Parking eye won cambridge case

bazster

AIUI the previous case in which a liquidated damages clause was held to be enforceable did not alter the principle that if the purpose of the clause is primarily as a deterrent then it's unenforceable.

It seems that HHJ Moloney is not only breaking new ground in consumer contract law, he's inventing new contract law across the board.

atilla

Bantex wrote: »

So the only thing stopping this type of contract would be a means of payment (telephone payment) and VAT invoices (post or email). Think I may start up a parking company on that basis and just make sure the signs are clear.

There's also the no small matter of the executive directors of the main retailers all being sacked for gross negligence and crass stupidity.
Shareholders tend to be picky when it comes to profits falling off a cliff.

Coupon-mad

ifb-online wrote: »

Are all Parking Eye customers leechers?

Dunno, why do you think PE have 'customers'?! Clearly they don't!

The landlord is now planning to install a Parking Eye system. It's nothing to do with profiteering - we want our parking back.

Bad luck then, you'll now get PCNs yourselves.

surfboy1

ifb-online wrote: »

Are all Parking Eye customers leechers? I'm a small business tenant in a location where we share parking space with a pub. There is train station across the road. The pub and our landlords operate a barrier system but people still get through and when the pub is open during the day parking space for our businesses is inundated by visitors we have no control over. You should see how many people park, blocking others and basically being totally inconsiderate. The landlord is now planning to install a Parking Eye system. It's nothing to do with profiteering - we want our parking back.

A "Parking Eye system" will not stop unwanted parkers! All that type of system does is time entry and exit and send invoices to registered keepers whose cars stay over the time limit! You will find that anyone can park, unhindered, provided they stay within the time limits!

Half_way

To stop unwanted parkers you need a something that will physicaly stop people getting in, such as lockable bollards or a gate.

As for the paking eye case, the big question is will it be appealed?

And as for the small claims court, every one knows it can be a lottery at times, the best way to beat these things is to stop any chance of it getting that far, challenge it at popla if unsuccessful with the parking company and complain to whatever/whoever owns the car park and thought it was a good idea to hire a ppc.

waamo

Given that Parking Eyes business model relies on unwanted parkers I somehow doubt they will actually solve the problem.

carandbike

bazster wrote: »

If you are saying that the law is one thing, but having to defend yourself against trumped-up charges is quite another, then I agree with you entirely.

In a word...yes! :beer:

joobs2013

Parking eye will have to take this down and explain why they ARE allowed to charge penalty charges now....
"ParkingEye does not issue or collect Penalty Charges, fines or Excess Charges which are only relevant to on-street or civil enforcement area and enforced by police/traffic wardens or council civil enforcement officers under the Traffic Management Act 2004 or the Road Traffic Acts. This legislation is not applicable on private land. We can confirm, however, that ParkingEye has the authority to issue and enforce Parking Charge Notices, for contractual breach.

Further evidence, that ParkingEye’s Parking Charges cannot be viewed as penalties, can be found in Mayhook v National Car Parks and Fuller [2012], Combined Parking Solutions v Mr Stephen James Thomas [2008] and, in a case tested at High Court and the Court of Appeal (ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011]).".

The_Deep

I am not sure that these judgements help PE all that much. They appear to be tenants at these car parks, and indeed have a proprietary interest in their usage.

Similarly, if someone uses a P&D car park without payment, is that not, in some cases, theft?

There are so many different car parks, so many different contracts, and so many different signs, that it is difficult to attribute a great deal of significance to these verdicts.

bargepole

Computersaysno wrote: »

I think it will be interesting to hear from the actual people involved in the case and to get sight of the transcript.

The full Judgment, as handed down, is here: https://jumpshare.com/v/jKfGOSWc9g6bOsxtZxwL

17 pages.