Parking eye won cambridge case

halibut2209

Don't feed the troll

Bantex_2

James_N wrote: »

I would disagree. Even if charges of up to £100 are "justified" in accordance with the Cambridge case to create an environment of high "turnover" in retail car parks, there is no conceivable reason to be able to justify charges in the circumstances I have outlined, and some of them are outwith the control of the driver: how on earth is a cynical manipulation of APNR data on a double visit within the driver's control.

If the terms clearly state "no return same day" or whatever where is the manipulation.

Bantex_2

nigelbb wrote: »

Except contract law does not allow penalties for breach of contract only that the injured party be reimbursed for their loss if a contract is breached. So if you don't check out of your hotel room on time the most that you can be charged is the price of another night. Likewise if you park straddling two parking bays the most that you owe is the price of parking another vehicle not a £100 penalty. If you pay for a ticket but it falls off the dashboard then the parking company has suffered no loss.

Subject to any appeal, it appears that teh judge in this case may not agree with your interpretation of the law.

James_N

Before anyone gets "frantic" - this is a case in a lower court. Plenty of recent cases have gone against Parking Eye, most recently locus standi. These losses are more numerous than this "Super Case".
Parking Eye no doubt dismiss these as anomalies (and before we fool ourselves, they probably get many many more people rolling over and paying up without a fight than giving it a go with our help).
So, what's changed. We still have a confused situation.

One overriding factor in this line of thinking: will POPLA now be leaned on to change GPEOL decisions in Parking companies' favour. If that IS so, then the game has changed.

James_N

Bantex wrote: »

If the terms clearly state "no return same day" or whatever where is the manipulation.

If you want to argue the point, do your basic research first:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/parkingeye-lose-at-popla-anpr.html

Bantex_2

James_N wrote: »

If you want to argue the point, do your basic research first:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/parkingeye-lose-at-popla-anpr.html

That is a different point though, there does not seem to be a "no return same day" term.

My point is more that a land owner (or their agents) should be able to run their own property as they wish and anyone using agrees to abide by the terms (as long as made clear and evident before deciding to use the premises).

Hot_Bring

Bantex wrote: »

Then you can dispute on a basis that you did park within terms. I believe the case referred to was not on that basis, but about the parking companies right to make a charge when terms had been broken.

To be frank I couldn't care less what the PPCs or landowners want. I parked correctly twice but still got invoices and threats from G24. I now don't bother even attempting to stick to the "rules" and have a G24 and Parking Eye ticket ( both unpaid ) to prove it. All the landowners and PPCs can blame G24 for my current attitude and I've lost them thousands over the last few years. You reap what you sow.

If the T&C's were reasonable and the PPCs didn't attempt to scam you I might have some sympathy.

EDIT - I've had threatening emails and phone calls from PPCs as well just because I've dared to try and expose the scam. Make no mistake - the PPC industry is a scam and rotten to the core.

atilla

If I want to go to the supermarket in my car 5 times a day and spend money there, do you think the Exec Directors of said sheds will wish to see me penalised on the whims of some company claiming to manage the car park?
Of course not.

Parking trolls do come up with some fanciful thinking when related to their imaginary powers.

And if the trolls think people should abide by the roolz, then game on. It works both ways.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

This may well be a deliberate decision to get it to the appeal court.

There are so many holes in the necessity for business argument - essentially we know that many people can operate profitable car parks at reasonable charges without the need for punitive penalty charges, so suggesting that PE depend on this system as a commercial necessity is dubious.

As has already been mentioned, the judge may well want this to go to appeal so that it can be properly determined at a court where it will stick. The judge recognises that his decision just keeps the issue kicking around. I don't think it would be too hard work to put the issue through appeal, and with 1000's of cases clogging up the courts, it is in the interests of the courts themselves to get this resolved at the fundamental level.

We also have to be aware that this is just one of many problems with these car parks. Where there is no money charged, there cannot be a contract, signs still have to be valid, there cannot be a loss where people have paid tickets but the system fails; they still can't charge you for parking all day when their machine misses you leaving.

Don't panic!

Umkomaas

I'm not sure this was in the Judge's thinking, Ian. Why would he find for a multi-million pound organisation and against the 'little man', placing the financial burden of appeal on the least financially able.

Surely if this was his strategic thinking, and he wanted to ease this on its way to the CoA, then finding against PE might have produced a better result for him.