Parking at own Risk.

[tec0]

We all know this BS sign that magically allow people to vandalise your car while you are not around. Basically this sign is a real problem because it allows the owner of the grounds to do nothing. They have no need to install security cameras nor do they have to have security guards or access control.

Is there a way to make the proprietor responsible for damages done ?

What is your opinion about this?

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

Parking falls under the consumer protection act. The clause is an unfair term and is prohibiting a CPA right. they are liable.

that aside, this is what is called ticket sales - If I buy a ticket and the terms and conditions only become known once I enter the venue, the contract was not concluded based on those terms UNLESS before or as i am buying teh ticket there is signage that brings to my attention that there are terms and conditions.

[IanF]

Parking falls under the consumer protection act. The clause is an unfair term and is prohibiting a CPA right. they are liable.

What if under that sign you put "If you do not agree to these terms do not park here"
I think most of these "t&cs" come from bitter experience. What if another car reverses into your car and drives off should this be the responsibility of the carpark owner. Even if they have cctv and guards you can not hold someone until the car owner comes along.
Is the "reasonable man" concept still applicable?

[tec0]

Parking falls under the consumer protection act. The clause is an unfair term and is prohibiting a CPA right. they are liable.

that aside, this is what is called ticket sales - If I buy a ticket and the terms and conditions only become known once I enter the venue, the contract was not concluded based on those terms UNLESS before or as i am buying teh ticket there is signage that brings to my attention that there are terms and conditions.

Thank you

You sir are a true one in a million.

[tec0]

What if under that sign you put "If you do not agree to these terms do not park here"
I think most of these "t&cs" come from bitter experience. What if another car reverses into your car and drives off should this be the responsibility of the carpark owner. Even if they have cctv and guards you can not hold someone until the car owner comes along.
Is the "reasonable man" concept still applicable?

If CCTV was made available to me I would take the evidence and go to the police and keep the person that actually damaged my car responsible. Would this count as reasonable?

But right now we cannot get them motivated enough to install a system regardless of the fact that vandalising is now common place.

[IanF]

If CCTV was made available to me I would take the evidence and go to the police and keep the person that actually damaged my car responsible. Would this count as reasonable?

But right now we cannot get them motivated enough to install a system regardless of the fact that vandalising is now common place.

Would you be willing to pay more for this as it will cost money, then when the system is vandalised would you still be happy with the price increase. If this is so bad make another plan rather than parking there.
As to reasonable it may be hard to position the cameras properly, just look at ACSA with their cameras yet the crooks find the blind spots. Then you can complain that the cameras are useless.

[tec0]

The parking aria is fairly open and no less than two well placed cameras will work just fine. I know this because I also am use to install them "at my home" and at a friend's house. The system required will not be that expensive. It is also a small area with a single gate so again it will not take much to secure the aria.

To answer your question; Yes I am willing to pay extra fact is all of us are willing to pay that little extra. "If facilitator keeps it within reason" Also we do not ask for miracles just a chance to find the person responsible.

After all how would you feel if you are basically forced to use a parking area knowing your car will get damaged? Would you not want to catch the person responsible?

[adrianh]

But what happens when you go to town and park in a public parking bay. We pay about R10 for an hour but I can assure you that you do it at your own risk. Where do you draw the line when it comes to responsibility, although I pay R10 to park in a bay in town it remains my responsibility. What happens if your buddy from out of town stayes over at your house for a weekend and his car gets broken into whilst parked in your driveway - do you have CCTV cameras installed? What happens if your buddy parked in the street in front of your house - there are still no cameras. I think that we also need to take responsibility for our own wellbeing, we take risks wherever we go, we choose where we park and we should be aware of the dangers.

[tec0]

I agree, like I said before I am not trying to be unreasonable. However this problem is in some ways unique adrianh. It is not your standard parking area, it is a parking area dedicated to us. So we have no alternative but to use it.

Now we pay a lot of money already and now there is an individual that walks around vandalising cars. There is no other motive here. So we did take responsibility and we asked the proprietor to help us setup some kind of security.

