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

HO87

arthurx1234 wrote: »

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

I refer you to my post above. You clearly do not understand that the legal basis for these supposed charges is tenuous at best. You cannot compare these with statutory penalties and to do so is to demonstrate an unnecessary ignorance.

Given the posts above and your clear desire to assist your son to avoid just such a charge I wonder if you could offer a coherent explanation for your apparently contradictory position?

Herzlos

arthurx1234 wrote: »

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

Or just don't use shops/centres that hire such parasites. Which seems to be what's happening.

Even in this case, it seems Parking Eye are costing more business than they save.

ColliesCarer

HO87 wrote: »

......Given the posts above and your clear desire to assist your son to avoid just such a charge I wonder if you could offer a coherent explanation for your apparently contradictory position?

Well and truly hoisted by his own petard there methinks HO

nicechap

arthurx1234 wrote: »

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

That wasn't your point. You seem to be shifting your stance/ basis of your argument.

You said you you detest any company that ignores its own COP, which is why you;ve beein fighting your son's invoice from VCS, yet, you've been shown that Parking Eye have done just that in the Beavis case. You appear unwilling to acknowledge that.

You have accused people of being sheep like and of not thinking for themselves and now of sniping.

Hurtlocker

My Total Cost Estimate per PCN

Kadoe - £2.50
Paper, Printing, Postage - £1
Cost to employer of Labour for PCN issuance – £7 assuming two PCN’s issued per hour.
Averaged cost of Appeal handling across all PCNs issued in a year - £3

Total GPEOL: £13.50 + Initial cost of parking

These £100+ fines are scam and should be prohibited...the whole set up is designed to catch you out. Sure... you may think that you're smarter than the rest, but eventually you'll overstay (think it's 2 hrs free when it's 1hr) or get caught up on the way back to the car etc and then BAM.


How the judge deemed them commercially viable is beyond me as the law specifically status they should be a genuine pre-estimate of loss and NOT punitive in nature.

Herzlos

You can't add staffing costs, unless the staff member is suitably diverted from their normal job. A claim issuer/handler handling claims results in no loss to the company; it's what they are paid to do.

Hurtlocker wrote: »

Total GPEOL: £13.50 + Initial cost of parking

And if there was no initial cost of parking, and no loss, they can't add expenses to it.

Since the overstay in a free car park resulted in no loss*, even asking for the DVLA fee is not allowed.

*You could maybe argue a loss if there were no available spaces and the overstay directly resulted in a potentially paying customer from leaving and not just waiting for a space to become available.

NotBothered

Herzlos wrote: »

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.

The way I see it, the offer was to park on the land for a maximum of 2 hours - free of charge. No offer was made to extend that visit as after the 2 hours had expired you were no longer invited to park there! Failure to leave the premises after the maximum time allowed would be charged at whatever they saw fit!

They didnt want you there!! You are no longer an invited guest and the offer to use the land has now been withdrawn.

Its their land, not yours and you have no "rights" to it. There is no provision for you to pay to stay longer as they dont want you to!

I agree, £85 is excessive, but so is overstaying for nearly an hour with no good reason!

bargepole

NotBothered wrote: »

The way I see it, the offer was to park on the land for a maximum of 2 hours - free of charge. No offer was made to extend that visit as after the 2 hours had expired you were no longer invited to park there! Failure to leave the premises after the maximum time allowed would be charged at whatever they saw fit!

They didnt want you there!! You are no longer an invited guest and the offer to use the land has now been withdrawn.

Its their land, not yours and you have no "rights" to it. There is no provision for you to pay to stay longer as they dont want you to!

I agree, £85 is excessive, but so is overstaying for nearly an hour with no good reason!

On that analysis, it makes Beavis a trespasser (although that wasn't how the Court saw it).


So the generally accepted remedy for trespass, is nominal damages payable to the landowner, not to his agent.


Unless the landowner can prove that damage was caused to his land, in which case he could sue for restitution. It is vanishingly unlikely that a 1000kg car, parked on a piece of tarmac designed to bear the weight of a 1000kg car for 56 minutes, would cause any damage.


So no, they can't charge whatever they see fit.

NotBothered

bargepole wrote: »

On that analysis, it makes Beavis a trespasser (although that wasn't how the Court saw it).


So the generally accepted remedy for trespass, is nominal damages payable to the landowner, not to his agent.


Unless the landowner can prove that damage was caused to his land, in which case he could sue for restitution. It is vanishingly unlikely that a 1000kg car, parked on a piece of tarmac designed to bear the weight of a 1000kg car for 56 minutes, would cause any damage.


So no, they can't charge whatever they see fit.

Oh - so I can park where I like as long as I dont cause any damage then! Awesome! Trespassers United! :T

Herzlos

NotBothered wrote: »

The way I see it, the offer was to park on the land for a maximum of 2 hours - free of charge. No offer was made to extend that visit as after the 2 hours had expired you were no longer invited to park there! Failure to leave the premises after the maximum time allowed would be charged at whatever they saw fit!

True, there was an offer, but for it to be a valid contract it needs consideration. Since these signs are notoriously hard to find/read (contrary to the CoP) it's possible Beavis didn't even notice they existed.

Then since it was a contract, they can only claim for damages, which must be a reasonable GPEOL. Of course, there was no loss, so the £85 charge is unlawful.

If it was 2 hours free then £1/hour, they'd have a case, but it's just 2 hours free (with some illegible small print about an £85 charge for breach).