Parking eye won cambridge case

Fergie76

Is Cambridge the area that all other PE cases were stayed pending the outcome of this case? If so, I imagine this result with have a big effect on those cases.

Stroma

But each case is on its own merits, that means it's down to the defendant to try and put parking eye into touch. Think people from here and pepipoo will help as much as they can .

da_rule

nigelbb wrote: »

If you read POFA then it refers to 'unpaid parking charges'.

This idea of an unpaid parking charge should mean that all PPC's wishing to rely on PoFA should use a contractual charge model rather than a breach of contract/trespass model shouldn't it?

nigelbb

da_rule wrote: »

This idea of an unpaid parking charge should mean that all PPC's wishing to rely on PoFA should use a contractual charge model rather than a breach of contract/trespass model shouldn't it?

In a free car park both the contractual charge model & the breach of contract model are a gross perversion of contract law. The idea that you would enter into a contract to pay £100 for the privilege of parking outside a marked bay or across a fire exit is ludicrous.

da_rule

nigelbb wrote: »

In a free car park both the contractual charge model & the breach of contract model are a gross perversion of contract law. The idea that you would enter into a contract to pay £100 for the privilege of parking outside a marked bay or across a fire exit is ludicrous.

I completely agree, I am in no way condoning PPC's, and as has been pointed out, their business models are completely self defeating if they were carried out to success.

Bircho

da_rule wrote: »

I completely agree, I am in no way condoning PPC's, and as has been pointed out, their business models are completely self defeating if they were carried out to success.

If you park across a fire exit and there is a fire in the building, it will cost you a lot more than £100.

spikyone

Bircho wrote: »

If you park across a fire exit and there is a fire in the building, it will cost you a lot more than £100.

You missed the point. This is a discussion about parking companies who operate a "contractual charge" business model. What that means is that those companies are saying that you are agreeing to pay a substantial sum (£100 for example) if you park in a manner they deem unsuitable. This could, for instance, be where a motorist parks in a hatched area outside a fire door. What nigelbb was saying is that this is nonsense because no right-minded person would offer or accept such a contractual term.

Stroma

And if you were to accept a term of parking of £100 after say two hours, where is the facility on site to pay that? So that is used as a deterrent, that means its a penalty, so unlawful as a company cannot penalise you.

Half_way

Quick question re the Cambridge case, is this case now going to be appealed, left as is, or yet to be decided ( appeal or not)?

Coupon-mad

It's still up to the defendants. It's not been forgotten but there are 2 ways of looking at it especially as this was an unusual case (paying a grand a week to catch people like fish in a net!) fairly easy to distinguish from other PE car parks.