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

System

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.

..super complaint to the Competition and Markets Authority

And this is how their last one went.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2015/jul/18/competition-markets-authority-wrong-supermarkets-pricing

mo786uk

Could go either way this one.

I don;t think the arguments under the UTCCR will win out but the penalty one may.

The SC also has to consider of course that their decision could potentially kill off large aprts of the PPC idnustry overnight (or cause significant hassles anyway when the media start implying every ticket does not need to be paid) - so I am sure the potential for mass redundancies will weight on their mind.

I hope what they do is say the penalties are not allowed and 'recommend' parliament urgently regulates the industry.

The_Slithy_Tove

mo786uk wrote: »

The SC also has to consider of course that their decision could potentially kill off large aprts of the PPC idnustry overnight (or cause significant hassles anyway when the media start implying every ticket does not need to be paid) - so I am sure the potential for mass redundancies will weight on their mind.

Such arguments should have no place in the SC's decision. They are not there to support an industry. They are there to clarify the law.

bargepole

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Such arguments should have no place in the SC's decision. They are not there to support an industry. They are there to clarify the law.

Exactly. And, if a precedent is needed, Parliament had no difficulty in passing legislation which killed off the private clampers.

The_Deep

... if a precedent is needed, Parliament had no difficulty in passing legislation which killed off the private clampers.

... or fox hunting, or pubs, or tobacco sales.

bazster

Fortunately my local pub is alive and well (hic!)

Herzlos

The_Deep wrote: »

... if a precedent is needed, Parliament had no difficulty in passing legislation which killed off the private clampers.

... or fox hunting, or pubs, or tobacco sales.

Or the slave trade.

It's really not up to the lawmakers to consider jobs when deciding if something is legal or not. The people running and working for these companies know it's in a very dodgy legal grey area.

bazster

Legalising burglary would create thousands of new jobs. Perhaps the lawmakers should consider it!

The_Slithy_Tove

Herzlos wrote: »

It's really not up to the lawmakers to consider jobs when deciding if something is legal or not.

"Lawmakers" usually refers to MPs, i.e. those who pass legislation. Judges and courts don't make the law, they apply it, interpret it and sometimes even clarify it.

Anyhoo, that wasn't my point.

Herzlos wrote: »

The people running and working for these companies know it's in a very dodgy legal grey area.

Which judge was it who commented that PE's business model, i.e. they only make money from the penalties* they try to impose, is a rather strange one indeed.

*I use the word penalty here, as PE seem to freely admit they are so.

bargepole

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Which judge was it who commented that PE's business model, i.e. they only make money from the penalties* they try to impose, is a rather strange one indeed.

It was Deputy District Judge Buckley in Parking Eye v Clarke (Barrow-in-Furness County Court, 3JD00517, 27/01/2014) who uttered these words:


15. So the decision to determine whether it is damages for breach with commercial justification or a penalty being imposed as a punitive penalty is really not for these Claimants but for the operators of the land and the owners of the business. At the moment, as it seems to me, we have a rather bizarre situation where the present Claimants make no money apparently from those who comply with the terms of the contract (unless they receive a fee fromtheir principals) and make their profit, (and there is nothing wrong in making profit, I agree with the Claimants on this), from those who are in breach of their contract. Well, that cannot be right, That is nonsense it seems to me.