So...

bod1467

bargepole wrote: »

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.

But what is that definition? If Council = £50 and PPC = £85, is that broadly in line? Statistically it is 70% more than the Council charge, verging on double. How can that be 'broadly' in line?

(Yes .. I know this is somewhat of a rhetorical question ... M'Learned Numpties have already said it is).

The_Slithy_Tove

bod1467 wrote: »

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

Actually, their strange logic allows it to be higher.

Para 100: It is higher than the penalty that a motorist would have had to pay for overstaying in an on-street parking space or a local authority car park. But a local authority would not necessarily allow two hours of free parking

trisontana

Our local authority allows for free parking in some of its car parks. If you want to stay longer, you pay when you first arrive. You also have to get a ticket from the machine for that free parking, just to prove what time you arrived

DCodd

Para 100: It is higher than the penalty that a motorist would have had to pay for overstaying in an on-street parking space or a local authority car park. But a local authority would not necessarily allow two hours of free parking

Strangely enough, the Council car park near me literally right next to a local train station has 3 hours free parking.


http://www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/info/20343/council_car_parks/470/banstead_and_tattenham_corner_car_parks

bm1957

TDA wrote: »

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.

Yes, and his line of reasoning to establish that a reasonable person would agree to the charge is that many do use the car parks. I'm suggesting that a petition of many motorists may negate his line of reasoning.

TDA

bazster wrote: »

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.

I don't disagree, the point I am making is that the proposition the poster I replied to made would not work - it is only evidence of the motorist's subjective opinion on the reasonableness of the terms. The SC has ruled it is reasonable on an objective basis - whether or not you agree with their analysis, that is the law.

Interestingly if the test was subjective I would have no hope of getting off the ticket. I would accept the terms personally. Never overstayed my welcome at a free car park yet and I attend one on a weekly basis.

TDA

bm1957 wrote: »

Yes, and his line of reasoning to establish that a reasonable person would agree to the charge is that many do use the car parks. I'm suggesting that a petition of many motorists may negate his line of reasoning.

Fair enough - fear it is clutching at straws somewhat. The amount of signatures would need to be huge given how many motorists there are in the UK and then you'd still need to force a ruling on it.

It wasn't the only reason Neuberger gave that he felt the charge was reasonable.

Herzlos

It only takes 10,000 names to get a response from the government on their petitioning site. I'm sure with MSE behind it we could hit that.

bm1957

TDA wrote: »

Fair enough - fear it is clutching at straws somewhat. The amount of signatures would need to be huge given how many motorists there are in the UK and then you'd still need to force a ruling on it.

It wasn't the only reason Neuberger gave that he felt the charge was reasonable.

Straws are all I have right now


Para. 108 suggests this was the sole line of reasoning for the determination he made.

bazster

TDA wrote: »

I don't disagree, the point I am making is that the proposition the poster I replied to made would not work - it is only evidence of the motorist's subjective opinion on the reasonableness of the terms. The SC has ruled it is reasonable on an objective basis - whether or not you agree with their analysis, that is the law.

Sure, wasn't trying to argue with you, just felt the need to point out Neuberger's flawed logic! Basically he tried to use Beavis and other, unspecified motorists as a proxy for "a reasonable person", and then asked them the wrong question!