Parking eye won cambridge case

Coupon-mad

I think I read in EU law from 1993 yesterday (I was reading about unfair contract terms) that if it's a core term then it cannot be investigated for the 'test of fairness' but ONLY as long as it passes the test of transparency. So some bank charges are deemed OK as they are 'transparent' in the contract and are a core term (e.g. an arrangement fee) not a default term. Because of those facts - if the terms are transparent - they then cannot be scrutinised for 'fairness'.

The thing is, PE's charges are different from that scenario. They are charges arising from 'default' (breach) so they are NOT a core term and the terms are not 'transparent' because it is a 'surprise' contract (unfair in itself) and material information is not disclosed to the consumer (such as the genuine customer exemption). And because they breach disability law by taking no account of disabled or slower, elderly, visitors and impose an arbitrary time limit 'rule'.

Also - from my reading! - EU law considers there are circumstances where consumers may well not be in a position to scrutinise terms as much as they would some other contracts, such as if the contract terms are not individually agreed but are foisted upon them almost in passing (was my understanding). Such as, IMHO, when the person primarily goes to do their shopping at Aldi and are not expecting to read a contract sign from a third party they've never heard of, in the rain, etc. And so, because it's only an unexpected 'surprise' contract, peripheral to the core purpose of their visit, and those terms are on signs high up on poles, they don't even read it. And AIUI, the EU Council Directive on unfair contract terms, UNDERSTANDS that position and puts the onus back on the commercial party to be crystal clear - transparent - with such 'contracts'.

We know for a fact that most people are totally surprised when they get a postal 'fake PCN', almost every post here starts that way about PE.

The EU Directive summary from the OFT I read, concluded that 'unfair terms are like the Hydra, cut off one head and another appears'.

HO87

+1

Oh dear, C-M has a bee in her bonnet and properly so. Woe betide those in Chorley Towers.

The_Slithy_Tove

pvt wrote: »

There's some pretty stunning stuff in there, but 7.14.b takes the biscuit:

It essentially argues that PE's business is modelled on applying a contractual penalty, and that because it is the sole source of revenue to a 'profitable business' it is fair.

That wholly presupposes the business in the first place is fair.

It fundamentally says if you run a business and make money from it, you may ignore contract law if to do otherwise would mean you have no viable business.

And don't forget that another CC Judge said fairly recently that exactly such a business model was "bizarre".


Judges; inconsistent? How could one suggest such a thing?

carandbike

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

And don't forget that another CC Judge said fairly recently that exactly such a business model was "bizarre".

PPC: We'll give you a grand a week so we can make losses from your car park. Then we will get those losses back, hopefully with a nice profit on top from the mug punters of the shops. They wont mind if those punters never come back, they wont even know if they don't. Mind you, we don't want the hassle of the upkeep of the car park, the safety and well being of the punters nor any damage or loss to them. The only losses and damages we want will be all our way.

Land owner: £52k for doing !!!!!! all? ...yeah ok then, thank you very much!

I can't see what's bizarre in that. :whistle:

ColliesCarer

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

And don't forget that another CC Judge said fairly recently that exactly such a business model was "bizarre".


Judges; inconsistent? How could one suggest such a thing?

The other judge gets my support because one thing that is very bizarre IMO is: -

In the ruling 7.14.b it states [the charge] ... has a dual function to finance a profitable business and to deter overstaying.

But this totally fails to take into account that these supposed "dual functions" are mutually exclusive.

If the business is profitable it is failing to deter overstaying.
If it's successful in deterring overstaying then it goes bankrupt!!

What definition of trailblazing was being used?
The urban dictionary?

pvt

Another observation regarding Moloney's ruling is his comparison to decriminalised charges that local authorities issue.

These are issued subject to very strict regulation. These include very swingeing rules about wording and timelimits, and can be challenged on the grounds of procedural impropriety, and lack of compliance with signage rules. And where, when there is a dispute, the matter can be taken to a truly independent appeals process.

nicechap

I've probably got the wrong end of the stick here.

According to the BPA code of practice, PPCs are supposed to charge their Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss (though the BPA think it includes running costs as do PPCs). However, in this case Parking Eye have argued their fee is also a commercially justifiable charge.

As DVLA access is supposed to be only allowed if PPCs adhere to the BPA code of practice, doesn't this mean DVLA access should be stopped for Parking Eye?

bazster

It seems like eons since I argued on this thread that no judge would be stupid enough to fall for the PPC's entirely circular logic.

Just shows how wrong one can be.

bargepole

bazster wrote: »

It seems like eons since I argued on this thread that no judge would be stupid enough to fall for the PPC's entirely circular logic.

Just shows how wrong one can be.

You only have to read the VCS v HMRC Appeal judgment, and in particular the bit about offering to sell you Buckingham Palace for £1 being a valid contract, to realise how out of touch some of the higher echelons of the Judiciary are.

This is why I would have some concerns about going to the CoA, if the defendants decide to appeal. There would be three Judges, all on well into six figure salaries, who would probably regard paying £85 to extend their parking time as just small change.

nobbysn*ts

I've seen this reported on here, but what where the pcn's originally issued for. Was it overstaying in a free car park?