Parking Eye v Somerfield Judgment

mo786uk

I'vo got no love for PPCs

But then again I've no doubt a lot of the general public are prats and parking where they shouldnt do, thereby taking up space for others.

I would question the idea that these businesses get talked into silly deals by PPCs. I imagine they have some idea of the status of their car parks.

The supermarket where i live has a big car park and anyone cna aprk there coz quite frankly you would use it unless you were shopping

The supermarket closest to my workpalcehas a 2 hour restriction because people were using it as a park and ride into the town centre.

whatmichaelsays

mo786uk wrote: »

I'vo got no love for PPCs

But then again I've no doubt a lot of the general public are prats and parking where they shouldnt do, thereby taking up space for others.

I would question the idea that these businesses get talked into silly deals by PPCs. I imagine they have some idea of the status of their car parks.

The supermarket where i live has a big car park and anyone cna aprk there coz quite frankly you would use it unless you were shopping

The supermarket closest to my workpalcehas a 2 hour restriction because people were using it as a park and ride into the town centre.

There aren't many people who would argue that management of car parks in the private sector doesn't have its place. Land owners have a right to protect their land from people who, in some cases, take the proverbial.

Where we disagree is the way in which such management operates. The way to 'manage' car parks is not, in any right minded person's opinion, to intimidate vulnerable and ill-informed people into paying arbitrary and extortionate penalties that do not stand up in a court of law.

mo786uk

ManxRed wrote: »

My God this is hard work...

A PPC can hire whoever they want. They can hire a lawyer to bring a claim on THEIR OWN behalf. They CANNOT themselves bring a court claim as an agent of someone else.

Debt Collection agencies chase debts. Nothing wrong with that. However they CANNOT bring court claims on behalf of a third party.

It IS impossible to find a workaround. That's the law.

Why are you finding this so difficult to understand?

I understand its the principal that needs to sue - but the relationship can be made in such a way that the PPC does all the legwork in the name of the principal.

mo786uk

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

There aren't many people who would argue that management of car parks in the private sector doesn't have its place. Land owners have a right to protect their land from people who, in some cases, take the proverbial.

Where we disagree is the way in which such management operates. The way to 'manage' car parks is not, in any right minded person's opinion, to intimidate vulnerable and ill-informed people into paying arbitrary and extortionate penalties that do not stand up in a court of law.

Whats the alternative? Hang around outside sainsburys for 45 minutes waiting for the barriers to go up?

ManxRed

mo786uk wrote: »

I understand its the principal that needs to sue - but the relationship can be made in such a way that the PPC does all the legwork in the name of the principal.

You have some major problem here.

A PPC cannot bring a claim as a third party agent of someone else.

It's the law. Stop trying to find a way around it, you won't.

I've never yet seen a court claim from a PPC in the name of the landowner.

Until such a claim, and some evidence that the PPC 'did the legwork' then your theories are moot.

Given the very nature of the case this thread started out discussing, do you seriously think that the major supermarkets will want to start sueing their own customers?

mo786uk

Its not a loophole.

If the court says the principal has to sue then its only natural principals will eventually start suing. You seem to be making out liek its somesort of insurmountable challenge.

Whether or not a supermarket would sue its own custoemrs - who knows - many of them seem quite happy to continue using PE and the like, so you tell me. But I accept its not likely.

And there are thousands of smaller places that dont give a toss about !!!!ing off custoemrs, theyjust want to protect their land. Many of them being parked on by people not even related to the business in question (i.e not customers). So it is inevtiable that landowners will sue customers if its the only way of enforcing the charges.

Round my way we have a funeral company that has people parking on it in order to go to Tesco Metro over the road. They had a serious amount of people clamped previously.

Do you think they will give 2 tosses about suing Tesco customers?

Coupon-mad

mo786uk wrote: »

Its not a loophole.

If the court says the principal has to sue then its only natural principals will eventually start suing. You seem to be making out liek its somesort of insurmountable challenge.

Whether or not a supermarket would sue its own custoemrs - who knows - many of them seem quite happy to continue using PE and the like, so you tell me. But I accept its not likely.

And there are thousands of smaller places that dont give a toss about !!!!ing off custoemrs, theyjust want to protect their land. Many of them being parked on by people not even related to the business in question (i.e not customers). So it is inevtiable that landowners will sue customers if its the only way of enforcing the charges.

Round my way we have a funeral company that has people parking on it in order to go to Tesco Metro over the road. They had a serious amount of people clamped previously.

Do you think they will give 2 tosses about suing Tesco customers?

Nothing has changed so if you think landowners would just sue people for trespass left, right and centre then how come it almost never happens?!

