I owe Ukpc and scs £1200

HO87

Do UKPC have standing to pursue matters in trespass? The fact that the OP has been banned would seem to suggest that is the reality. And on what basis do UKPC explain their charges for damages in trespass? £5-£10 at most per ticket for trespass - parking a car in a car park is hardly going to cause any physical damage and will they have evidence of inconvenience or obstruction?

bazster

The_Deep wrote: »

The OP is trespassing, certainly, but could UKPC claim in court that they/the landowner we out of pocket to the tune of several hundred pounds, I very much doubt it.

If Beavis loses then that is exactly what they will not need to prove. That's the whole point of the case.

Cases like this will become almost impossible to win in court if BB loses: Judge Moloney in Cambridge set out his stall right from the beginning by saying that he wanted a reason for judges to be able to strike out defences in private parking cases, and that's exactly what they will do if the Supreme Court gives them the go-ahead by finding against BB.

TDA

The_Deep wrote: »

Hang on Mr B, whether Beavis wins or loses, there is still no commercial justification in charging such a penalty.


The OP is trespassing, certainly, but could UKPC claim in court that they/the landowner we out of pocket to the tune of several hundred pounds, I very much doubt it.


What the landowner should do is remove the offending vehicle(s), or otherwise sanction their disobedient employee. I do not see where UKPC play a part in what appears to be a workplace dispute.

I am not sure you understand the Court of Appeal judgment that is currently under appeal.

Commercial justification was largely sidestepped for what one of the Supreme Court judges referred to at trial as 'social justification'.

If the Court of Appeal judgment is upheld it will mean that the amount charged does not have to reflect the loss of the operator - provided it is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. A figure of £85 will pass this test and it is likely a figure of £100 will too.

The_Deep

A figure of £85-100 for an individual infraction may well satisfy some judges as reasonable compensation, but others may think that it is excessive for a few minutes overstay in a free car park. In this case however it is considerably more than that, the OP estimates that he is likely to owe c@ £1200.

Given UKPC's recent difficulties, I very much doubt if they could find a judge who would look favourably at their business practices.

I suspect that, even if Beavis does lose, the judgement will be so heavily hedged that very few cases will be judged to be exactly similar, and certainly not in this case.


There is no commercial or social justification, neither the landowner nor the PPC have sustained losses, and the PPC is not paying the landowner to farm the site.

TDA

The_Deep wrote: »

A figure of £85-100 for an individual infraction may well satisfy some judges as reasonable compensation, but others may think that it is excessive for a few minutes overstay in a free car park. In this case however it is considerably more than that, the OP estimates that he is likely to owe c@ £1200.

Given UKPC's recent difficulties, I very much doubt if they could find a judge who would look favourably at their business practices.

I suspect that, even if Beavis does lose, the judgement will be so heavily hedged that very few cases will be judged to be exactly similar, and certainly not in this case.


There is no commercial or social justification, neither the landowner nor the PPC have sustained losses, and the PPC is not paying the landowner to farm the site.

The courts examine each contract individually - the claim is not for 1200 pounds for a single breach it is for 1200 pounds for multiple breaches each attracting a 100 charge. If the SC uphold the CoA judgment in its entirety this will not be deemed extravagant.

I don't see what relevance UKPC's business practices have here where the OP clearly HAS breached the terms and conditions and no fraudulent activity has taken place? If someone breaches a contract they have with VW they can't point to the emissions scandal and expect the court to rule in their favour when emissions has nothing to do with the case at hand.

In Beavis justification was found in the time limit ensuring a turnover of shoppers through increased available parking spaces which they argued was a benefit to landowner and most motorists alike.

Here, parking appears to be limited (to staff with permits) so clearly it is in the interests of staff permit holders and the landowner to prevent the limited space being occupied by someone parking in breach of the terms. It is very much an analogous case.

The_Slithy_Tove

TDA wrote: »

It is very much an analogous case.

Not at all. There seems to be an assumption that the charges are due to a breach of contract. There've been no details on this, and no visibility of the signage. If it's a permit holders only car park, and the signage says as much, then there can be no contract to breach. (A sign saying "Permit Holders Only" and then going on to say you are contracturally agreeing to pay £100 if you are not authorised (by virtue of a permit) or similar is nonsense, as you can't create a contract based on doing something which is forbidden.) Therefore it must be a case of trespass, which is a whole new ball game. The PPC won't see it that way, of course, as they cannot sue over trespass.

TDA

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Not at all. There seems to be an assumption that the charges are due to a breach of contract. There've been no details on this, and no visibility of the signage. If it's a permit holders only car park, and the signage says as much, then there can be no contract to breach. (A sign saying "Permit Holders Only" and then going on to say you are contracturally agreeing to pay £100 if you are not authorised (by virtue of a permit) or similar is nonsense, as you can't create a contract based on doing something which is forbidden.) Therefore it must be a case of trespass, which is a whole new ball game. The PPC won't see it that way, of course, as they cannot sue over trespass.

Fair point a number of assumptions have been made. I would stand by the above comments however provided the signage is currently worded so as to form a contract.

Mr.sparrow

Just a quick one, all tickets issued, say I parked at Hythe Road, when infact I was parking on salter Street.
Does this mean all tickets are invalid?

The_Slithy_Tove

Mr.sparrow wrote: »

Just a quick one, all tickets issued, say I parked at Hythe Road, when infact I was parking on salter Street.
Does this mean all tickets are invalid?

Drip!

Another tiny drop of information. How about the whole story? What EXACTLY do the notices say? What EXACTLY does the signage say? What are the dates? What EXACTLY does the Claim Form say?

peter_the_piper

I'm sorry but I just don't think all this rings true. 17 tickets and he is wondering what to do? No-one in their right mind ignores the first few then goes on for another 14 without doing something.
Bye.