So...

The_Slithy_Tove

My understanding of the Supreme Court is that there is NO CHANGE to the law concerning penalties, yet PE can still charge £85 for an overstay. Did I miss something?

esmerobbo

It seems it depends on the amount, because it is not excessive it is ok as far as I understood what they said.

djdestiny

What is excessive? Seems to me like a total waste of time and money.
So many grey areas still

The_Slithy_Tove

Prankster was pretty fast with his own summary: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/beavis-loses-parking-case-lord.html

bargepole

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

My understanding of the Supreme Court is that there is NO CHANGE to the law concerning penalties, yet PE can still charge £85 for an overstay. Did I miss something?

Yes, you missed the entire point.

They have updated the doctrine of penalties, so the Dunlop case is no longer the leading authority, it is these cases (Beavis and Makdessi).

A clause which is designed to deter breach can now be upheld, if it serves a legitimate purpose, and is not manifestly excessive.

Fergie76

What planet do these judges live on? £85-£100 might not be excessive to them, but it is to the average (wo)man.

Jim_AFCB

Very bad news for consumers in general, IMHO. Any company can now impose a "penalty" for all sorts of reasons......

bod1467

Is there any further appeal path? (e.g. House of Lords)

Will the Consumer Association launch a class action/HoL appeal/call for a judicial review? The SC ruling seems to encompass the worst fears of what the CA outlined.

esmerobbo

bod1467 wrote: »

Is there any further appeal path? (e.g. House of Lords)

Will the Consumer Association launch a class action/HoL appeal/call for a judicial review? The SC ruling seems to encompass the worst fears of what the CA outlined.

The supreme court replaced the house of Lords, only Europe I believe now, but I cant see it going there.

bargepole

bod1467 wrote: »

Is there any further appeal path? (e.g. House of Lords)

Will the Consumer Association launch a class action/HoL appeal/call for a judicial review? The SC ruling seems to encompass the worst fears of what the CA outlined.

The Supreme Court is the highest appellate court in the land. It replaced the House of Lords in 2010 for appeals.

SC decisions are not subject to Judicial Review - there are no judges senior to the ones who heard this appeal.

We are where we are, I'm afraid.

The_Slithy_Tove

bod1467 wrote: »

Is there any further appeal path? (e.g. House of Lords)

Nope. The SC replaced the House of Lords as the highest court in the land.

Having a quick peruse of the full judgement (which is long: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html), there are some things of interest:

• It notes that PE pay the landowner to run the scheme, so one could argue that it is only relevant in such cases
• It specifically refers to it as a "traffic maximisation sheme", so is really only relevant to overstaying, and not to all the other minor infractions that PPCs love to use
• It claims that the signage was adequate. We know that there are many cases where this is not so
• There has to be a contract to be breached. Thus any "No parking" or "Permit holders only" signage clearly does not establish a contract, despite what convoluted statement the signage goes on to attempt. No contract, no breach, i.e trespass
• GPEOL is dead