"Not genuine pre-estimate of loss" is still a strong argument

ColliesCarer

I seem to recall someone posted that the nearest car park to Riverside is a P&D shoppers only car park that charges £18 for staying longer than 3 hours to deter commuters staying all day.

If they have found £18 is a sufficient deterrent then £85 is definitely excessive in comparison.

Also the judges need to get in touch with the real world. The money advisory service has published figures that indicate 1 in 10 uk citizens have only £10 of disposable income left each month

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QFjAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.moneyadviceservice.org.uk%2Fonly-10-left-the-disposable-income-of-one-in-ten-brits&ei=2YBGVbXTJ8esUbbigbAP&usg=AFQjCNGnIrL_Gvg5Bje_shRRMvzfOC_9-g

If they want to consider wider policy what about taking other socio-economic factors into account - such as these level of charges could push people into debt in order to pay them.

Castle

ColliesCarer wrote: »

I seem to recall someone posted that the nearest car park to Riverside is a P&D shoppers only car park that charges £18 for staying longer than 3 hours to deter commuters staying all day.

The Council owned "Riverside" car park on the opposite side of the road charges £6.80 for all day parking.
There is a private car park next door to the Riverside which is P & D and this charges only £4.70 per day; but it comes with a £85.00 penalty (sounds familiar) for non payment.

TDA

ColliesCarer wrote: »

I seem to recall someone posted that the nearest car park to Riverside is a P&D shoppers only car park that charges £18 for staying longer than 3 hours to deter commuters staying all day.

If they have found £18 is a sufficient deterrent then £85 is definitely excessive in comparison.

Also the judges need to get in touch with the real world. The money advisory service has published figures that indicate 1 in 10 uk citizens have only £10 of disposable income left each month

Always wary of a study with a sample size of 2,000 being extrapolated to a country with an adult population of roughly 55 million, but certainly a fair point.

nigelbb

ColliesCarer wrote: »

I seem to recall someone posted that the nearest car park to Riverside is a P&D shoppers only car park that charges £18 for staying longer than 3 hours to deter commuters staying all day.

If they have found £18 is a sufficient deterrent then £85 is definitely excessive in comparison.

Castle wrote: »

The Council owned "Riverside" car park on the opposite side of the road charges £6.80 for all day parking.
There is a private car park next door to the Riverside which is P & D and this charges only £4.70 per day; but it comes with a £85.00 penalty (sounds familiar) for non payment.

I posted regarding the charges at High Chelmer Car Park which is nearer to the station in Chelmsford where they do indeed charge £18 for over eight hours to deter commuters as up to four hours is only £4.50. http://www.chelmsford.gov.uk/high-chelmer

Riverside is a much longer walk from the station so would be less attractive to commuters anyway. People who would likely abuse the free parking at Riverside would be town centre workers saving £6.80 not train commuters saving £18.

nigelbb

TDA wrote: »

The point is, you don't need a deterrent of a £100 penalty to prevent people running out of restaurants without paying. You arguably (seemingly in their Lordships view) might need one to prevent people not paying to park.

Leaving a restaurant without paying the bill is against the law & people do get prosecuted which is far more of a deterrent. Using a P&D car park without paying is just as illegal but the reason PPCs don't invoke criminal law when chasing offenders is for the same reason there are few prosecutions under railway bylaws for parking offences i.e. the PPC would get no income if the offender was fined in a magistrates court.

nigelbb

bargepole wrote: »

It's a similar situation to staying in a hotel: if you stayed for two nights but only paid for one, the hotel can legally pursue you for the unpaid amount of one night's stay (plus costs), they can't suddenly decide that there's also a charge of 10x or 20x the room rate - that would clearly be held to be a penalty in any litigation.

The better analogy is the one that I have often used which is where a hotel guest is late checking out. If check out time is noon but the room isn't vacated until 15:00 then the most that the guest would be liable for is the price of another night not 10x or 20x.

ColliesCarer

nigelbb wrote: »

I posted regarding the charges at High Chelmer Car Park which is nearer to the station in Chelmsford where they do indeed charge £18 for over eight hours to deter commuters as up to four hours is only £4.50. http://www.chelmsford.gov.uk/high-chelmer

Riverside is a much longer walk from the station so would be less attractive to commuters anyway. People who would likely abuse the free parking at Riverside would be town centre workers saving £6.80 not train commuters saving £18.

Thanks Nigel, I think it was your post I was referring to and I recall now that you did indeed say it was nearer the station - so sorry for any misquote.

If the aim is to stop town centre workers abusing the free parking it could be argued a charge of £10 would be ample by comparison with the £6.80 they would have to pay elsewhere

TDA

nigelbb wrote: »

Leaving a restaurant without paying the bill is against the law & people do get prosecuted which is far more of a deterrent. Using a P&D car park without paying is just as illegal but the reason PPCs don't invoke criminal law when chasing offenders is for the same reason there are few prosecutions under railway bylaws for parking offences i.e. the PPC would get no income if the offender was fined in a magistrates court.

That's my point? You don't need a £100 deterrent at the restaurant because there's enough to deter people in the fact they may get charged with the commission of a crime if they get caught.

It's not the same for parking, which is why public policy may dictate a different approach.

Cygnus_Alpha

A good discussion here.

That said, the likes of PE earn more money from their 'enterprise' by ticketing as many people as possible. If the deterrence actually worked they would not gain any revenue.

Where IMHO, the court have erred badly is to confuse the commercial objective of PE with the commercial objective of the landholder. Their starting point has been that the landowner should be allowed to deter and therefore PE can do what they like in terms of 'charges' as long as it's about the same as a council penalty. Forgetting of course that the council penalties are just that - penalties - and not necessarily reasonable charges.

nigelbb

TDA wrote: »

That's my point? You don't need a £100 deterrent at the restaurant because there's enough to deter people in the fact they may get charged with the commission of a crime if they get caught.

It's not the same for parking, which is why public policy may dictate a different approach.

Why? It's just as illegal to use a car park without paying as leaving a restaurant without paying.

The reason car park operators don't prosecute non-payers is that it's more profitable to harass & bully people into paying a vastly inflated 'fine' that goes in their own pockets.