Ticket on company owned van, how to appeal?

willberine

Hi neil.net

Yes, the previous evidence pack is the same as in the link you have posted, below is what they have sent in addition to that......

'
In the recent case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] EWCA Civ 402, the Court of Appeal unambiguously clarified the common law’s position on both the nature and enforceability of parking charges.
It is now clear that a parking charge having the predominant purpose or intention to deter is ‘not sufficient in itself to invalidate [the charge]’. The principle test that should be used is whether the sum charged is ‘extravagant and unconscionable’ (see para 51). In the case, it was found that the parking charge was not extravagant and unconscionable and thus fully enforceable under the rules about contractual penalties (see para 31). This ruling now represents the most authoritative judgement in the area of parking law and must be strictly adhered to.
In undertaking this ‘principle test’, an ‘excessive concentration’ on the difference between the amount payable under the charge and the measure of actual loss sustained has been strongly ‘deprecated’ (see para 18). The Court of Appeal understood that in certain circumstances parking operators may not suffer any ‘direct financial loss’ from parking contraventions. However, even in these circumstances, the Court recognised that such contraventions can cause an ‘indirect loss’ to parking operators. For example, the inability of an operator to prevent breaches of parking restrictions would likely result in the loss of its service contract with the landowner (see para 25).
Though the Court recognised that it is theoretically possible to charge motorists more ‘modest amounts’, it would be ‘wholly uneconomic to enforce such charges by taking legal proceedings against them’ (see para 25). Further, the Court appreciated that charges must be large enough to act as a ‘deterrent’ and large enough to ‘justify collection’ (see para 30).
Despite indications that a charge is extravagant and unconscionable, other factors may be present which ‘rob’ the charge of this character (see para 27). In prior cases, it has been the case that only commercial factors or justifications have been considered. However, in Beavis, the Court of Appeal stated that such charges can be justified using other considerations, such as ‘social’ factors, due to the fluidity of a ‘rule grounded in public policy’ (see para 27). Relevant public policy factors were highlighted by the Court when it stated that deterrent charges can be beneficial to drivers, shopkeepers and ‘the community as a whole’ (see paras 38 and 45). The Court also found that Parliament’s enactment of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 strongly supports the conclusion that the legislature considered it to be ‘in the public interest’ that parking charges be valid and enforceable (see para 28).
Following the test of extravagance and unconscionability, as well as taking into account the applicable public policy factors, it is without doubt that your parking charge is wholly valid and fully enforceable.'



Cheers

neil.net

Hmm, seems like UKPC think that just because it applied in that case it somehow sets some sort of "uniform" precedent that they can use as a one-size-fits-all in any case they have! They have neglected the point that it has been submitted to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal judges have support the application.


What was the nature of the car park, residential, shoppin etc?

willberine

It was a retail car park at a shop with free parking for 3 hours.......