Is it that you think there's going to be some big backlash now that clamping is banned? Nope. Supermarkets never used clampers anyway so nothing has changed and no, they really would NOT want to be seen suing their paying customers.

Firms are not suddenly going to start suing people now they cannot clamp cars - which was always ridiculous anyway. In the example of the funeral company you gave, how on earth would clamping a car have possibly got rid of a rogue parker? The opposite would be true, car stuck in the way for hours! And in addition, a clamped car = an irate person, right outside a firm that needs to maintain a quiet and dignified premises entrance. Whoever contracted clampers outside a funeral service must have been mad!

ManxRed

mo786uk wrote: »

Its not a loophole.

If the court says the principal has to sue then its only natural principals will eventually start suing. You seem to be making out liek its somesort of insurmountable challenge.

Whether or not a supermarket would sue its own custoemrs - who knows - many of them seem quite happy to continue using PE and the like, so you tell me. But I accept its not likely.

And there are thousands of smaller places that dont give a toss about !!!!ing off custoemrs, theyjust want to protect their land. Many of them being parked on by people not even related to the business in question (i.e not customers). So it is inevtiable that landowners will sue customers if its the only way of enforcing the charges.

Round my way we have a funeral company that has people parking on it in order to go to Tesco Metro over the road. They had a serious amount of people clamped previously.

Do you think they will give 2 tosses about suing Tesco customers?

No one's mentioned a 'loophole'.

There will always be some instances where a landowner MIGHT want to bring a claim against drivers parking on their land. Such as your local funeral director, but for how much will the claim be?

The point I have tried to put across, is that Tesco (and their ilk) will not want to sue their OWN customers. There are many reasons why not, they would have to demonstrate losses in a court, they may lose, they may end up paying the costs of the other party, and above all, they won't want stories in the local press (or possibly national) stating 'Tesco's sued me for £200 for shopping there and ended up losing'.

In your first paragraph above you state that its only natural that principals will start suing. That its not an insurmountable challenge. Of course its not, I've stated to you the legalities of this. But, do you really think they will want to do this? You then go on to contradict yourself slightly by saying that in the case of a supermarket suing its own customers, you accept that its not likely to happen.

Supermarkets and retail chains make up quite a significant number of PPC tickets. For those that aren't supermarkets and retail chains, they can sue, but for how much? And will they really want to go through the hassle and added cost of raising claims (for actual financial losses suffered), attending court, and facing a reasonably high risk of losing? You claim this is inevitable, but that's your opinion, and it certainly isn't mine. I think you'll struggle to find many people on here agreeing with you, so 'inevitable' is perhaps a little misleading here.

You fail to pick up on the fact that no one's arguing with you about the landowner's right to protect their land, no one here disagrees with this. What we disagree with is the disproportionate claims, made up contraventions, and legally misleading statements that PPCs apply for such abuse. This is legally and morally wrong and we have a duty to protect innocent motorists from being duped out of paying money they don't legally owe to companies who are not legally at a loss as a result.

Hence we will continue to advise such people accordingly. No one's on a vendetta against put-upon landowners, we're on a vendetta against greedy leeches who try to con motorists out of money they don't legally or morally have a right to.

bargepole

This thread is in danger of going round in circles and disappearing up its own rear end.

I think what we all need to bear in mind is that the game may, or may not, have changed with the introduction of the POFA and POPLA.

Will POPLA consider appeals based on the unlawfulness of the tickets - contract penalties, agents ticketing on behalf of principals, unfair terms etc. - we don't yet know.

Will county court Judges look more favourably on PPC claims where POPLA has rejected the appeal - we don't yet know.

Will PPCs start bringing more claims that the vanishingly small number they did in 2011 - we don't yet know.

Will the Somerfield judgment be cited as a precedent - possibly, but taken as a whole it doesn't really seem to help the PPC cause.

All of this will become clearer in the coming months, but one thing is certain - if the parties end up in front of a Judge, it will still be a complete lottery as to who comes out on top, as we've seen here and elsewhere from the wide range of judicial decisions.

We can, and should, continue to advise new posters to ignore PPC tickets (or appeal, then ignore), as I believe that the chances of being taken to court will still be microscopic. If a claim is made, we can help with a defence that gives them the best chance of winning. But anyone who goes all the way to court needs to understand that, however strong your case looks on paper, anything can happen on the day.

art_for_arts_sake

I'd be interested to know how many "negative publicity payments" mentioned in the document Parking Eye have received from the supermarkets using PE's services. I've had a couple of PE tickets cancelled by Aldi who said it cost them to cancel the tickets. I took it with a pinch of salt at the time but I'd hate to think that PE were still benefiting from cancelled parking charges indirectly by billing the supermarkets instead. It looks to me like any supermarket chain using them does so at their own peril.