Son in Law got court papers from Parking Eye

bod1467

Co-op used to do that quite regularly, but then stopped doing so. Is this a reversal of stance?

One thing to bear in mind ... if a robust defence is presented then CEL/DEAL rarely attend the actual court hearing. There are lots of examples of this on Parking Prankster's blog.

TDA

The_Deep wrote: »

I do have to say I don't hold out much hope after reading the Bevis appeal

Then you should, the Beavis decision was based on a set of very specific circumstances, for instance, PE paid the landlord £30,000 a year to farm the car park, so was, in effect, the landowner.

Beavis is not the silver bullet some PPCs seem to think it is.

Except not really. It was stated in Paragraph 29 of the judgment that "the terms on which ParkingEye chose to contract with the Pension Fund are irrelevant". The fact that PE pay a fee to 'manage' the car park bears no relevance to the question of whether the charge is enforceable or not.

Certainly it is true that the Supreme Court might find differently, but you have stated on numerous occasions now that the Beavis decision was influenced by the payments PE made to the landowner which is simply incorrect and demonstrates either that you haven't read the judgment or that you don't understand it.

Northlakes

TDA wrote: »

Except not really. It was stated in Paragraph 29 of the judgment that "the terms on which ParkingEye chose to contract with the Pension Fund are irrelevant". The fact that PE pay a fee to 'manage' the car park bears no relevance to the question of whether the charge is enforceable or not.

Certainly it is true that the Supreme Court might find differently, but you have stated on numerous occasions now that the Beavis decision was influenced by the payments PE made to the landowner which is simply incorrect and demonstrates either that you haven't read the judgment or that you don't understand it.

Where I think the judiciary got the Beavis case wrong was their interpretation of POFA 2012 referred to in para 28.
Certainly parliament agreed for the need to have parking charges and for their recovery but I'm sure that parliament was not of the understanding that all the costs (including the leasing costs of the car park by PE) were deemed to be recoverable from only
from the motorists who breached PE's T&C's.

As has been said previously this piece of legislation has been poorly drafted and certainly not specific enough. Parliament probably had little idea at that time that PPC's were 'renting' car parks so that any defaulter could be issued with a charge.

If a quite separate business activity is being carried out on that car park the local authority should have required that a business rates review be carried out by the valuation office. Perhaps Mr Beavis should take that up.

I have no doubt in my mind and that of the court, that the amount charged was a penalty but I still think that rental costs should not be included in what would be a new commercially justified GPEOL.

Costs in this cost car park should be apportioned to all users not just those who breach self-imposed T& C's.