McDonald's & MET - almost a month later

The BPA Code of Practice is a detailed code of regulation governing signs, charges and enforcement procedures. Clause 13 deals with grace periods. Clause 13.4 provides: “13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.”

“19.6 If your parking charge is based on a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the recommended amount in 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading.”

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 200. Regulation 8(1) provides that “An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer”. 201. Regulation 5(1) specifies what is to be understood by an unfair term. It provides that: Page 89 “A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.”

Redx wrote: »

the Beavis case blew the not a gpeol out of the water (the last part)

314. The point is that the penalty clause makes no allowance for circumstances, allows no period of grace and provides no room for adjustment ... I return to the point that it was for ParkingEye to show the factual grounds on which it could reasonably assume that a customer using that car park would have agreed, in individual negotiations, to pay £85 if he overstayed for a minute, or parked with his wheels not entirely within a marked bay, or for whatever reason returned to the car park in less than one hour (perhaps because he had left something behind). On the bare information which was placed before the court, I am not persuaded that ParkingEye has shown grounds for assuming that a party who was in a position to bargain individually, and who was advised by a competent lawyer, would have agreed to the penalty clause as it stood.

315. Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption in para 107 have substituted their judgment of reasonableness of the clause for the question whether the supplier could reasonably have assumed that the customer would have agreed with the term, and on that approach there is not much, if any, difference in substance from the test whether it offended the penalty doctrine at common law. That approach is consistent with their statement in para 104 that the considerations which show that it is not a penalty demonstrate also that it does not offend the Regulations. I consider that the approach waters down the test adopted by the CJEU and at the very least that the point is not acte clair.

Redx wrote: »

you omitted the part in clause #13 about the driver having time to enter the site , park up , read the signs and comply

council tickets may be say 10 minutes , which is not unreasonable

add grace time before the parking event to grace time after the parking event and its approx 20 minutes , even 5 minutes before and 11 minutes after is 16 minutes

ergo, they failed the BPA CoP

Umkomaas wrote: »

Not many teams get 3 points when they lose 6-1.