A Summary of the Beavis Case

andrewbro

Please see the attached link for a summary of the Beavis case. In my view it is balanced in terms of describing what the Court found in this case although for many of us it was not the outcome that we hoped for.

http://www.lpc-law.co.uk/news/latest-news/2015/may/enforceable-deterrent-may-2015/

enfield_freddy

balanced?


lets not forget


https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/motorist-information/parkingeye-appoint-lpc-law/

The_Deep

Never mind what Mr Gibson thinks, it is the opinion of the Supreme Court judges which matters.

enfield_freddy

northernpowerhouse wrote: »

At the moment all that matters is what the Court of Appeal judges think.

after reading thier report , I don't think they can "think" for themselves , hence the reason for allowing it to go to the supreme court.

andrewbro

I don't know if LPC are still instucted by Parking Eye to do debt recovery anymore. The link shown above was from 2013. The judgment states that they instructed Cubism Law to represent them at the Court of Appeal.

Having read the judgment and the summary I think that they both marry up fairly well. However, as is said above we have to wait and see if the Supreme Court comes up with an alternative decision. Unofrtunately as it stand the decision is considered to be "good law".

bargepole

andrewbro wrote: »

I don't know if LPC are still instucted by Parking Eye to do debt recovery anymore. The link shown above was from 2013. The judgment states that they instructed Cubism Law to represent them at the Court of Appeal.

Having read the judgment and the summary I think that they both marry up fairly well. However, as is said above we have to wait and see if the Supreme Court comes up with an alternative decision. Unofrtunately as it stand the decision is considered to be "good law".

LPC don't do 'debt recovery', they do Court representation. However for the Court of Appeal, PE instructed Cubism Law as their solicitors, because they wanted a London based firm. They were represented at the Appeal by Jonathan Kirk QC and David Altaras.


In terms of the Judgment, their Lordships were correct in saying that the intention of deterrence is insufficient, on its own, to strike down a clause as a penalty. It must also be extravagant and unconscionable for that to apply.


Where we differ from their Lordships, and this will be one of the arguments put forward in the Supreme Court appeal, is with their finding that the £85 charge was not extravagant and unconscionable.


In reaching their finding, they drew a comparison with statutory municipal PCN charges. But for the Chelmsford area, lower level offences attract a penalty of £50, or £25 if paid within 14 days. Thus PE's charge of £85 (or £50) is considerably in excess of that.


£85 represents a day's wages, after tax, for someone on average earnings, or the best part of a week's state pension for many people. In any reasonable view, that is extravagant and unconscionable.


They also stated that the enforcement of a 2 hour free stay limit provided a benefit to the retailers. This was another false assumption, because a majority of the retailers on that site have stated that it has a negative, rather than positive, effect on their business.


The Riverside has 12 retail units operating there, with a car park offering 500 spaces. That's an average of 40+ spaces per unit, which seems to me more than adequate for the number of likely customers in a shop at any one time, and the scare stories about the Armageddon which would occur if PE weren't there, are nonsense.

hoohoo

In addition, the judges assertion that a small parking fee to enforce overstays would not work, seems to be founded in their imagination rather than fact. Many motorway service stations offer 2 hours free parking, then charge a fee of £12 to deter further parking. This seems to work, and if my memory serves me correctly, ParkingEye manage several of these service stations. I have not yet heard of them being kicked out because the £12 fee did not work and there was parking chaos.

nigelbb

bargepole wrote: »

The Riverside has 12 retail units operating there, with a car park offering 500 spaces. That's an average of 40+ spaces per unit, which seems to me more than adequate for the number of likely customers in a shop at any one time, and the scare stories about the Armageddon which would occur if PE weren't there, are nonsense.

The Riverside is far enough from the railway station to deter all but the fittest & most determined of commuters from parking there. However there is no other free car park in Chelmsford own centre & there is a pay car park serving the Leisure Centre directly opposite the Riverside. While there might not be Parking Armageddon if PE were not there this car park is a rare & choice example of a retail car park that does need management to avoid abuse. Doubtless this is the reason why it was chosen by PE as their test case. A far better case from the motorists point of view would have been a short overstay in an out of town shopping mall where the only reason for parking would be to use the shops & facilities provided.

Herzlos

hoohoo wrote: »

In addition, the judges assertion that a small parking fee to enforce overstays would not work, seems to be founded in their imagination rather than fact. Many motorway service stations offer 2 hours free parking, then charge a fee of £12 to deter further parking. This seems to work, and if my memory serves me correctly, ParkingEye manage several of these service stations. I have not yet heard of them being kicked out because the £12 fee did not work and there was parking chaos.

I think it's actually the other way round; service stations are the only ones sort of doing it properly. Most are free for 2 hours, with the option to pay £10 for up to 24, with signs everywhere and a number to call and everything. If you overstay and don't pay (or park over a line or in a way that offends them) you'll still get sent a demand for £100.

nigelbb

Herzlos wrote: »

I think it's actually the other way round; service stations are the only ones sort of doing it properly. Most are free for 2 hours, with the option to pay £10 for up to 24, with signs everywhere and a number to call and everything. If you overstay and don't pay (or park over a line or in a way that offends them) you'll still get sent a demand for £100.

When you should be sent a demand for the £10 that you actually owe.

If you forgot to pay a £10 bill before leaving a restaurant you would owe £10 not £100 so why is parking different? The argument about 'commercial justification' of the £100 & turnover of parking spaces doesn't wash if they would have been happy with £10 before the car left the service area.

andrewbro

Dear All

the reason I posted the link was because I felt that it gave a fairly simple summary of what the current position is in relation to private companies being able to impose penalty charges.

I am no great fan of penalty charges being imposed by private companies and I also believe that that they should be challenged where the sums being requested are unreasonable. In order to do this the person challenging the charge should be aware of what the law currently is and whether they will be successful in making such a challenge and that was the reason for my putting up the link.

The Beavis case while it is not helpful only really deals with the amount and whether it is a penalty. I believe there is still scope to potentially argue on other grounds (e.g. insufficient signage, unreasonableness of imposing the charge in the first place). It is also the case that the Supreme Court may accept some or all of the arguments put forward by Bargepole as to why such charges should be considered unlawful.

With regards to the comment made by The Deep. I am a qualified solicitor and have been practising for over ten years. I am an experienced litigator and have considerable experience of debt recovery so I do have some idea what I am talking about.

I feel that your efforts to use my debts as grounds that I do not know what I am talking about amount to bullying behaviour; however, I do not tolerate such behaviour and have happily reported your post to the moderators. I have also PM'd you to make it clear what my thoughts were on your rather sad little post.