Parking Eye v Somerfield Judgment

surfboy1

Lets face it, Parking Eye and others do what they do simply to make money for themselfs, no other reason.
They try to sell it that they are doing the supermarkets a favour but they are not interested in that supermarkets consumer image at all.

trisontana

You don't need a PPC to man a barrier. Just use a member off staff from the supermarket. Or have an automatic (unmanned) barrier

peter_the_piper

mikey72 wrote: »

"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."

If they cost them 1million then it should cost a lot less than that for a member of staff, not forgetting the loss of customers due to PE.

mo786uk

trisontana wrote: »

You don't need a PPC to man a barrier. Just use a member off staff from the supermarket. Or have an automatic (unmanned) barrier

There is a cost to that though - hence why an automatic system like PE seems so attractive.

Somerfield were quite happy to have non-customers being charged - they only got concerned when genuine customers complained.

trisontana

What do you mean by an "automatic system"? I thought that in Somerfields case the PPC just patrolled the car-park .

mo786uk

Underthe old system where a person patrolled the car park they obviously had to pay for it - £1m a year according to the judgement

Under PE system Somerfield did not pay anything. PE system did not require any staff to be at the car park as it works on cameras.

I dont see any reason why Somerfield would want t ohave their staff patrolling the car park. they might as well go back to having a manned person there again.

trisontana

So this shows up the PE "business model". The only way the PPC can make a profit is from the money they earn from illegal penalties. The reason I say they are illegal is that according to both the BPA and the DoT, the only money that can be claimed is for any actual material loss suffered by the landowner and not some made-up amount . Even then the money has to go to the landowner and not the PPC.

mo786uk

I think we all know PPCs make money off peoples misery

No one is saying they are there to do favours

Then again neither are the supermarkets whose car parks they are there to protect from car parkers.

mikey72

trisontana wrote: »

So this shows up the PE "business model". The only way the PPC can make a profit is from the money they earn from illegal penalties. The reason I say they are illegal is that according to both the BPA and the DoT, the only money that can be claimed is for any actual material loss suffered by the landowner and not some made-up amount ..............................

Not according to this ruling.

"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."

trisontana

That goes against other court cases where the judge has ruled that they were penalties.