So...

TDA

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

How about this for an approach going forward. If a parking charge is paid, it should be followed by an MCOL claim against the PPC, the landowner, the BPA (where applicable) and the DVLA. The case being that the PPC is in breach of the CoP (which is often the case, PE are particularly bad with compliant signage), the landowner contract (probably) says they must conform to the CoP, therefore the PPC is in breach of their contract and so the cannot issue a parking charge. The BPA and DVLA are liable for allowing keeper details to be released when the PPC has no cause to request them (see above) and are in breach of their KADOE contract, too.

So you want to sue them on the basis of contracts to which you are not a party? Three words. Privity of Contract.

daveyjp

Remember months ago there was a Govt consultation on private parking industry. This has still yet to report.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/parking-reform-tackling-unfair-practices

arthurx1234

ManxRed wrote: »

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?

Crazy but true

Arthur

onomatopoeia99

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.

Others have explained that in a judicial context the House of Lords (the appellate committee, known as the Law Lords specifically) is no longer relevant as it has been replaced by the Supreme Court. The next step is the European court of human rights if Mr Beavis feels his rights granted under the European Convention on Human Rights have been breached.

I can't find the "right to free parking on private land" lurking anywhere in it, so I think this is the end of the road.

You can't judicial review a decision of the highest court in the land - that fundamentally misunderstands what judicial review is for.

salmosalaris

TDA wrote: »

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.

VAT is payable on ticket revenue that the PPC is "allowed" to keep by the landowner . In PE's case this VAT is paid by the landowner .
It does rather betray whose damages are being claimed and begs the question how PE have any right to claim them as their own .

Neatly sidestepped by the judiciary throughout the sorry process .

fairleee

Ok, not a lawyer, but having had a look over the court's opinion, there are clear limitations to how it can be applied.

Firstly, the opinion rests on the assumption that the contract is in place, in this case because the signs in the car park were well distributed, legible, and easy to comprehend. So, poor signage will continue to be an Achilles Heel for PPCs.

Secondly, the decision rests on the belief that a reasonable driver would agree to the contract, based on the fact that the vast majority of the car park users abide by the terms of the contract - as such, there is a question mark over whether this can be applied to unreasonable circumstances (e.g. if the driver was parking to deal with an emergency, such as a break down).

Thirdly, the decision that the charge is commercially justifiable seems to rest on the fact that the business model of Parking Eye in this case is such that they do not receive any other income from their management of the car park, and their management of it offers a wider socio-economic benefit (the regular turn-over of parking spaces to avoid abuse of the car park and ensure genuine customers of the area retailers can get to the shops). As such, it would appear that this judgement may not apply to any car parks where there is an alternative source of revenue - for example, if the PPC is paid to manage the car park, or if there is a pay-and-display ticket system, or if there is a (paid) permit scheme in operation. In those cases, it seems unlikely that the PPC can argue commercial justification for the charge.

So, although I am sure we are going to see a lot of crowing from PPCs about this, and probably a flurry of LBAs suddenly citing the case, I believe the applicability of it to any case beyond those involving overstays in a well-signposted free car park, managed by a PPC for free, is highly questionable.

The_Slithy_Tove

fairleee wrote: »

So, although I am sure we are going to see a lot of crowing from PPCs about this, and probably a flurry of LBAs suddenly citing the case, I believe the applicability of it to any case beyond those involving overstays in a well-signposted free car park, managed by a PPC for free, is highly questionable.

While I would like to agree with your analysis [1], I fear that PPCs will use this as a sledgehammer in all cases. It then comes down to properly defending the situation, and making sure a lazy judge does not simply allow the claim without being made to decide on the applicability (or not) of this judgement.

[1]I would say that even in non-paid permit systems, it does not apply where a legitimate user happens not to display a permit. The socio-economic benefit fails in such cases.

Oldfatgrumpy

I suppose the ruling does now create a right for the average punter to apply contractual charges for infractions on his/her personal space. So, a notice on my fence creating a charge for anyone blocking my drive. Or on my front door for ignoring the "no junk mail" sign by my letterbox.

bm1957

Would a petition to PE, requesting they amend their charges downwards, amount to an attempt to re-negotiate? If it did, where does that leave Lord Neuberger's assertion that a reasonable motorist would have agreed without attempt to remove/renegotiate the term? Surely that assumption is a keystone to the entire judgement?

trisontana

As well as the overstaying aspect, what about the other made-up rules dreamt up by the PPCs? These include having one of your wheels touching the white line or parking in the "wrong" sort of bay. Then you have the problematical rule of "no return with x hours" when you might have two different drivers for the two instances. Does this ruling cover these situations?