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

Castle

Cygnus_Alpha wrote: »

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.

Agreed; and of course council penalties only apply in car parks, where parking is offered to the public. Penalties are not issued by councils for trespass in their "staff only" or "residents only" car parks.

TDA

nigelbb wrote: »

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.

And a fine for a criminal offence that doesn't go into the pocket of a Restaurateur is profitable to them in what way?

Restaurants and car park operators don't prosecute people, the Crown does, and the Crown make the decision on when to bring a prosecution.

The point is that a prosecution for skipping out on the bill at a restaurant is relatively likely, whereas the likelihood for not buying a P&D ticket is almost non-existent.

Given the short shrift that has been shown for motorists who have breached parking restrictions, it may very well be that the courts see non-payment of a P&D ticket as a policy concern they should intervene in, given the ease with which an individual can avoid paying and the relative lack of a suitable deterrent if the charge were unenforceable (such as the deterrent of being charged with an offence for running from a restaurant).

They may see it that way, they may not. Not clear-cut though, and the parking scenario doesn't lend itself easily to analogy in my opinion.

nigelbb

TDA wrote: »

And a fine for a criminal offence that doesn't go into the pocket of a Restaurateur is profitable to them in what way?

Restaurants and car park operators don't prosecute people, the Crown does, and the Crown make the decision on when to bring a prosecution.

The Crown doesn't prosecute people unless a crime is reported. Occasionally restaurants do report people for skipping without paying the bill. They do not attempt to impose private 'fines' of 100X the price of the meal as an alternative to prosecution.

If PE were to prominently display notices in their P&D car parks informing motorists that cars were photographed & non-payment would result in police action then the number of offenders would plummet but so would PE's profits.

TDA

nigelbb wrote: »

The Crown doesn't prosecute people unless a crime is reported. Occasionally restaurants do report people for skipping without paying the bill. They do not attempt to impose private 'fines' of 100X the price of the meal as an alternative to prosecution.

But would any prosecution be likely to succeed? Would you be able to establish mens rea? Everyone knows that you always have to pay for food you've ordered at a restaurant, but not all car parks are P&D car parks and even where signage is abundant and clear, the likelihood of securing a conviction seems to be far lower than for someone running from a restaurant.

nigelbb

TDA wrote: »

But would any prosecution be likely to succeed? Would you be able to establish mens rea? Everyone knows that you always have to pay for food you've ordered at a restaurant, but not all car parks are P&D car parks and even where signage is abundant and clear, the likelihood of securing a conviction seems to be far lower than for someone running from a restaurant.

But the signage MUST be abundant and clear otherwise there would be no possibility of offering a contract for parking. As I wrote previously

If PE were to prominently display notices in their P&D car parks informing motorists that cars were photographed & non-payment would result in police action then the number of offenders would plummet but so would PE's profits.

It would be very effective car park management however.

TDA

nigelbb wrote: »

It would be very effective car park management however.

Admittedly so, but arguably somewhat extreme considering some oblivious individuals will fail to notice signage no matter how clear it is (and on the civil balance of probabilities they would still be found to have formed any contract provided the signage was sufficiently prominent).

People miss signage, but no one is under any illusions about whether they have to settle their bill at a restaurant.

Are you seriously advocating that they start taking that approach at P&D car parks?

Dr._Shoe

£15/£25 would be an effective deterrent for me. What's more I wouldn't bother fighting it either.

Anyone who's too tight fisted to pay £3 or so PAD would almost certainly resent having to pay £15...

Marktheshark

My overall opinion is :

The Judges failed to understand or grasp what Parking eye actually do to make money from motorists.

The Representation hired by Mr Beavis was extremely incompetent in his opportunity to point out what they actually do as opposed to what they presented themselves as at court.

In other words, he failed to lay the table correctly before serving the lunch.

We can quite clearly see the judges thought this was some legitimate upstanding company helping motorists park.

The failure to present examples of who and what they really are and real examples of some of the things they have done to people was a mistake that cost the appeal.

I certainly hope the "legal team" have dossier of "blooded victims" to show the next set of judges.

It is about implication and what that implication will mean to people who fell fowl of the "rules".
Lay the table next time, or parking eye will decide which course gets eaten first.

salmosalaris

The point that is being missed is my restaurant analogy didn't envisage deliberate avoidance of paying but an accidental one . Would a sign behind the bar allow the restaurant to charge 10x the meal cost because I left without paying , even if I offer full reimbursement of they unpaid bill ?

nigelbb

salmosalaris wrote: »

The point that is being missed is my restaurant analogy didn't envisage deliberate avoidance of paying but an accidental one . Would a sign behind the bar allow the restaurant to charge 10x the meal cost because I left without paying , even if I offer full reimbursement of they unpaid bill ?

Likewise for my hotel analogy. Would a sign behind the reception desk allow the hotel to charge 20x the room price because I didn't vacate my room until 15:00 rather than midday. To make an even more exact analogy the 'fine' of 20x the room rate would be the same whether I checked out ten minutes or ten hours late.