So...

arthurx1234

Fergie76 wrote: »

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

Of course it is excessive, so it acts as a deterrent, simples!!!

I am a bit concerned however as the £85.00 is excessive compared to other penalties ie if get do not pay your fare on the Tyne and wear Metro the penalty fare is £20.00
http://www.nexus.org.uk/metro/guide-metro/penalty-fares

Also my local authority penalty charge is £35.00 rising to £70.00 if not paid in 14 days

Hopefully local authorities will not put their penalties up!!
Arthur

Brooker_Dave

Perhaps if a list was published of sites milked by PE, then consumers could organise a boycott of said sites?

I for 1 would not risk a £100+ fine just for being a good customer of some retail park or supermarket.

Brooker_Dave

arthurx1234 wrote: »

O
Hopefully local authorities will not put their penalties up!!

*Everyone* will put their penalties up.

Every small consumer transgression will now come with an £85 bill now the courts have said it's reasonable thing to do.

We live in a greed based economy after all.

bazster

arthurx1234 wrote: »

Hopefully local authorities will not put their penalties up!!
Arthur

They can't, local authority penalties are national policy and the government is hardly likely to increase them given that the DCLG has been waging war on over-zealous council ticketing for some time now.

Jim_AFCB

DCodd wrote: »

It depends on how annoyed the Government are about this SC ruling and their interpretation of the legislation. As for parking, if the Government wanted to make an example of this case and send out a message to both the SC and the litigatious parking companies they could do it by simply amending PoFA and removing keeper liability in the short term until better legislation was approved.

I dont believe there is a hope in hell of that happening.

Tory government, remember......

bazster

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Every small consumer transgression will now come with an £85 bill now the courts have said it's reasonable thing to do.

Except that for most small consumer transactions the trader doesn't know who you are, so you can just walk away without paying his stupid penalty.

The_Slithy_Tove

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Every small consumer transgression will now come with an £85 bill now the courts have said it's reasonable thing to do.

No they haven't. See John de Waal's analysis (http://www.hardwicke.co.uk/insights/articles/the-law-on-penalties-after-parkingeye-v-beavis), and the example near the end. In most cases the company won't be using such "penalties" to cover their business costs (and I find it a truly bizzarre ruling that this is allowed at all), and any such penalty is normally unlikely to have "some other wider commercial or socio-economic justification for the clause."

ManxRed

So, when I next go on a supermarket shop, it may well be cheaper to park on the double yellow lines in the highway adjacent to the supermarket, than in their car park?

fermi

Some comments from Barry and RAC here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-essex-34662790

TDA

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Not as easy as that.

I fear it rather is. What relevance does the fact they choose to spend the sum on operating costs rather than, say, a new Aston Martin have to do with VAT?

A liquidated damages clause is one whereby the parties fix the sum that will become payable on breach of a term. VAT does not apply to sums due under such clauses and this clearly is one.