A Summary of the Beavis Case

ColliesCarer

ColliesCarer wrote: »

But in the 2 1/2 years since this was introduced almost all the supermarkets who introduced them have reported significantly reduced profits. Now this apparent negative correlation may not be causal, even if only partially, and could be pure co-incidence but ....

fisherjim wrote: »

Although Aldi & Lidl who have very aggressive parking policies have shown an unprecedented upturn in trade!

Knew someone was bound to raise them hence "almost all"

And yes they do seem to have bucked the trend but they've not got large market shares and they've also spent massively on TV advertising in the same period which they didn't used to do much of, if any at all.

They also seem to have reasonable record for cancelling for genuine customers - believed to have hidden clauses in their parking contracts re. cancellations for genuine customers (poss with minimum spends) and maybe also prohibiting court action.

Umkomaas

fisherjim wrote: »

Although Aldi & Lidl who have very aggressive parking policies have shown an unprecedented upturn in trade!

But have you seen any Aldi/PE or Lidl/Athena cases end at the Small Claims Court?

TDA

bazster wrote: »

It's a case about parking on private property, there are no public policy considerations.

The CoA clearly disagrees and I would be wholly unsurprised to see the SC uphold their judgment.

Acting like it's a purely private matter is disingenuous, when clearly it affects a huge amount of the public on an almost daily basis. This isn't about a private contractual dispute between two parties. If it was, no one here would give a toss.

nigelbb

TDA wrote: »

This isn't about a private contractual dispute between two parties. If it was, no one here would give a toss.

Like clamping?

TDA

nigelbb wrote: »

Like clamping?

What's your point? The response to clamping is clear evidence that public policy was relevant?

nigelbb

TDA wrote: »

What's your point? The response to clamping is clear evidence that public policy was relevant?

While the Scottish courts thought that clamping was demanding money with menaces as far as the English courts were concerned clamping was a private contractual dispute between two parties.

TDA

nigelbb wrote: »

While the Scottish courts thought that clamping was demanding money with menaces as far as the English courts were concerned clamping was a private contractual dispute between two parties.

Ah so you mean why were public policy considerations not considered relevant by the courts then? A good question.

bargepole

TDA wrote: »

Ah so you mean why were public policy considerations not considered relevant by the courts then? A good question.

It wasn't the courts, it was Parliament who outlawed clamping in England & Wales. All driven by the greed of the clampers, with stories in the news almost daily about some pensioner being frogmarched to a cash machine to withdraw £400 to get their car back.


The BPA lobbying of MPs ensured that, to enable landowners to protect their land, keeper liability had to be brought in as a quid pro quo, and thus the !!!!!!!ised misconstruction of contract law that is Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 was born. Funny how they never needed that in Scotland.


Regardless of what might happen at the Supreme Court, I strongly suspect that the current DCLG consultation will result in some sort of statutory regulation for private parking - but not in the way the BPA would like to see it.

Umkomaas

Regardless of what might happen at the Supreme Court, I strongly suspect that the current DCLG consultation will result in some sort of statutory regulation for private parking - but not in the way the BPA would like to see it.

Or us, possibly?

Won't be anywhere near clear cut as clamping. But if the BPA isn't happy, then there is some justification for what the forums have been doing over the years.

HO87

The spectre of parking armageddon is something that has been quietly promoted in default by the BPA for a number of years and very much in tandem with another of their policies which is intended to play directly to the government's strong suit. The government's position is that originally set out in PPG13 last published in 2011 (now incorporated in the National Planning Policy Framework).

PPG13 dealt with sustainable transport policies and under the Bliar regime was picked up and given real legs. The policy, insofar as it is relevant to this debate, included moves to restrict parking across the board - so in new housing developments, new office and workspace developments and in the public arena. The whole idea was to reduce the number of available parking space across the board with the intention that if people found it increasingly difficult to park - especially at home and work - they would be disinclined to buy and use cars. Quite simply the intention was to squeeze out car use.

This is what lay behind the strange countrywide move to landscape car parks a few years ago (aside from introducing some trees and pleasant pavioured surfaces the net effect was to reduce the number of spaces).

The problem was that there was supposed to be a concurrent improved investment in public transport (that never materialised) to absorb the numbers shifting from private transport - making use of an element of both carrot and stick. As so often happens the government stuck with stick as carrot is always that much more expensive.

The parking restriction aspect however has been rabidly followed ever since and that is why we see new houses being built with access to only 1.25 car parking spaces and increasingly some distance from the property.

It requires very little imagination to see that greater "enforcement" on the myriad private retail developments, for example, knits in very nicely with this policy. I respectfully suggest that the apparent ease with which the BPA's message has been accepted in Whitehall has very much more to do with the way in which their position can be, and has been exploited by mandarins (to however small a degree), to demonstrate that they are mindful of the UK's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, than the quantity of snakeoil deployed by BPA Towers.

That might just be hokkum and the public policy aspect that clearly underlies the CoA's decision might just be that the PPC skimdustry has grown too big to be consigned to the dustbin. Of course, a cynic might also believe that a large business process outsourcing company has been running up and down the corridors of Marsham Street and Great Minster House begging those who will listen to allow them to retain at least one profitable business model.