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.