Parking eye won cambridge case

bazster

carandbike wrote: »

Just like a floater you can't get rid of....

What if husband / wife both use the same car and don't know the other visited the same car park?

I bet we all wish we were as perfect as you. :A

So what if they did know? It's still two people (allegedly) entering into unrelated contracts. The only common factor is the car, and even PE wouldn't try to sue a car!

Umkomaas

Computersaysno wrote: »

I think GPEOL is still a safe bet...



Luckily POPLA recently upheld a 'single point of appeal' based on ANPR being unreliable, so hopefully that's a potential new 'silver bullet' to replace GPEOL [not that I think POPLA will start rejecting GPEOL].

Interesting times ahead, and of particular interest will be whether PE start putting up POPLA appeal defences, whereas of late they've been running away.

Finding a new silver bullet will be good; I think we've all become a bit bored with the 'GPEOL shooting fish in a barrel' advice .

carandbike

bargepole wrote: »

He has decided in favour of the Claimants, on the basis that although the parking charges can be classed as penalties, there is 'commercial necessity' for them, as without them PE would be unable to operate, and their landowner clients would not be able to manage their car parks.

With my limited legal knowledge, I thought this outcome would be the most likely. From my political standpoint, I could not see a judge going against land owners and a large business in favour of the consumer. The only thing I thought may go in favour of the consumer was the judges musing of the various figures he mentioned as to what level a reasonable "deterrent" might be to coerce a driver to obey the conditions.

Computersaysno

I think it will be interesting to hear from the actual people involved in the case and to get sight of the transcript.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Umkomaas wrote: »

Interesting times ahead, and of particular interest will be whether PE start putting up POPLA appeal defences, whereas of late they've been running away.

Finding a new silver bullet will be good; I think we've all become a bit bored with the 'GPEOL shooting fish in a barrel' advice .

Well we shall certainly see if PE do, will soon see if they start sending in evidence packs. MSE will be one of the first places to know.

We must remember that this is still a small claims/county court decision and what POPLA have previously stated on GPEOL/CJ. I dont think POPLA are going to change overnight GPEOL , they would look stupid if this was then appealed and then they had to change back again.
I personally think it will be business as usual until any such appeal (if it happens) in the world of POPLA

carandbike

bazster wrote: »

So what if they did know? It's still two people (allegedly) entering into unrelated contracts. The only common factor is the car, and even PE wouldn't try to sue a car!

Wrong. The other common factor is a registered keeper, to whom they will still issue a pcn. They may even, and quite likely, assert that it was one long stay rather than two individual ones.

Why should a registered keeper have to explain themselves or the actions of others to a private company !!!!!!? Why should they be harassed by the receipt of a pcn in the first place?

I don't advocate abuse of private land parking. Neither do I advocate the abuse of a private citizen for overspending and overstaying a limited time allocation, to the benefit of retailers PE and there ilk claim to be protecting.

Umkomaas

Some perspective put on this by The Prankster:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/parkingeye-win-cambridge-test-case.html

Coupon-mad

carandbike wrote: »

With my limited legal knowledge, I thought this outcome would be the most likely. From my political standpoint, I could not see a judge going against land owners and a large business in favour of the consumer. The only thing I thought may go in favour of the consumer was the judges musing of the various figures he mentioned as to what level a reasonable "deterrent" might be to coerce a driver to obey the conditions.

I think he's also missed the fact that the unfair contract law which protects consumers is based on European law - IMHO it 'has' to be applicable and penalties cannot be imposed. The judgment seems to have missed a lot of points and looks, on the face of it, very appealable if the defendant is up for it.

nobbysn*ts

Umkomaas wrote: »

Some perspective put on this by The Prankster:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/parkingeye-win-cambridge-test-case.html

Very interesting on the consideration in a free car park. Bet that gets quoted in the future.

bazster

carandbike wrote: »

Wrong. The other common factor is a registered keeper, to whom they will still issue a pcn. They may even, and quite likely, assert that it was one long stay rather than two individual ones.

No, you are wrong. The RK is irrelevant. The RK can only be liable for charges incurred by the driver. If there were two separate drivers then neither incurred a charge hence the RK is not liable for anything.

The first driver (supposedly) agreed not to return, and he didn't return, hence no charge. And the second driver is not a party to the first driver's supposed contract and cannot incur charges arising therefrom.

They might issue a PCN to the RK but they would need to prove on the balance of probabilities that the same person was driving on each occasion. If the RK asserts that more than one person has access to his vehicle then they are in difficulties, and they are completely stuffed if the RK decides to prove it by, say, producing an insurance policy. Basically, in this situation, POFA is irrelevant and the PPC is in the same poo they were in before POFA i.e. needing to prove who was driving (in fact, it's deeper poo because they need to prove who was driving on more than one occasion).

If they assert it was one long stay then that is not a point of law, it is an error or a lie. See the Prankster's frequent blogs about flawed camera systems.