ParkingEye v Beavis at the Supreme Court: What’s Happening This Week

bargepole

The final determination of Barry Beavis’s long running battle with Parking Eye takes place at the Supreme Court this week, having started over eighteen months ago at Chelmsford County Court when the District Judge there referred it to the Circuit Judge, HHJ Moloney QC, to be heard as a ‘test case’.

After a hearing at Cambridge County Court in April 2014, Moloney ruled in favour of Parking Eye, saying that their £85 charge had ‘all the characteristics of a penalty’, but upheld it because it was ‘commercially justifiable’.

Moloney arranged for a leapfrog appeal to the Court of Appeal, where the case was heard by three appeal court judges in February 2015, and whose judgment eventually materialised in April. They didn’t quite agree with Moloney on the commercial justification argument, but instead ruled that there were ‘social and public policy’ reasons for upholding the charge, and that they found the figure of £85 to be not ‘extravagant and unconscionable’. Very unusually, they granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land.

The Supreme Court has decided to join the case to another case about unenforceable penalties, which is Cavendish Square Holdings v El Makdessi. This was listed for a three day hearing this week, 21 – 23 July, and the Beavis case (UKSC 2015/0116) will be heard on the third of those three days (Thursday 23/07).

Barry Beavis will be represented by John de Waal QC, and his Written Case is available here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pdvtj17wxkza3l1/ParkingEye%20v%20Beavis%20-%20Appellant%27s%20Written%20Case%2029%2006%2015.pdf?dl=0

The Consumers’ Association has again been given permission to intervene in the case, and their barrister Julia Smith’s Submission is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/dsv1lt26gqqojme/CA%20submission%20SC.pdf?dl=0

This time, they have also been granted permission to make oral arguments, and with Julia Smith unavailable, they will be ably represented by Christopher Butcher QC.

Parking Eye’s counsel is again Jonathan Kirk QC, whose Written Case for the Respondent is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hjfpyz1jntc2kqm/Kirk%20Written%20case%20%28pdf%29.pdf?dl=0

The entire proceedings will be streamed online, on this link: https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

For anyone wishing to attend, the case will be in Court 1 which has an 80-seat public gallery, and there is a cafe inside the building. The address is Parliament Square, London, SW1P 3BD (opposite the Palace of Westminster).

With the court closing down for its summer break on 31 July, and reconvening on 1 October, it is unlikely that the result will be known until the autumn.

Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, as the name implies, are binding on all lower courts in all four countries of the UK. The judgment will effectively mean that all (properly issued) private parking charges are legally enforceable, or that they are not. A significant number of POPLA appeals, and small claims court cases, have been stayed pending the outcome of this, and it will be squeaky bum time for both motorists and PPCs.


Those PPCs who rely on the so-called ‘contractually agreed charge’ model (mostly the IPC crew) will claim that this doesn’t affect them, but the reality is that most District Judges in small claims hearings won’t make the fine distinction between breach of contract and contractually agreed sum, which are really two sides of the same coin.

NEWBIES PLEASE NOTE: THIS THREAD IS FOR DISCUSSION OF THE SUPREME COURT CASE - DO NOT POST QUERIES ABOUT YOUR CASE ON HERE – START YOUR OWN THREAD.

fermi

Dropbox 404 error on your 1st 2 links.

bargepole

fermi wrote: »

Dropbox 404 error on your 1st 2 links.

Thanks - fixed now.

Mike172

I think I am the only one that doesn't care how this turns out.

If POPLA was still going to handle appeals for the BPA then not a lot would change in terms of appeals; forget GPEOL and appeal on 5 or 6 other points. I really don't believe firms will start fining for spilling coffee on the floor or something as petty as that.

What I am worried about is the new Ombudsman Service replacing POPLA and the suggestion they are going to be as bad as the IAS. This Beavis case and the result is entirely irreverent when you consider the state of the private parking industry as a whole. Who cares if the charges are commercially justifiable; what people should be really worried about is the blatant abuse of PPC's and the appeal services. !!!!ing disgraceful. I cant imagine how appallingly bad the industry will be in 6 months when you look at it now....

I actually quite like the BPA and POPLA and I am sad to see them go. Because whats coming next is really worrying.

bazster

Thanks BP for such a clear and concise exposition.

bazster

Mike172 wrote: »

I think I am the only one that doesn't care how this turns out.

If POPLA was still going to handle appeals for the BPA then not a lot would change in terms of appeals; forget GPEOL and appeal on 5 or 6 other points. I really don't believe firms will start fining for spilling coffee on the floor or something as petty as that.

I already pointed out to you on another thread that certain budget hotel chains are already "fining" customers for smoking in their rooms (often when the customer did no such thing).

I have no doubt that unscrupulous businesses are already performing the cynical calculus: juicy new income stream vs. reputational damage; subtract the latter from the former, and if the result is positive, waa-hay, private fines here we come!

Mike172 wrote: »

What I am worried about is the new Ombudsman Service replacing POPLA and the suggestion they are going to be as bad as the IAS. This Beavis case and the result is entirely irreverent when you consider the state of the private parking industry as a whole. Who cares if the charges are commercially justifiable; what people should be really worried about is the blatant abuse of PPC's and the appeal services. !!!!ing disgraceful. I cant imagine how appallingly bad the industry will be in 6 months when you look at it now....

I actually quite like the BPA and POPLA and I am sad to see them go. Because whats coming next is really worrying.

Given that only 1% of cases go to PoPLA it's actually a near irrelevance.

Mike172

bazster wrote: »

Given that only 1% of cases go to PoPLA it's actually a near irrelevance.

Apologies. I forget that figure is so small so you are right.

Concerns me personally, though. So much so ive actually turned my permit the right way up....

bazster

Mike172 wrote: »

Apologies. I forget that figure is so small so you are right.

Concerns me personally, though. So much so ive actually turned my permit the right way up....

:rotfl:

Your fight is admirable, I hope that the OS flavour of PoPLA helps you to flip your permit again!

Northlakes

Enjoyed reading the Beavis arguments. His legal team were quite right to focus on consumer legislation where fairness is at the forefront.

If the commercial justification argument was to stand all the land agents would be holding auctions among PPC's about how much they were prepared to pay and £85 penalty would soon become £170 and so on.
A consumer is what is described and has no choice other than to agree at some point to these unfair contracts. They have no choice or opportunity of bargaining in the matter.

Hopefully the SC will make the correct decision.

The_Deep

What I am worried about is the new Ombudsman Service replacing POPLA and the suggestion they are going to be as bad as the IAS.

I have only used them once and was satisfied with the result. I very much doubt if they could match the IAS for corruption and partiality, and I am sure that they are more accountable, they will, surely have to comply with the new ADR regulations. Are any of their directors connected to Gladstones?

trisontana

Glad to see that the Consumer's Association have been granted a more active role in this case. Don't forget that it's not just another lobby group, but has statutory powers under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. It can seek an injunction to restrain the use of an unfair contract term by a trader against consumers.

It also has the power under The Enterprise Act of 2002 to take action on behalf of consumers, including the ability to bring a super complaint to the OFT.