Parking eye won cambridge case

enfield_freddy

me wonders if the judge actually "wants" this to go to appeal?

Umkomaas

If someone wants something 'managed' then they should pay for that service.

If the landowner doesn't want to pay for a managed service, then instal barriers and charge motorists for the precise time they spend at the car park, this way everyone pays for what they use, and penalties don't become an issue.

If PE are so 'unable to operate' without the penalties, then why are they paying (IIUC) £1,000 per week to the landowner at these particular sites?

nigelbb

As I recall these cases were in Chelmsford where a council penalty notice is £70 or £50 depending on the gravity of the offence. How much was the PE penalty?

Stroma

So because parking eye can't operate without penalties, then they shouldn't operate its that simple, the fact is that private company cannot issue penalties, and if the whole basis of operating is to penalise then that is not a sustainable business model. The public or the county courts are not there to ensure that these companies can exist. This I hope will go further

Coupon-mad

Stroma wrote: »

So because parking eye can't operate without penalties, then they shouldn't operate its that simple, the fact is that private company cannot issue penalties, and if the whole basis of operating is to penalise then that is not a sustainable business model. The public or the county courts are not there to ensure that these companies can exist. This I hope will go further

Agreed. Hope it will got to appeal as the Judge clearly expected it to.

DCodd

I'm confused. The Court of Appeal have already ruled on this a number of times. If it is indeed a commercial necessity then surely:

http://www.olswang.com/articles/2013/02/ocq-winter-1213-penalty-clauses/

Or am I missing something?

nigelbb

DCodd wrote: »

I'm confused. The Court of Appeal have already ruled on this a number of times. If it is indeed a commercial necessity then surely:

http://www.olswang.com/articles/2013/02/ocq-winter-1213-penalty-clauses/

Or am I missing something?

That article refers to corporate and commercial contracts where highly paid lawyers on both sides ensure that there is equality between the parties to the contract & that neither is getting stitched up. It's a whole different ball game with a consumer contract.

waamo

TBH I expected this result. A very expensive QC versus lay people and the potential to stifle a multi million pound business was only ever going to end one way.

We still have POPLA though.

DCodd

nigelbb wrote: »

That article refers to corporate and commercial contracts where highly paid lawyers on both sides ensure that there is equality between the parties to the contract & that neither is getting stitched up. It's a whole different ball game with a consumer contract.

I agree but what I'm saying is that there is no provision for "commercial necessity" in consumer law AFAIK, only in commercial contract law. So even if the judge was saying that commercial contract law can apply, it still can't be a penalty?

bargepole

DCodd wrote: »

I'm confused. The Court of Appeal have already ruled on this a number of times. If it is indeed a commercial necessity then surely:

http://www.olswang.com/articles/2013/02/ocq-winter-1213-penalty-clauses/

Or am I missing something?

The point is, that 'commercial justification' can be used in contracts between parties of equal standing, eg two large corporations who have individually negotiated the terms of a contract, using teams of lawyers. In such cases, even where a particular term might ordinarily be regarded as a penalty, the Courts take the view that it is not their place to interfere with freedom of contract.

We know of no cases where this principle has been applied to a dispute between a corporation and a private individual. All the indications, from recent legislation such as the UTCCR, suggest that consumers should be given greater, not less, protection. So the Judge has really stuck his neck out here in making this finding, and if it gets to the CoA it will certainly be one of the points of appeal.