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

fisherjim

arthurx1234 wrote: »

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

I think the car park Beavis parked in was free, not like your son who appears ignored the signs about charges!

Herzlos

You're just not getting it.

No-one is arguing that he should be allowed to park for more than the sign says. We're all saying that whilst he's in the wrong, the charge is still not lawful. It doesn't comply with the BPA's CoP, it doesn't comply with contract law. It's a made up figure and the only source of income for the PPC (who in this case pay £1k/month to issue these invoices), who have every incentive to catch people out (people not noticing the restrictions is their only income).

If he overstayed he should have to pay, at approximately the standard hourly rate pro-rata'd to the overstay. So zero. Maybe a couple of pounds, but nowhere near the £85 they want.

trisontana

Parking Prankster's latest blog sums up this succinctly:-

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/henry-greenfield-throws-lifeline-to.html


"The rogue operators who have artificially inflated their charges will have to rely on the ParkingEye v Beavis result to justify themselves, and this will result in the case being stayed until the Supreme Court hearing. It will be very interesting to be a fly on the wall to see which operators are making angry phone calls to POPLA and Steve Clark of the BPA over the next few days.


The Prankster considers that a parking charge of around £25 in line with council charges is likely to be in the region of a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore this level of charge is likely to be allowed by POPLA."

Tobster86

Umkomaas wrote: »

I find this a bit of a strange position of yours Arthur, because you've posted a number of recent threads here asking for advice in dealing with your own PCNs.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5206641

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5223794

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5219986

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5213977

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5209691

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5207717

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5206641

As I say, somewhat strange! I'll leave it at that.

Thanks very much for this; caught him well and truly trousers down!

Arthur, the term you're looking for isn't 'free thinker', it's 'hypocrite'; and NOBODY likes a hypocrite!

nicechap

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

...............

I apologise for my habit of free thinking ................

Arthur

Arthur,

Its been shown to you that Parking Eye ignored the COP but you seem unable to process this information and admit that your stated position is not justified - are you not able to think this through for yourself or are you just too embarrassed that the way you have sought help for your son's transgressions is in essence no different to Mr Beavis'?

Northlakes

What was perverse about the CofA judgement was that PE paid £20000 or so for these rights to issue PCN's and it was commercially justifiable to issue charges at £85. What happens if Savills decide to up their charge to £40000. I know these penalty charges will be amortised over a number of sites but judgement leaves room for ever more escalating penalty charges.

PE decided to pay for these rights which was their own commercial decision. The motorist should not have to pay for PE greed in chasing more turnover.

roddydogs

Most people would say that £85 for a few minuits is not justified, but for nearly 1hr? Hes taking the Pxxxxxxxxxx

fisherjim

roddydogs wrote: »

Most people would say that £85 for a few minuits is not justified, but for nearly 1hr? Hes taking the Pxxxxxxxxxx

Its still not justified!

HO87

roddydogs wrote: »

Most people would say that £85 for a few minuits is not justified, but for nearly 1hr? Hes taking the Pxxxxxxxxxx

This presupposes that he saw, read and understood the signs; that the signs are actually capable of conveying a contractual offer; and that the charge levied for the alleged breach of it is lawful.

Given that the car parks at Riverside - and most other retail outlets like it - are provided for the use of customers might there not be a moral argument maybe even a legal argument that if, for example, a customer was to spend, let's say £200 or maybe even £2,000, that they might be due an extension?

And how do you define customer? What if someone arrived to look at carpet for the ground floor of their house - value £6,000, for example, then found themselves in a queue to engage a "sales consultant". After looking through the myriad options, that entirely filled the arbitrary 2 hour limit, they left with many ideas but without spending a penny? Does that make them any less a customer? (2 hours would be a minimum time for la HO87). Are they not entitled to visit other shops or to go for a coffee

The whole concept of imposing parking charges (and the arbitrary time limits imposed to justify them) - as promulgated by PPC's - is both morally and legally bankrupt. From a purely moral persepctive attempting to persuade the uninitiated that their interests are in "protecting the rights of landlords" or in "securing a regular turnover in footfall" is, in my opinion, to indulge in the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty.

Were the real interests of the PPC skimdustry to champion consumer rights (as is claimed) whilst also securing the rights of the landlords then the fairest methods would be employed - like a pay on exit scheme. Everyone paying for the time they have parked - with a discount token/voucher for genuine customers based on a minimum spend - ensuring that the day rate exceeds that of the commuter car parks. Or a suitable variation.

That of course will be howled down by PPC World because there would be little profit in it for them. Shame really.

arthurx1234

roddydogs wrote: »

Most people would say that £85 for a few minuits is not justified, but for nearly 1hr? Hes taking the Pxxxxxxxxxx

Exactly my point

Oh dear people still want to snipe.

If people dont like the penalty/fine/charge then get the bus and leave the car at home
Arthur