MSE News: Motorist takes parking charge challenge to highest UK court

Fight_the_good_fight

Is that not what Beavis has done? Like yourself gathered the information and decided to appeal and not simply pay and shut up,which you now seem to be advising

Johno100

arthurx1234 wrote: »

I detest any company who ignores their own COP or fails to let common sense prevail however in this instance Beavis should pay up.

Do you mean their made up rules or those of their trade body?

If it's the later then if we showed you examples of where Parking Eye haven't complied with the BPA's code of practice would you change your view on the Beavis case?

Umkomaas

I detest any company who ignores their own COP or fails to let common sense prevail however in this instance Beavis should pay up

Well, let's examine exactly what the BPA Code of Practice said at the time Mr Beavis first encountered ParkingEye.

19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance

But, hold on. PE are saying their charges are not based on a GPEOL, rather as commercial justification and as a deterrent. Clearly and unashamedly not complying with their ATA's CoP.

Where to go now on this Arthur?

arthurx1234

Johno100 wrote: »

Do you mean their made up rules or those of their trade body?

If it's the later then if we showed you examples of where Parking Eye haven't complied with the BPA's code of practice would you change your view on the Beavis case?

From the details in various peoples posts these PPC's make up excuses and break their own rules on a regular basis. IAS + IPC also seem to be unaware of the COP

I assume in the Beavis case PE are using this section of the code to get the money from Beavis?
19.3 If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not
paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time
paid for, or if they trespass on your land, they may be
liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown
clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain
your terms and conditions.

Arthur

Umkomaas

arthurx1234 wrote: »

From the details in various peoples posts these PPC's make up excuses and break their own rules on a regular basis. IAS + IPC also seem to be unaware of the COP

I assume in the Beavis case PE are using this section of the code to get the money from Beavis?
19.3 If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not
paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time
paid for, or if they trespass on your land, they may be
liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown
clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain
your terms and conditions.

Arthur

Of course, then 19.5 kicks in!

Guys_Dad

arthurx1234 wrote: »

It is unreasonable to break the rules and so prevent another person from parking.
The fine is a deterent.
He knew the rules and ignored them
The landowner has been perfectly reasonable by allowing people to park for 2 hours and charging nothing
He is no better than able bodied motorists who park in supermarket disabled bays
The rules are there for all
He has wasted alot of time by dragging this through the courts, but has generated much publicity for his chip shop
What right has he to overstay by almost 1 hour
He has abused the 2 hour free parking
HE SHOULD PAY UP AND SHUT UP

"Do you think £50 or nearly £1 per minute is an acceptable amount to charge for an overstay? " YES It is to deter inconsiderate/ unreasonable/ shameless / selfish/ stupid/ ignorant people from overstaying

Arthur

Just come across this thread and decided to resurrect an old post of mine so that, hopefully, you can see what we are all about on here.

You are making the common mistake which is "You done done wrong, mate, so the PPCs are right to charge their extortionate rates. How can we defend that viewpoint??".

Our point is " regardless of the facts, PPCs are penalising motorists to a ludicrous extent to which they are not entitled and we concentrate on helping people based on that point"

Suppose you had been caught doing 35 mph in a 30 mph limit. You get to the Magistrates court and they say "Guilty. Lock him up for 2 years".

You would get a brief to appeal the sentence, not the verdict.

So that's the case here. Beavis is appealing the "sentence" of £85 that does not fit the "crime",

So, he majored on the "No genuine pre-estimate of loss" point.

Also, suppose the PPC didn't have the right to charge you 1p as they didn't have a valid contract with the landowner? So you demand that they produce the contract in question that actually specifies that they are allowed to charge you.

Going back to the "crime" of speeding. Suppose that there were no 30mph signs up and it wasn't obvious that you were in built up area. Would that be fair? So you challenge the signage of the park in question. Obviously the signage was inadequate or you would have seen it.

Basically, that's it in a nutshell.

So, the disagreement that you have with the majority is not on the principle of charging, but the amount being demanded.

6_6_6

:think: Something strange.. in the neighbourhood ...


What if as an owner of a large parking firm, wishing to put an end to potential for someone to challenge my industry though the courts hanging forever over our heads, arranged to meet fellow competitors, secret cartel style to fabricate a straw man. Literally pay someone to take one of my tickets though the courts with a deliberately flawed / weak defense, basically attempt to game the system.

Who is this crusader anyway, and why would some average Joe pony up the kind of money it takes to throw a parking ticket through every court in the land to the very top. Sounds suspicious to me, unless he is an oil baron. Who is he again ?

HO87

6_6_6 wrote: »

:think: Something strange.. in the neighbourhood ...

What if as an owner of a large parking firm, wishing to put an end to potential for someone to challenge my industry though the courts hanging forever over our heads, arranged to meet fellow competitors, secret cartel style to fabricate a straw man. Literally pay someone to take one of my tickets though the courts with a deliberately flawed / weak defense, basically attempt to game the system.

Like the idea but your hypothesis fails to take into account which counsel was going to be selected and as much as it might be suggested that PPC's have money to burn one would imagine that buying a senior QC would dig very deep into the PPC's pockets - well into that portion that they might consider to be their own. But nothing like feeding the conspiracy theory element.

6_6_6 wrote: »

Who is this crusader anyway, and why would some average Joe pony up the kind of money it takes to throw a parking ticket through every court in the land to the very top. Sounds suspicious to me, unless he is an oil baron. Who is he again ?

As the case was commenced on the small claims track then the provisions of the small claims track applies with regard to costs - so not that great a sum has had to be "ponied up". The charge the Supreme Court levy to institute an appeal was met by voluntary contribution not by the putative straw man. I appreciate that you might then turn this to suit your argument again - but it would require that a second QC was "wedged".

As said, good try but the suggestion has all the aerodynamic qualities of a concrete glider.

Iceweasel

arthurx1234 wrote: »

what right have you to complain if you are penalised? NONE



Arthur

Arthur - you have just shown your essential misunderstanding of the situation.

I couldn't care less who Mr Beavis is or is not, or what he may or may not have done - morally or otherwise to 'overstay' in a car park.

No PPC can issue penalties or fines - but you obviously think they should.

He can be issued an excess parking charge - I and many others on here would have no problem with that - if it is reasonable.

But you and the PPCs think it is OK to penalise him - so therefore you think a penalty is in order.

If you want the law to be changed - lobby your MP

arthurx1234

MMMMMM Right lets see
I parked my car the other day paid for 4 hours, did my shopping, came back 3 hours and 30 odd minutes later-- no problem, i hope you all agree??

What i object to are the people who come back after the 4 hours has expired, see the parking charge on their windscreen and feel so hard done by they complain to all and sundry, including complaining on this forum and people here tell them they are right to complain! What nonsense.

Dont misunderstand me from what i have read and from my own experiences we are dealing with an industry that is, lets be kind, less than honest and twists the rules (which are not worth the bog paper they are written on) to suit themselves.

But if you overstay you have to pay ( think i will write to the BPA + IPC and ask if they want to use that as a catchy new slogan) .... think i have just opened the floodgate for other more suitable slogans

Arthur