Beavis - Court of Appeal - Consumer's Association

pvt

It wasn't very clear to me what line the CA was taking in this. Their barristers apparently didn't speak in court, and I don't know if their written submissions are in the public domain yet.

But here's a small item on page 6 of the April Which? magazine I received today:

Consumer laws at risk

Which? has intervened in a Court of Appeal case on private parking fines, which could affect all consumers.

The case, brought by a disgruntled motorist, will decide whether an £85 parking fine was fair.

Which? believes that, if the court decides in favour of the parking company, the case could set a precedent, leading to consumer laws being watered down and higher charges in many other situations. For example, you could face heavier charges for missing an appointment or exceeding your internet download limit.

The Court of Appeal allowed Which? to intervene because of the case's potential impact on consumers. We'll update you when it makes its decision.

The tone is interesting: They refer to the charges as "fines" twice; and their tone referring to Beavis as "a disgruntled motorist" seems less than supportive. Similarly the reference to them being "allowed to intervene".

I don't understand the workings of the court of appeal, but can anyone roll up to a case between two parties and join in if they claim the outcome would affect them. And do they have to side with one party, or are they independent - in other words does it become X v Y & Z, or X v Y v Z? Or is it still X v Y with Z allowed to independently submit arguments?

Fergie76

Think you are reading too much in to the words used. Yes they have referred to the invoices as fines, but that's what the public relate too, rather than invoices.

With regards to the use of the word disgruntled, well a happy motorist isn't going to take this on.

bargepole

pvt wrote: »

...
I don't understand the workings of the court of appeal, but can anyone roll up to a case between two parties and join in if they claim the outcome would affect them. And do they have to side with one party, or are they independent - in other words does it become X v Y & Z, or X v Y v Z?

In order to intervene in a case, a third party has to apply for permission. Their application to intervene was opposed by PE's legal team, but permission was granted by the COA on a written submissions basis only.


The court will normally only allow an intervention if it is considered 'in the wider public interest', which it was in this case.


So the case is still X v Y, but Z's arguments are taking a different tack, and in this case essentially saying that if the court were to rule in favour of PE, it would open the door to any company in any marketplace exploiting consumers under the guise of 'commercial justification'.

pvt

Thanks Bargepole - That clarifies it nicely.

I had amended my post before you posted your reply.

Do you know what their written submission was? Is it in the public domain.

bargepole

pvt wrote: »

...
Do you know what their written submission was? Is it in the public domain.

Yes, all docs relating to the case can be inspected at the COA.


But to save a trip to London, here it is:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/p7tiu7yufdiik3x/CA%20Written%20Submissions%20-%20270115.pdf?dl=0

Marktheshark

As the barrister for Mr Beavis sounds to have done a Frozen rabbit in the headlights impersonation, I would say a ruddy good job by CA on pulling the first judge up by his reins.

pvt

Mark,

Very much agree that the CA may have saved the day as you say, but I'm still perplexed by the tone of their magazine comment, and their lack of any apparent view on PPCs prior to this.

Almost like a "let sleeping dogs lay' approach, but now someone's woken up the hounds at the CoA then we had better make a stand.

Guys_Dad

pvt wrote: »

Mark,

Very much agree that the CA may have saved the day as you say, but I'm still perplexed by the tone of their magazine comment, and their lack of any apparent view on PPCs prior to this.

Almost like a "let sleeping dogs lay' approach, but now someone's woken up the hounds at the CoA then we had better make a stand.

A Court of Appeal can set a precedent. It seems to me that if CA have intervened at the CoA supporting the motorist and highlighting the wider issue outside parking, then this is probably the best place to throw their cap in the ring and certainly beats general comments and views which might have been expressed earlier in a magazine not specifically targeting a specific court case.

Grimble

Perhaps Mr Beavis should have used Julia Smith QC who the CA used.

Umkomaas

Grimble wrote: »

Perhaps Mr Beavis should have used Julia Smith QC who the CA used.

Except I suspect she would not have been 'pro bono publico'!

The_Deep

Whatever happened to "Motoring Which"?

I was a member of the CA from 1960 until 2001, at which point I found that I was using it less and less as the search engines improved.

It is a very heavy hitter indeed and able to make "super complaints"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Which%3F#Legal_powers

and has legal powers to bring rogue readers to book. It is not an organisation to be trifled with, and its intervention in Beavis must be welcomed