We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
ParkingEye-v-Beavis Appeal: Date Set
Comments
-
Not sure the publicity will be any worse than it already has been for the parking industry simply because they switch from a breach model to a contractual charge model.0
-
MaybeNot sure the publicity will be any worse than it already has been for the parking industry simply because they switch from a breach model to a contractual charge model.
But at present most drivers treat the PCN's as "Fines" which are unenforceable.
When they find out that contractual charges are legal they may decide to go shopping elsewhere rather than risk £85. I can't see the shops being overly impressed by their landlord's new parking arrangements either.0 -
Imagine £85 contractual fee justified
Less VAT = £68
Less 40% discount = £40-80
Crapita will love that especially when motorists will be more aware these things are enforceable and less likely to.breach following all the publicity that will ensue
(Assuming the CoA are talking vat inclusive )0 -
Maybe
But at present most drivers treat the PCN's as "Fines" which are unenforceable.
When they find out that contractual charges are legal they may decide to go shopping elsewhere rather than risk £85. I can't see the shops being overly impressed by their landlord's new parking arrangements either.
Most driver's don't even question whether they are enforceable and pay up. That's why the companies make so much money.0 -
Not so sure that they will. The appeal is based on the fairly narrow "commercial justification" angle of a contractural breach penalty. I would assume that it's already a given that there was a contract, and that contract was breached.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).0 -
Another question with the contract route, is when does a contractual charge become a disguised penalty?From the Plain Language Commission:
"The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"0 -
"You may park here for as long as you like.Another question with the contract route, is when does a contractual charge become a disguised penalty?
Charges are as follows:
First two hours: Free
2- 24 hours: £100
Each additional 24 hours (or part thereof): £100
Disabled bays:
Blue Badge displayed: Free
No blue badge displayed: £100 as above"
The notices would have to look something like that to get past the disguised penalty argument.
Problem is, most of the landowners wouldn't want that. Plus the small difficulty of the VAT issue.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
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.
My personal opinion is that contractual charges are subject to the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, and if a court agreed with this then such charges would be dead in the water. As Coupon Mad keeps saying, these regulations mean that the days of stealth contracts being foisted on consumers are over.
Hossain wouldn't have brought this up because he wouldn't have looked into it. Why would he? The case he was dealing with was for breach of contract.Je suis Charlie.0 -
Over on PPP Bargepole has made this very pertinent observation:-
The point they ( the judges) kept coming back to was that any loss was the landowner's, not Parking Eye's. I can see this appeal being upheld, but not for the reasons contained in the grounds of appeal.What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?0 -
trisontana wrote: »Over on PPP Bargepole has made this very pertinent observation:-
The point they ( the judges) kept coming back to was that any loss was the landowner's, not Parking Eye's. I can see this appeal being upheld, but not for the reasons contained in the grounds of appeal.
Where's the discussion on pepipoo, please? It's probably me being incompetent, but I can't seem to find it.
Thanks very much in advance.
ZG.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards