Dispatches: Channel 4 at 8pm Tonight

Fergie76

TDA wrote: »

It's Saturday night...

You'll get your response tomorrow. In the meantime have a read of Chappel & Co v Nestle to see that consideration need not be adequate - it can be of only notional value.

That was not for a contract though.

salmosalaris

W

TDA wrote: »

It's Saturday night...

You'll get your response tomorrow. In the meantime have a read of Chappel & Co v Nestle to see that consideration need not be adequate - it can be of only notional value.

so ? what of notional value has been offered to Parking Eye?
Promising to leave is worthless , but then HHJ tacks on a promise to pay the charge if not . But IMHO the fundamental flaw is this is not an agreed charge to park beyond the limit or a core term of the contract ( which would be good consideration but also a contractual sum ) ,but instead damages for breach of contract so presumably there must be a valid contract to breach irrespective of this charge .
Anyway it matters not a jot what I think and I'm willing to be shot down because presumably I'm wrong.

nigelbb

Cornucopia wrote: »

The Landowner already has a legitimate interest in keeping the car park well-managed.

The other option is making it pay and display with entry of licence plate at 20p for up to 2 hours. Then there is consideration, and a penalty for breach.

You can pretty much guarantee that even if the Appeal Court ruling goes substantially against PE (which is unlikely, IMHO), they will find an alternative way to make the business model pay.

A penalty for breach is not enforceable. In your scenario an overstay of 1 hour causes a loss of 10p. Admittedly chasing up that 10p could cost £5-10 but never the outrageous sums that PE & other PPCs claim.

salmosalaris

So let's imagine that penalties become enforceable where the aim of the contract is to deter . What level of deterrent is necessary ? . Mr Troy says BPA charges are in line with statutory penalties and HHJ Moloney touched on this . However, if I am correct ,if Mr Beavis had parked in a local council car park and overstayed his welcome or not purchased a ticket he would have been fined £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days .

Cornucopia

nigelbb wrote: »

A penalty for breach is not enforceable. In your scenario an overstay of 1 hour causes a loss of 10p. Admittedly chasing up that 10p could cost £5-10 but never the outrageous sums that PE & other PPCs claim.

Have you read the judgment - HHJ Moloney has moved away from GPEOL.

http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/debtor/ParkingEye%20v%20Beavis%20and%20Wardley%20Judgment.pdf

Cornucopia

salmosalaris wrote: »

So let's imagine that penalties become enforceable where the aim of the contract is to deter . What level of deterrent is necessary ? . Mr Troy says BPA charges are in line with statutory penalties and HHJ Moloney touched on this . However, if I am correct ,if Mr Beavis had parked in a local council car park and overstayed his welcome or not purchased a ticket he would have been fined £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days .

The necessity, IIUC, is that it is Parking Eye's business model, for better or worse. In order to keep their business running, and to pay £1000 a week to a Landowner, the level of charge is what it is.

Personally, I think that's a bad argument, but HHJ Moloney seems to favour it. We'll see next week whether he is right or not.

He also looks superficially at PE's profits, and determines that since they are not excessive, the charges are not either. Again, that seems like a stretch to me (because PE could be running their business ineptly), but IANAL.

nigelbb

salmosalaris wrote: »

So let's imagine that penalties become enforceable where the aim of the contract is to deter . What level of deterrent is necessary ? . Mr Troy says BPA charges are in line with statutory penalties and HHJ Moloney touched on this . However, if I am correct ,if Mr Beavis had parked in a local council car park and overstayed his welcome or not purchased a ticket he would have been fined £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days .

Council penalties are not designed to line the pockets of fat cat shareholders or furnish yachts limousines & private schooling for PPC owners. Councils are not allowed to profit from parking penalties & the receipts must be spent on running parking services or other transport projects.

HO87

Cornucopia wrote: »

Personally, I think that's a bad argument, but HHJ Moloney seems to favour it. We'll see next week whether he is right or not.

Probably not. Although the case will be formally heard next week the judgment will almost certainly be reserved and it may be some weeks before it is handed down. Sorry to disappoint.

Cornucopia

HO87 wrote: »

Probably not. Although the case will be formally heard next week the judgment will almost certainly be reserved and it may be some weeks before it is handed down. Sorry to disappoint.

Ah, okay.

They do know that this thread will have exploded by then?

Castle

Cornucopia wrote: »

He also looks superficially at PE's profits, and determines that since they are not excessive, the charges are not either. Again, that seems like a stretch to me (because PE could be running their business ineptly), but IANAL.

The only reason that their profits don't look excessive is because they only account for tickets which are paid. Any unpaid tickets are excluded from the accounts.