuing the ticket at the barrier, surely the car park operator’s claim is against the original and not the new owner.

I still think it’s an arm twisting situation as even if not technically liable for the charges, I don’t know that the new owner has any right to force his way onto the premises to obtain possession of the car.

What is wrong with arm-twisting. People in business are entitled to secure payment. Anybody who takes custody of goods in the course of business, in the expectation of payment for services, is entitled to retain possession of the goods until paid. Why should the car park be any different to a garage carrying out a repair?

grayzer75

grayzer75 wrote: »

Wait until its really busy, drive up to the barrier and press the buzzer. When they answer tell them you are after losing your ticket between the paystation and the car and there's cars backed up behind you - they will lift the barrier and away you go. A cheeky bastid mate of mine got a free weekends parking in Belfast doing that

working once in Belfast is not proof it will work now in Dublin. Especially when you consider registration recognition is at play

Marcusm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What is wrong with arm-twisting. People in business are entitled to secure payment. Anybody who takes custody of goods in the course of business, in the expectation of payment for services, is entitled to retain possession of the goods until paid. Why should the car park be any different to a garage carrying out a repair?

But has the car park taken custody of the goods? You’ll see that is one point I have asked. I understand also that a warehouseman’s lien (which may not even exist in this case) can also be ineffective where the goods are sold prior to the payment of the storage costs (which again may not even be the analysis here).

A repair is very different because in that case there is a clear bailment and a repairer’s lien.

The arm twisting is what will hVe to happen on both sides to get a practical solution which is why I have suggested the OP gets on and deals with the communication. The likelihood of being able to get the car out without agreement might be very small.

Claw Hammer

Marcusm wrote: »

But has the car park taken custody of the goods? You’ll see that is one point I have asked. I understand also that a warehouseman’s lien (which may not even exist in this case) can also be ineffective where the goods are sold prior to the payment of the storage costs (which again may not even be the analysis here).

A repair is very different because in that case there is a clear bailment and a repairer’s lien.

The arm twisting is what will hVe to happen on both sides to get a practical solution which is why I have suggested the OP gets on and deals with the communication. The likelihood of being able to get the car out without agreement might be very small.

Of course the car park has taken custody of the goods. It has allowed the owner leave the goods there and vacate the part the premises leaving the goods behind him, in anticipation that it will return and pay the appropriate fee.

Peregrinus

Marcusm wrote: »

This is why I love this forum, the opportunities to discover new areas. Can a normal car park (assumption, I agree) really amount to storage, the operation of a warehouse etc?

Of course. What is the car park doing, if not storing your car for you while you're not using it? How is this different from warehousing other goods?

Marcusm wrote: »

Is there really a bailment (which I assume to be required) and unless the owner surrendered the keys to the car park operator, I find it difficult to see that as transferring possession or control of the goods to the car park operator (who would I imagine disclaim all obligations to keep the goods safe which is customary in bailment). Would it not simply be a licence for use fo a car parking space for a period.

Good point. On the one hand, the car park operator does have custody and control over the goods to at least this degree; he can stop you removing it. So he does have "custody"; that's what custody means. And he has at least some control, even if it's the purely negative control of preventing you from accessing the car while the car park is closed, or from driving the car beyond the confines of the car park until you have paid the fee to lift the barrier.

On the other hand, he doesn't have control to the extend that, say, he could move it from the bay you left it in to another bay.

So, yeah, you could argue that this is simply a licence for you to park in a bay of your choosing, and that no lien arises (unless by contract, of course).

Marcusm wrote: »

In which case, absent any clear statements before issuing the ticket at the barrier, surely the car park operator’s claim is against the original and not the new owner.

Surely the car park operator has a claim against the new owner for parking charges in respect of the period since the transfer of ownership?

Marcusm wrote: »

I still think it’s an arm twisting situation as even if not technically liable for the charges, I don’t know that the new owner has any right to force his way onto the premises to obtain possession of the car.

No, but if there's no lien he may have an action in detinue.

joeguevara

A number of issues need to be clarified before answering the query.

Firstly are the terms and conditions of the car park published or available (e.g. online). As an example here is the terms and conditions for Clayton hotel private car park (just to be clear this is for explanation only and no way saying that it is the same as the OP). https://www.claytonhoteldublinairport.com/airport-parking/parking-faq/car-park-terms-conditions-of-use/

As per point 9, Every vehicle in the car park is subject to a lien for all charges due from the vehicle owner to the Company and the Company reserves the right to refuse to release your vehicle until those charges have been paid. The original owner entered into this contract and the company can refuse to allow the vehicle off the premises until it is paid.

It is arguable that the new owner has not entered into such a contract. However, as they were aware that the vehicle was located there, and the terms and conditions say owner (which they are now), it is likely that this contract transferred to them. If they could reasonably demonstrate that they were unaware of this fact, then they could argue that they were not bound by this.

Also, the above conditions discuss abandoned cars. They can remove cars that they reasonably deem abandoned and dispose of them. It is likely that this applies and until proven otherwise or if it is shown to get around abandoned car ownership was transferred, they may dispose as they see fit.

