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

ManxRed

mo786uk wrote: »

In your opinion of course.

How many tickets are for willful overstayers and how many are for mistakes? It doesnt matter anyway because it will have nothing to do with the ultimate argument. A similar theory was put forward in the bank charges case when it was argued people who accidentally incurred overdraft charges shouldnt have to fund other customers' free bank accounts.

I suspect the SC is highly unlikely to be too fussed about how PE make their money and whether they would prefer money was made with an alternative strategy - they are of course there to focus on the specific point about penalties.

And lots of other people's opinions too, some of whom are the retailers themselves.

The problem with the system as it stands is that the profit of the companies involved is directly related to the number of tickets issued and the level of charges set. This makes it open to abuse by some of the more unscrupulous parking companies in the industry. I'll let others decide which companies are unscrupulous and which aren't but a casual glance at these forums at threads where people have been issued with tickets for NOT breaching any terms (and there are plenty) show a nice cross section of the industry as a whole really.

Evidence that genuine shoppers and drivers who have not broken any terms and conditions of a car park but still receive tickets is abundant on this forum and others, and indicates to me - in my opinion of course - that companies do whatever they can to maximise tickets issued.

Similarly the charges set are way above local council PCN equivalents, and were only reduced to £100 maximum when the BPA decided to impose a limit. More evidence - in my humble opinion naturally - that PPCs will charge what they can get away with rather than set a charge which acts as a proper deterrent and leave it at that.

By making Landowners meet the costs of the supposed value of their car parks - that you keep banging on about here - is the only way to remove the incentive to dish out tickets to all and sundry, regardless of whether they've abused a car park or not.

In my opinion.

The_Slithy_Tove

Ralph-y wrote: »

Carmageddon?

Interesting that a car park 500m from a main railway station isn't full of commuters. Is that too far to walk? There's a free car park about that distance from my local station, which is always full by 7am. But I guess people commute INTO Bristol, not out.

Also interesting is the fact that the retailers pushed back against a parking scheme. Compare that with all the cases you see on the forums where retailers claim there's nothing they can do about the unfair parking regime imposed on them. Whereas the collective clout they have through the rent they pay has considerable influence, if only they bothered.

bazster

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Whereas the collective clout they have through the rent they pay has considerable influence, if only they bothered.

I think you over-estimate that influence. Rents are reviewed infrequently, and even if a retailer is unhappy it's difficult and expensive to up-sticks and go elsewhere (even if there is a suitable "elsewhere" to move to).

Castle

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

It would be interesting if the outcome of all this forced PPCs to go down the contractural charge route. As well as the VAT and business rates issues, which will scare many of them, your average PPC's ability to write a sign which really does offer an unambiguous contract in a manner which can be deemed to be accepted (driving past a cluttered sign at 30mph does not do so) is fairly lacking. And then there's the Unfair Contract thing, which will, no doubt, be ruled on in due course.

Interesting times.

And of course the need to put in machines so that you can pay the charge.

getmore4less

mo786uk wrote: »

Perhaps, but fundamentally many land owners and customers would argue that without PPCs it would be a lot harder to go down to certain shops - that is the case in my town centre anyway.

---

I think the last question asked about cars taking up multiple spaces was with a general consideration of PPCs in general. The SC is likely to provide a flexible judgement to apply to all penalty clauses for all PPC not just thsoe that use ANPR like PE.

His point also was that just because you are slightly out of the white lien doesnt mean it is fair to hit you with an £85 fine.

I think it was one of the lords that pointed out(after answer was yes to the charge for being over the line a bit) that if every one just parked a bit further up so no loss of spaces it's a nice little earner.

or something like that.

Mike172

At the end of the Prankster's recent blog he states;

"If the Supreme Court rule in ParkingEye's favour we can expect even more clams; a feeding frenzy of claims going back 6 years would not be out of the question."

Now that is worrying!!!

I suspect if that is the case other PPC's will follow suite. I said in another post I did not care which way this case went and that it did not affect me personally (I only bait UKCPM), but if true that's a scary thought!!!

If they win I will start my own PPC. I work from home so I can manage it without anyone knowing, keep my current job, and steadily build up my own company and earn !!!! loads of money fleecing motorists. Genuis!!!!!


Off topic - but the suggestion that Gladstones earns money from encouraging IPC members to go to court, and then almost definitely loose, is absolutely brilliant. Hows that for irony? Toss pots!!!

fermi

regbrown

I hope he loses.

Mike172

regbrown wrote: »

I hope he loses.

Are you pro-PPC? Or just hope he loses for all the !!!! he has caused?

Iceweasel

regbrown wrote: »

I hope he loses.

Could you please explain why you think this.