He said no and that we are using the parking at own risk. Thus he is not interested in solving the problem nor was he willing to share cost because we were willing to pay for half of the system. And please note we were willing to share the installation cost as well as the cost of the equipment.

So what now? What else can we do?

[Dave A]

Club together to hire a car guard?

If it's a regular occurence, you could hire a private detective agency to post someone to loiter in the area and catch the person. They really are pretty good at this sort of thing.

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

Perhaps some perspective -

The issue of a waiver claiming cant be liable is an unfair term and not allowed, as per my first post. However, that does not mean that if anything happens that it is the car parks fault.
Fault stems from either intent or negligience. If the boom gate is not working and the company does not try and make an arrangement, and your car is stolen, you would be well placed for a claim. (But, if the boom is broken for 3 days and you still park, then some of the liability passes onto you)
if the employee is involved, then the company may be vicarously liable.

if I was a car park owner, i would not advertise as a secure parking, because that would place a greater burden on me, because then security becomes part of the service.
There may also be some confusion with the CPA and fault- section 61 dealing with harm and liability essentially makes the supply chain liable the moment there is harm. This type of immediate liability does not flow through to the rest of the act. (Important: Section 61 deals with goods and not services, unless the service includes supply of goods. Example, while performing heart surgery(a service) i insert a pacemaker(goods) If teh pacemaker packs up, the supply chain becomes liable

[tec0]

Well in our case it worked out as follow; we did indeed get an individual that normally looks after cars from one of the other car parks to keep an eye on our cars. We paid him a good some of money and he agreed.

Well one hour in the proprietor called us out and ask what the man was doing standing around on HIS property. We explained to him that we hired the man to look after our cars and he was actually doing a brilliant job.

He asked us to take the guard away. Our hand was forced and we took him away and thanked him for his service and give him the agreed amount in full. Not two hours there after another car was vandalized…

So we give the proprietor an ultimatum… either give us security or we will dismiss his services and go else ware. Everyone present signed the ultimatum. So he has till end next week to do something OR it is game over.

We selected his aria and services because it was suppose to be safer than the alternative. This is clearly no longer the case so now the ball is in his hands…

[Dave A]

Well in our case it worked out as follow; we did indeed get an individual that normally looks after cars from one of the other car parks to keep an eye on our cars. We paid him a good some of money and he agreed.

Well one hour in the proprietor called us out and ask what the man was doing standing around on HIS property. We explained to him that we hired the man to look after our cars and he was actually doing a brilliant job.

He asked us to take the guard away. Our hand was forced and we took him away and thanked him for his service and give him the agreed amount in full. Not two hours there after another car was vandalized…

Under these circumstances I'd definitely claim against the proprietor for the cost of repairs.

I'd argue that:

1. "Parking is at your own risk" inherently implies it is also your responsibility to take reasonable measures to protect your vehicle should you choose to do so.
2. Posting a guard at your own cost is a reasonable measure.
3. By denying you this reasonable measure, the proprietor has unfairly reduced your ability to function within the contract.
4. The proprietor is therefor culpable for damages incurred as a result of denying you the right to protect your own property.

[tec0]

Under these circumstances I'd definitely claim against the proprietor for the cost of repairs.

I'd argue that:

1. "Parking is at your own risk" inherently implies it is also your responsibility to take reasonable measures to protect your vehicle should you choose to do so.
2. Posting a guard at your own cost is a reasonable measure.
3. By denying you this reasonable measure, the proprietor has unfairly reduced your ability to function within the contract.
4. The proprietor is therefor culpable for damages incurred as a result of denying you the right to protect your own property.

I completely agree… In my opinion only, the proprietor did not want to share cost to install a security system. It is also of not that it was moderately inexpensive system to begin with. Secondly he demanded that we remove the guard that we paid for.

However I do hope that the ultimatum will change his mind. We also decided to get the insurance companies involved as it is their responsibility to do an independent investigation and must decide who they "the insurance company" wants to hold liable.

In all fairness we tried to be open-minded about this, but if a person wants to be difficult then that person must also be held accountable for his decisions.

[Justloadit]

Ahh a typical south African trait, we want the benifits but do not want the responsibility that goes with it. No wonder our service levels are in the gutters.