So...

TDA

bm1957 wrote: »

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?

The test is objective not subjective.

bm1957

TDA wrote: »

The test is objective not subjective.

Either you didn't understand what I said or you don't understand what you said...


Which test are you referring to? Whether the clause would be negotiated? I think you'll find Lord N's line of reasoning relies on it being subjective (i.e. that people actually use the car parks without attempting to negotiate).

TDA

bm1957 wrote: »

Either you didn't understand what I said or you don't understand what you said...


Which test are you referring to? Whether the clause would be negotiated? I think you'll find Lord N's line of reasoning relies on it being subjective (i.e. that people actually use the car parks without attempting to negotiate).

Lol...

Lord Neuberger states at para 108 that the test under UTCCR is objective - it doesn't matter whether Mr Beavis himself would have agreed to the charge (or, in the example you gave, the motorist who sent the petition) it is whether a reasonable person in his position would have.

bazster

TDA wrote: »

Lord Neuberger states at para 108 that the test under UTCCR is objective - it doesn't matter whether Mr Beavis himself would have agreed to the charge (or, in the example you gave, the motorist who sent the petition) it is whether a reasonable person in his position would have.

And his conclusion on that point is the most ridiculous part of the whole judgment. The question is whether a reasonable person would've agreed to the charge had they been in a position to negotiate it. BB, and the other motorists referred to by Neuberger as having agreed to the charge, were not in such a position, so their supposed agreement to the charge tells us (and Neuberger) nothing about what a reasonable person in a position to negotiate would have done.

pustit

Will a 40% discount for early payment still apply ?
If so, is the reduced amount still a reasonable profit for the PPC ?
In which case would not £85 be deemed an unreasonable amount to charge ?

The_Slithy_Tove

pustit wrote: »

Will a 40% discount for early payment still apply ?
If so, is the reduced amount still a reasonable profit for the PPC ?
In which case would not £85 be deemed an unreasonable amount to charge ?

I would say that almost any charge could be deemed "extravagent", even given that it's allowed to cover the PE's business costs, as their profit margin is pretty hefty. A far lower amount could be levied, and they would still turn a profit.

bod1467

The reality is Common sense would dictate ... any amount greater than lawful penalty charges levied in neighbouring Council car parks is extravagant and unconscionable.

ManxRed

I wonder if this will now be open season.

The BPA will - within reason - remove some of the shackles on amounts, and the PPCs will increase charges to see how far they can push it. They've tried all ways and means to increase profits by issuing tickets where no contravention has occurred (and they won't stop this) but clearly their motivation has always been profit, they don't give a stuff about parking management, and this is just the ruling they need to increase profits exponentially.

There'll be Carmageddon alright, but not in the way the BPA meant it.

bargepole

bod1467 wrote: »

The reality is ... any amount greater than lawful penalty charges levied in neighbouring Council car parks is extravagant and unconscionable.

An admirable sentiment, but I'm afraid that District Judges in small claims hearings are unlikely to see it that way. As long as it's 'broadly' in line with council charges, it will be waved through.

bod1467

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

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.

Given the Supreme Court has not acted on this, Which? is now planning to take the issue up with government ministers because any reversal of the judgment will require changes to the law.

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2015/11/private-parking-fines-fair-says-supreme-court-ruling-421168/