Beavis - how can we go further?

gw23

Absolutely fantastic that the fighting fund reached the target in super-quick time. All power to Barry Beavis. :T

Here is a man with an innate sense of justice and with a huge amount of tenacity, I take my hat off to you Barry.

We've got a long time-frame to work in before it gets to the Supreme Court. Surely with the combined powers of all those behind him on the online forums, together with sections of the press behind him, we can mount a campaign to get a top notch QC to represent him?

There could be a planned lobby of all MP's (after May 7). An online petition. Targeted letters to landowners who contract PE. This needs to be moved to the forefront of public awareness and given the expertise of some of those on MSE alone I have no doubt it can be done with the right type of organisation and co-ordination.

I just feel my (admittedly small) donation isn't enough, we need to go further.

trubster

I have sent £10 to Barry's appeal fund. I would happily donate £100, maybe even £200 if the wife allowed . I am sure many others would if it meant the difference between a QC that "Didn't really fight as hard as he should" and one that would "Kick PE's Asses"

I didn't see the case, but it seems that the person fighting Barry's corner didn't really do enough. This is only my opinion from what was reported.

If he raised £6000+ in less than 36 hours, £30'000 is still achievable. Especially with the support of the Press and CA's

esmerobbo

Unfortunately I don't think having the best possible QC would have helped at the COA, even if PE's QC's never turned up, I think the result would have been the same.

The three judges knew it was a penalty, they knew as such it was unenforceable, so they thought of a way to get around it without closing down any PPC.

Big money talks, even in criminal cases where things are set in stone if you have big money your chances of winning are much higher, and that's if you get charged in the first place.

Unfortunately finance will always sway these cases. I think and hope what will happen once the next government is in power they regulate this [STRIKE]industry[/STRIKE] shambles.

Even the three learned Judges where taken in by the £85 being in line with local authority charges. When in fact they were beyond what the local council levy.

If they have to exist then they should be regulated charges to the level of the local authority they operate in, they should also show the same level of fairness with their appeals system.

PE used the courts to prove to people that their charges are legitimate, unfortunately for them I believe ultimately it will work against them. We wont get rid of them, but regulation will come, I also think some landowners and retailers will start to realise they are not good bed partners.

nigelbb

The particular circumstance of the Beavis case were bound to put the PE case in the best possible light. It is one of the few free car parks where Parking Armageddon probably would occur if there were no parking management. There is a pay car park across the road. The Riverside is in the centre of Chelmsford where there is precious little free parking & it's walking distance to the train station where there is insufficient parking for the commuters (the nearby council operated shoppers has high fees for long stays to deter all day commuter parking). It was own overstay of almost an extra hour not just 10-15 minutes & I don't believe that there has ever been a claim that the motorist spent those nearly three hours solely in the shops that the car park serves.

A far better case from the motorists point of view would have been for an 'not in marked bay' offence in an out of town retail park where there are always free parking spaces.

Sadly the ruling will be used to justify outrageous private parking 'fines' in all situations not just those rare situations like the Riverside. Of course the Riverside could be better managed with tickets & exit barriers but the retailers want to have their cake & eat it by offering free parking to lure in shoppers but not wanting them to park for too long.

neil.net

As I've mentioned in another post, It's been a while since I read a law text, but I thought decisions by a court only represented precedent when the facts of later cases were the same or very similar, so for Beavis the charges aren't penalties/commercial justification might stand, but under different circumstances...?

Of course PE and the other PPCs will now be refering to the case in any literature they produce, using it as if it's a "certificate of authenticity" on the charges!

TDA

nigelbb wrote: »

A far better case from the motorists point of view would have been for an 'not in marked bay' offence in an out of town retail park where there are always free parking spaces.

Agree with the point you are making in principle, but if there is always free parking spaces where is the need to park out of a marked bay? There seems a much easier way of avoiding a charge in such an instance than arguing that a legal decision does not apply on the facts...

Fight_the_good_fight

I may be wrong but my opinion was, the OP was suggesting what else could be done in addition to support Beavis.

Undoubtedly the great work caried out on here is great and no doubt as can be evidenced by the trolls a real pain in the backside for the PPC's.

However the actual amount of people aware of such sites in comparasion to the amount of invoices sent by them and the uninitiated subsequently stumping up their hard earned cash is where the PPC's real money spinners are.

I am not one for social media such as Face Ache and the like, however if someone who is more media savy and able to produce such a page/tweet with what to do in such cases etc and may be have it endorsed by a celebrity or two who would be more than happy to share with their 10,000's of followers.Subsequent re tweets and shares would bring the good work on here and similar sites to a far greater audience and increase peoples knowledge and more challenges to the PPC's= less revenue.

bargepole

gw23 wrote: »

We've got a long time-frame to work in before it gets to the Supreme Court. Surely with the combined powers of all those behind him on the online forums, together with sections of the press behind him, we can mount a campaign to get a top notch QC to represent him?

He did have a top-notch QC. Sa'ad Hossain was one of the youngest barristers to get silk, and has won many high profile cases involving contracts and penalties. That's why we chose him.


The issue was that their Learned Lordships considered other issues which were outside the scope of the grounds of appeal, and effective made their ruling on the basis of several assumptions, for which there was no evidence.


Mr Hossain made the correct arguments on the legal points, as acknowledged in the judgment, but the Judges decided to explore other issues, and unfortunately, despite Andy and myself trying to give him a crash course on the murky world of private parking, he wasn't really on top of those arguments.


It would be difficult, if not impossible, to find a QC who is au fait with all private parking matters, at that level they just don't generally have any involvement with such cases.

Shell2015

Will Sa'ad Hossain be willing to step up again pro bono?

I would assume from your comments he likely has the best overview of private parking now? (Plus whatever else he can learn this time round)

Mind you would be nice if the lovely people at the CA and RAC Foundation would send their QC's in to help too.

patman99

I have the feeling that there was/is a long-term plan to get this to the Supreme Court in order to make a binding decision that would be extremely hard for any PPC to have overturned in the future.

If the CoA had found in Beavis's favour, I suspect that PE would have appealed it to the SC, so that is where it will end.

TDA

patman99 wrote: »

I have the feeling that there was/is a long-term plan to get this to the Supreme Court in order to make a binding decision that would be extremely hard for any PPC to have overturned in the future.

Doubt it. They could have achieved that by ruling in Beavis' favour and denying PE leave to appeal.