ParkingEye-v-Beavis Appeal: Date Set

bargepole

forgotmyname wrote: »

Are they back in court again today? What happens next?

No, the hearing finished around 3:45pm yesterday.


Their Learned Lordships will now go away and consider the written submissions and oral arguments, and reach their decision 'in due course'.


In other words, hurry up and wait.

bazster

Marktheshark wrote: »

What does stand out is they appear to have got hold of the principle and agent argument and decided PE are neither but a "contractor" thus offering a licence to park.
If that carries through, which we know is the 100% truth of how they operate, then it will be game over on that point outright.

But what we really want is a ruling that the charges cannot be commercially justified, otherwise it remains open for PPC's to continue arguing the toss in general, based on site- and contract-specific circumstances, over whether they have locus standi.

forgotmyname

Anyone taking bets on the timeframe? Is there a limit?

Marktheshark

bazster wrote: »

But what we really want is a ruling that the charges cannot be commercially justified, otherwise it remains open for PPC's to continue arguing the toss in general, based on site- and contract-specific circumstances, over whether they have locus standi.

I see your point but if they go on caveat of Locus Standi then there can be no commercial justification if you should not be in the court in the first place.

bazster

Marktheshark wrote: »

I see your point but if they go on caveat of Locus Standi then there can be no commercial justification if you should not be in the court in the first place.

True but locus standi is a matter of construction based on the circumstances, you cannot say across the board that no PPC has locus standii at any location. Which means that the PPC's can continue to argue that they do have standing.

Conversely GPEOL is now dead. Moloney killed it by concluding that the Beavis charge was not a GPEOL. What is now before the CoA is whether the charge can be rescued as commercially justifiable. If it can't then that's that: breach of contract as a charging mechanism is dead.

So most or all PPC's will switch to the contractual charge model - but that's as leaky as a rusty old bucket too, so another visit to the CoA should kill that as well.

Assuming, that is, the CoA doesn't conclude this time around that it's all good for PPC's to issue commercially-justified fines...

patman99

At least the Judges have concentrated on the contractural side of things.
It is this that will be PEs undoing.

The Judges will consider points such as whether or not there is any Law allowing a 3rd-party to initiate a contract between the land owner and the land user (there isn't).
They will also consider whether there has been a loss. For this, they may consider whether or not there was any means to pay for more parking if needed (i.e. are there any pay & display machines on site).

If there are no means to pay for extra parking (like there are at Sudbury Council's carpark, which allows 2 hours free + the ability to pay for extra parking if needed), then there can be no loss incurred.

Northlakes

At least the CofA judges will have seen the full non-redacted contract between the landowner and PE and they can get into the essence of the contract.
It is my view that PE were acting as agents of the landowner and were giving the landowner a commission (kick back) on each charge invoice issued, not unusual. However the landowner must have negotiated with PE a minimum commission level of £1000 per week, again this type of contract is not unusual.

However it is only by chance this parking event took place and an invoice was issued. PE had calculated, just like a bookie, that for example, one in 2000 vehicles would incur a penalty and they had agreed that the landowner would share in their good fortune.

A bookie makes a profit by good mathematics but when they make a loss they can't go back to the punters to make good this loss claiming back winnings on the basis of commercial justification. It is my view that PE made a bad (and far too generous) bargain with the landowner and the law should not be there to protect them.

TDA

bazster wrote: »

The judges erred in considering the details of parking management at all. The sole point of appeal was supposed to be "commercial justification", a point of law.

In fairness to the judges, a number of their references to the details of parking management were made while they were exploring the circumstances in which the landowner might terminate PE's contract for ineffectual management, and whether this could be considered a sufficient commercial justification for PE to hang their hat on. In that context details of the parking management most certainly was relevant.

bazster wrote:

So most or all PPC's will switch to the contractual charge model - but that's as leaky as a rusty old bucket too, so another visit to the CoA should kill that as well.

Perhaps. However, rather awkwardly, when the judges proposed this model and asked Mr Hossain QC whether in such circumstances the £85 would be payable he conceded that it would. They also didn't seem particularly impressed with his arguments on the UTCCR. The PPC's will be keen to avoid moving to the model if at all possible (VAT's a !!!!!), but I am not so convinced that it would be 'killed' in the CoA.

salmosalaris

TDA wrote: »

In fairness to the judges, a number of their references to the details of parking management were made while they were exploring the circumstances in which the landowner might terminate PE's contract for ineffectual management, and whether this could be considered a sufficient commercial justification for PE to hang their hat on. In that context details of the parking management most certainly was relevant.



Perhaps. However, rather awkwardly, when the judges proposed this model and asked Mr Hossain QC whether in such circumstances the £85 would be payable he conceded that it would. They also didn't seem particularly impressed with his arguments on the UTCCR. The PPC's will be keen to avoid moving to the model if at all possible (VAT's a !!!!!), but I am not so convinced that it would be 'killed' in the CoA.

And the VAT implication is particularly unattractive if the Principal ( whichever party that is ) cannot cash account .
And just imagine if parking tickets issued by their agent tipped them over the threshold

Castle

TDA wrote: »

Perhaps. However, rather awkwardly, when the judges proposed this model and asked Mr Hossain QC whether in such circumstances the £85 would be payable he conceded that it would. They also didn't seem particularly impressed with his arguments on the UTCCR. The PPC's will be keen to avoid moving to the model if at all possible (VAT's a !!!!!), but I am not so convinced that it would be 'killed' in the CoA.

And a few other problems in addition to Vat to overcome:-
1) Business rates
2) Planning permission
3) On site ticket machines
4) Drivers leaving after 2 hours and returning 1 minute later to start another 2 hours free parking
5) Publicity
6) The money going to the principal