The big issue is the value of the car now. Why would someone from the U.K. buy a car that was not drive able and located in a car park incurring costs. Is it in some way valuable to take that risk?

If there are no terms and conditions that are easily available, and published at the time of the original entry, then more than likely there is no hold. But, put it this way, an abandoned car is taking up a space that could generate revenue. It is also a safety risk as it’s not probably insured. The car park owners more than likely want rid without incurring costs of removal or disposal unless it is In someways valuable. The fact that it’s still there show it’s probably not. Discuss it and see if you can come to a solution.

But seriously, what possessed you to buy it?

Mrs OBumble

robusto1 wrote: »

the carpark is operated by barrier and ticket system.

....

What would you do in this situation?

The barrier / ticket system makes things simpler: what is to stop a tow-truck driving up, pushing the button, getting a ticket, loading the car, and paying its ticket on the way out?

How does the carpark owner even know who you are?




But what I would do is look for a practical solution (Motors forum perhaps) rather than a legal one.

con747

I just love these new account first posts with a please help me weird unusual situation that are on multiple forums, you couldn't make them up. :rolleyes:

Strumms

I would have expected that the contract for paying the parking was and IS between the owner who parked it there and the company. The vehicle doesn’t owe a cent, it’s then owner certainly does.

A transaction has or will take place where the ownership of the car changes... if the original owner hasn’t paid up, not your problem, should the car park be enabled to keep the car until they get ‘somebody’ to pay ? I doubt it.

Peregrinus

Strumms wrote: »

I would have expected that the contract for paying the parking was and IS between the owner who parked it there and the company. The vehicle doesn’t owe a cent, it’s then owner certainly does.

A transaction has or will take place where the ownership of the car changes... if the original owner hasn’t paid up, not your problem, should the car park be enabled to keep the car until they get ‘somebody’ to pay ? I doubt it.

Set your doubts at rest. This is commonplace.

If I enter into a contract that grants somebody a security interest in my property, and then sell the same property to you, you take it subject to the security interest that already existed when you bought it.

So, I mortgage my house to the bank, and then sell it to you: you get it subject to the mortgage (which is why, in the real world, you won't buy it unless I clear off the mortgage as part of the deal).

I pawn my jewelry, and then sell it to you while it's still in the pawnshop; you can't waltz into the pawnshop and take it away without paying the pawnbroker.

Etc., etc. If the car park operator has a lien over the car in this case, then the OP bought the car subject to the lien. This was - benefit of hindsight alert! - one of several things he should have investigated before buying the car.

9935452

grayzer75 wrote: »

Wait until its really busy, drive up to the barrier and press the buzzer. When they answer tell them you are after losing your ticket between the paystation and the car and there's cars backed up behind you - they will lift the barrier and away you go. A cheeky bastid mate of mine got a free weekends parking in Belfast doing that

The op would have to bring a few friends to push the car as its a non runner.
But i do like the idea

brian_t

9935452 wrote: »

The op would have to bring a few friends to push the car as its a non runner.
But i do like the idea

If the car is a non-runner, How did it get into the car park in the first place.

Claw Hammer

Buy a car with finance outstanding and you will have to either pay off the finance or have the car repossessed. The fact that you were not a party to the original contract is irrelevant. If you don't make enquiries prior to purchase, tough.

Claw Hammer

con747 wrote: »

I just love these new account first posts with a please help me weird unusual situation that are on multiple forums, you couldn't make them up. :rolleyes:

They are obviously made up.

loyatemu

con747 wrote: »

I just love these new account first posts with a please help me weird unusual situation that are on multiple forums, you couldn't make them up. :rolleyes:

and then they disappear forever while the thread rolls on for page after page of bad-tempered hypothetical arguing. I almost admire them...

Marcusm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Set your doubts at rest. This is commonplace.

If I enter into a contract that grants somebody a security interest in my property, and then sell the same property to you, you take it subject to the security interest that already existed when you bought it.

So, I mortgage my house to the bank, and then sell it to you: you get it subject to the mortgage (which is why, in the real world, you won't buy it unless I clear off the mortgage as part of the deal).

I pawn my jewelry, and then sell it to you while it's still in the pawnshop; you can't waltz into the pawnshop and take it away without paying the pawnbroker.

Etc., etc. If the car park operator has a lien over the car in this case, then the OP bought the car subject to the lien. This was - benefit of hindsight alert! - one of several things he should have investigated before buying the car.

I still see the underlying contract differently. I do not think that the car park operator has custody of the goods as it does not have control over them (key) in any meaningful manner and unlike a storage facility it will not give safekeepingbundertakings (more likely disclaim anybresponsibility).

Can it really not be seen as a licence to use the space rather than a storage arrangement?

As regards the period from the change of ownership, the parking contract is made at the point of entry into the car park, is it not? Does a new owner automatically accede to that contract?

