Parking Eye v Somerfield Judgment

bargepole

taffy056 wrote: »

But if that is their loss of revenue , how is it that they have such a sum to lose when they are supposed to be there to recover the per estimated losses of the landowner. If the contract is terminated so thereby their equipment can be removed and used elsewhere, how come they have made a loss ? Could it be that the revenue is solely made of contractual penalties ?

The sum awarded to PE was based on a calculation of payments made (3000 out of the 6000 notices) while the system was in operation, extrapolated for the unfulfilled portion of the contract.

The estimated losses were indeed due to the landowner, but the contract would have stated that 100% of sums recovered would be passed to PE, in consideration of their having provided all the equipment at no charge.

mikey72

If it was a court of appeal, and the judge has stated

"The basic charge was £75, reduced to £37.50 if paid within 14 days of the "Penalty Ticket," i.e. the first letter. This amount the Judge held not to be a penalty and thus enforceable as against the motorist. If payment was not made within a specified time the charge increased to £135 which the Judge held was probably a penalty and thus unenforceable."

hasn't he set the "estimated loss" for future cases as not just the £1 in the pay and display machine?

bargepole

mikey72 wrote: »

If it was a court of appeal, and the judge has stated

"The basic charge was £75, reduced to £37.50 if paid within 14 days of the "Penalty Ticket," i.e. the first letter. This amount the Judge held not to be a penalty and thus enforceable as against the motorist. If payment was not made within a specified time the charge increased to £135 which the Judge held was probably a penalty and thus unenforceable."

hasn't he set the "estimated loss" for future cases as not just the £1 in the pay and display machine?

The statement you've quoted was made by the Judge in the original case a couple of years ago. This latest Appeal hearing didn't go into that issue, they were only concerned with the contract between Somerfield and Parking Eye.

They did rule that any monies payable were due to the landowner, and only the landowner could sue in the county court.

mikey72

bargepole wrote: »

The statement you've quoted was made by the Judge in the original case a couple of years ago. This latest Appeal hearing didn't go into that issue, they were only concerned with the contract between Somerfield and Parking Eye.

They did rule that any monies payable were due to the landowner, and only the landowner could sue in the county court.

Does it still set a precedent on the actual allowable penalty being more than the losses?

bargepole

mikey72 wrote: »

Does it still set a precedent on the actual allowable penalty being more than the losses?

It can't be a penalty, but it can be a contractual charge agreed between the landowner and the motorist.

The difficulty for PE, and other PPCs, is that any court action to recover such charges can only be undertaken by the landowner, as ruled in this case and also ruled in VCS v HMRC.

So I can't see that this is of much use to PPCs in court claims.

peter_the_piper

Its nice to see that this has been confirmed as landowner owner, so even if vcs appeal is upheld we still have this precedent.

bazster

Unfortunately we don't have the ruling from the original case, so we don't know why the judge in that case ruled that some of the charges were penalties and some weren't, nor do we know on what basis he decided that the motorist's contract was with Somerfield, not Parking Spy.

There is not all that much of interest in this appeal ruling, the real meat was in the original case, of which this ruling only gives us tantalising glimpses - although I note that the appeal judges, had they been asked to rule on it (they weren't), would've been inclined to find illegality in the first and second letters on the grounds of factors such as the police-like chequered edging.

What is particularly interesting is this: it appears that one of the grounds of illegality in the later Parking Spy letters is that they threatened court action which no-one had any intention of taking, because it was in the contract between Parking Spy and Somerfield that no court action would be taken.

If that is illegal then, every time the DVLA releases RK details to a PPC whose contract with its "client" precludes court action, then the DVLA (knowing full well the nature of the letters that will result) is surely colluding in the illegality.

taffy056

Wonder if somerfield will appeal this? Is it possible to go beyond what has been done already ?

bargepole

taffy056 wrote: »

Wonder if somerfield will appeal this? Is it possible to go beyond what has been done already ?

They would have to go to the Supreme Court, then if that failed, the European Court of Justice. The lawyers would be rubbing their hands and lighting cigars with £50 notes in anticipation of the fees they'd be able to charge for that lot.

BASFORDLAD

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Its nice to see that this has been confirmed as landowner owner, so even if vcs appeal is upheld we still have this precedent.

Have VCs got permission to go to the court of appeal then?