Parking eye won cambridge case

Half_way

Unusual, the whole set up isnt so much as bizarre, its wrong.
If there were no overstays and everyone kept to the silly rules/successfully challenged all tickets at POPLA the Parkign eye would be making a huge loss, and then at a guess the only way to get out of that would be ( for example) to change the rules in order to catch people out.
Wouldn't that then be entrapment? , likewise couldnt you say that the current set up is entrapment?

bazster

The current set-up is fine, HHJ Moloney said so. The bottom line is that it's lawful to levy unlawful penalties if unlawful penalties are your only source of income.

By the same logic burglary is lawful if you don't have a day job and you don't claim benefits.

The_Deep

The bottom line is that it's lawful to levy unlawful penalties if unlawful penalties are your only source of income.

But that is just one judge's opinion, in a County Court. I am sure that there are many other CC Judges out there who will not agree with him, and there is nothing to stop them making contrary judgements.

I do not think that PE will be able to use this as the magic bullet they hoped for.

pustit

Half_way wrote: »

Unusual, the whole set up isnt so much as bizarre, its wrong.
If there were no overstays and everyone kept to the silly rules/successfully challenged all tickets at POPLA the Parkign eye would be making a huge loss, and then at a guess the only way to get out of that would be ( for example) to change the rules in order to catch people out.
Wouldn't that then be entrapment? , likewise couldnt you say that the current set up is entrapment?

Like your username, Halfway. This judgement was a compromise, a "Halfway House" Judgement.

Custard_Pie

Interesting that PE go to great lengths on their web site to state that it's a contractural charge and NOT a penalty. They actually use the wording "not penalty" on their web site. As I've said before, if it's a contractural breach remedy then VAT does not apply, where as it does for a penatly. Surely HMRC would be looking for all those lovely 20% per penalty if that was the case?

DCodd

I was reading the judgement again (sad bunny!) and noticed that the judge used the Clydebank vs Spain case to justify the level of penalty charge. However, as this was a customr recieving damages from the supplier for non-performance, can this be flipped on it's head.

Could a motoist turn up at a PE car park and if the car park is full claim £85.00 from PE for breach of contract as they had paid their £0.00 for 2 hours parking but PE couldn't provide the service that the motorist had "paid" for (the £85.00 being the level of charge PE has clearly agreed is due for a breach)?

Coupon-mad

That's a nice point! PE would send their 'rejection of invalid invoice' template reply though!

atilla

Custard_Pie wrote: »

Interesting that PE go to great lengths on their web site to state that it's a contractural charge and NOT a penalty. They actually use the wording "not penalty" on their web site. As I've said before, if it's a contractural breach remedy then VAT does not apply, where as it does for a penatly. Surely HMRC would be looking for all those lovely 20% per penalty if that was the case?

I'd say you've got your argument a**e about there.

Bantex_2

DCodd wrote: »

I was reading the judgement again (sad bunny!) and noticed that the judge used the Clydebank vs Spain case to justify the level of penalty charge. However, as this was a customr recieving damages from the supplier for non-performance, can this be flipped on it's head.

Could a motoist turn up at a PE car park and if the car park is full claim £85.00 from PE for breach of contract as they had paid their £0.00 for 2 hours parking but PE couldn't provide the service that the motorist had "paid" for (the £85.00 being the level of charge PE has clearly agreed is due for a breach)?

That would just add 20% to all the charges.

edward123

From ParkingEye's boast: "Due to the large amounts of outdated, misleading and inaccurate advice propagated on certain online forums and blogs, ParkingEye has been forced in recent months to take legal action against those who fail to appeal or pay Parking Charges."
But then why do ParkingEye fail to produce evidence at the POPLA stage when they receive a defence from the registered keeper/driver originating from advice from this forum ?

Perhaps you, PARKINGEYE, can tell us either on your web site or on here why this is so?