Marcusm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Buy a car with finance outstanding and you will have to either pay off the finance or have the car repossessed. The fact that you want a party to the original contract is irrelevant. If you don't make enquiries prior to purchase, tough.

But that’s because the finance is expressly linked to the car.

In this case, it is not clear at all that any lien or other claim arises. Even if one is asserted in an online Ts&Cs, unless posted prior to entry to the car park in a manner immediately obvious to the partner, such terms, per Shoe Lane, are unenforceable.

punisher5112

The op hasn't come back at all ... What's the point in all this?


Mod
It has led to some interesting legal discussion

joeguevara

punisher5112 wrote: »

The op hasn't come back at all ... What's the point in all this?

It is an interesting issue notwithstanding the non-response. Although not precedent and possibly not persuasive, I found a very interesting case from Australia. https://www.mondaq.com/australia/CorporateCommercial-Law/289260/PPSA-Possessory-lien-and-migrated-registration--what-trumps-in-a-priority-dispute

It was the case of a possessory lien and undischarged debt. The court found that as the terms and conditions of the car park included a clause that they could retain possession of the car until all fees were discharged and in the case of abandoned cars they could dispose of them to recoup their fees.

The court found in the car parks favour and used the repairers lien (codified) as the reason. Interestingly, we have the concept of the repairers lien in Ireland.

The right to the Ops possession of the car, occurred after the lien was taken and the fact that they were aware of that it was in a private car park may have ramifications to their argument. Again, it really depends on the terms and conditions of the CP and indeed as others have pointed out, how these are displayed.

One thing that has not been mentioned, is the fact that the Shoe Lane case, specifically deals with the person who originally parked in the car park and the fact that there was an exclusionary clause, in the inside of the car park. This meant that this condition was not apparent when they initially made the contract. In the OPs situation, it is irrelevant if the T&Cs are at the outside of the carpark as they haven't been to the car park. If they are online, it is arguable that they had the chance to review these prior to entering into the sale. If they were not visible, it may be an argument to the original owner, but now that they have no skin in the game, it becomes less relevant. In my opinion.

punisher5112

joeguevara wrote: »

It is an interesting issue notwithstanding the non-response. Although not precedent and possibly not persuasive, I found a very interesting case from Australia. https://www.mondaq.com/australia/CorporateCommercial-Law/289260/PPSA-Possessory-lien-and-migrated-registration--what-trumps-in-a-priority-dispute

It was the case of a possessory lien and undischarged debt. The court found that as the terms and conditions of the car park included a clause that they could retain possession of the car until all fees were discharged and in the case of abandoned cars they could dispose of them to recoup their fees.

The court found in the car parks favour and used the repairers lien (codified) as the reason. Interestingly, we have the concept of the repairers lien in Ireland.

The right to the Ops possession of the car, occurred after the lien was taken and the fact that they were aware of that it was in a private car park may have ramifications to their argument. Again, it really depends on the terms and conditions of the CP and indeed as others have pointed out, how these are displayed.

One thing that has not been mentioned, is the fact that the Shoe Lane case, specifically deals with the person who originally parked in the car park and the fact that there was an exclusionary clause, in the inside of the car park. This meant that this condition was not apparent when they initially made the contract. In the OPs situation, it is irrelevant if the T&Cs are at the outside of the carpark as they haven't been to the car park. If they are online, it is arguable that they had the chance to review these prior to entering into the sale. If they were not visible, it may be an argument to the original owner, but now that they have no skin in the game, it becomes less relevant. In my opinion.

We don't know what type of car park either.....

If it's a pay park style set up then of course their are terms, if it's an apartment private set up I'm sure there are clauses also but them they may well be delighted to get rid in many cases as spaces are premium.

Op hasn't bothered so it really doesn't matter either way.

joeguevara

punisher5112 wrote: »

We don't know what type of car park either.....

If it's a pay park style set up then of course their are terms, if it's an apartment private set up I'm sure there are clauses also but them they may well be delighted to get rid in many cases as spaces are premium.

Op hasn't bothered so it really doesn't matter either way.

You are correct. From a hypothetical it is interesting but I honestly don't think anyone would buy a sight unseen unroadworthy car in a foreign country where it is in a private car park.

billyhead

Sorry for going off topic but is there any law against leaving a car parked up in public parking bays in a housing estate when they aren't been used and the tax is up? The parking spaces are usually used and occupied by visitors to the estate and there taking up space.

punisher5112

billyhead wrote: »

Sorry for going off topic but is there any law against leaving a car parked up in public parking bays in a housing estate when they aren't been used and the tax is up? The parking spaces are usually used and occupied by visitors to the estate and there taking up space.

If it's road legal and public there is no issues, the tax out is of course in law but that's on them as they may well get a fine for it parked there.

Marcusm

punisher5112 wrote: »

If it's road legal and public there is no issues, the tax out is of course in law but that's on them as they may well get a fine for it parked there.

If the road is maintained by the local authority and the tax has been out for more than 2 months then it can be lifted or towed as opposed to ticketed. Most local authorities would, I imagine, respond to requests for this before it encouraged anti-social behaviour.