Parking Eye v Somerfield Judgment

Orford

Here is the original trial judgment, in Manchester Mercantile Court 18th March 2011.

Beware it's 164 pages!!
ParkingEye Ltd v SSL Judgement as Handed Down_.pdf -.pdf‎

mo786uk

Orford wrote: »

Here is the original trial judgment, in Manchester Mercantile Court 18th March 2011.

Beware it's 164 pages!!
ParkingEye Ltd v SSL Judgement as Handed Down_.pdf -.pdf‎

Very handy, thanks

AlexisV

If the judge in Hetherington Jakeman only thought half the payment was a penalty, why weren't Excel awarded 50% of the claim instead of zero?

Orford

Well I've only reached page 35 of the March judgment so far and it's a revelation.

Apart from the pig's ear that, between them, both PE and Somerfield made of the initial set up, what's interesting is the amount of grief caused internally when customers, at 3 stores in particular, complained about PE's behaviour. Store staff having to deal with irate customers, store managers complaining, local councillors involved, negative press reports, protest meetings at stores etc.

Shows that even though it might be thought that individually complaints are a waste of time, cumulatively they can create a lot of grief both for the supermarket and the PPC.

mikey72

The cost to Somerfields previously was a killer though.

"Many of Somerfield stores had their own car parking facilities which were manned and serviced by Euro Car Parks Limited. The annual cost of these services to Somerfield was, it seems, in excess of £1m."

All the old sites are gone here now.

mo786uk

AlexisV wrote: »

If the judge in Hertgerington Jakeman only thought half the payment was a penalty, why weren't Excel awarded 50% of the claim instead of zero?

It is mention in this judgement:

The District Judge accepted that there would have been a contract when the motorist entered the car park on the terms set out on the signs which she would have seen. But, remarkably, it seems that there was nothing on any of the signs to inform a motorist that a charge or fine would be payable if a specified time limit was exceeded. Accordingly, the claim failed. So the facts of that case are, of course, very different from those with which I am presently concerned, where the signs, as it seems to me, made the position quite clear.

bargepole

mo786uk wrote: »

It is mention in this judgement:

The District Judge accepted that there would have been a contract when the motorist entered the car park on the terms set out on the signs which she would have seen. But, remarkably, it seems that there was nothing on any of the signs to inform a motorist that a charge or fine would be payable if a specified time limit was exceeded. Accordingly, the claim failed. So the facts of that case are, of course, very different from those with which I am presently concerned, where the signs, as it seems to me, made the position quite clear.

He also said, in para. 428:

"In relation to these various contractual issues affecting the users of the car parks, therefore, I conclude that any motorist using the car park would be contractually bound to pay the charge of £75 if he exceeded the specified time limit and a demand for payment was made upon him. Whilst he might argue that the charge in question amounted to a penalty and was therefore irrecoverable, I think he would probably fail in that contention. But it seems to me, on the limited material presently before me, that he would probably succeed in any argument that the increase to £135 in the event of a failure to pay within the specified period did amount to a penalty"

The use of "probably" here suggests that this Judge was expressing his personal opinion, rather than trying to make a definitive ruling either way. It should also be borne in mind that this transcript is from a 2005 case, and subsequent rulings, such as VCS-v-HMRC, make the position much clearer.

HO87

Thank you to Orford for making this available.

462. When Mr McKerney was cross-examined about these matters, he emphasised that it was ParkingEye’s practice to do what its customers wanted it to do. So, if a client said that it did not want to pursue court action against a motorist, it would not do so. As a matter of fact, ParkingEye had never taken such proceedings on behalf of a client though that was not a matter which it was inclined to publicise.

Oh dear, it seems Mr McKerney may have erred, been misinformed or simply forgotten. What about the ParkingEye -v- Smith case in Manchester in December 2011 and the case heard at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court three weeks before. Never issued proceedings? I think not.

In Smithy's case, of course, Pannone's (who were representing PE) attempted to claim over £4,000 in costs. They failed and the four suits from that august organisation, whose offices are but a short walk from the court, were obliged to scuttle back to them pronto with nothing to show for their efforts.

Edit:

Further to BP's comment above. The judge appears to deal with the contractual issue fairly briefly and I suspect did so because that element was introduced by Somerfield's as part of the strategy to demonstrate that the contract was tainted with illegality which of course HHJ Hegarty rejected. At the time of this judgment the VCS appeal had only just been heard (6 March 2012) and the judgment had not been published. As BP states that judgment deals in far more depth with the contractual issues between a PPC and the motorist.

mo786uk

This case seems to have kicked off around 2006 onwards and got to court in March 2011 (that may be the date the document was published - it probably took months to write up so the eharing could have been months before) so a lot of the info about them not having taken anyone to court is probably outdated.

Given the law change of being able to take registered owners to court AND the fact that a HC Judge has said £37 and even £75 is not a penalty I can forsee many more claims going through in the coming years.

Yes consumers could still argue a claim made against them is a penalty and argue the toss on the facts but its a risky strategy.

Consuemr Action Group was making a big deal about this case yesterday when the COA Judgement came out but this HC Judgement reads very badly for consumers because as you say the Judge a) is not spending huge amounts of time on certain issues and b)doesnt seem to be very consumer focussed anyway.

The Consuemr Action Groups front page is still talking about whether parking charges are enforceable - they quite clearly are as long as you follow a few basic rules.

esmerobbo

mo786uk wrote: »

I can forsee many more claims going through in the coming years.

You may see a few bringing claims in their own right, if they own the car park or have certain rights over the land. However as it has been quoted in several cases, the owners themselves must sue!

I cant see many supermarkets being keen on suing people for parking!