MSE News: Parking campaigner fails to challenge 'excessive' charge at Supreme Court

Former_MSE_Helen

A motorist who mounted legal proceedings against a private parking firm has lost the case at The Supreme Court...

Read the full story:

Parking campaigner fails to challenge 'excessive' fine at Supreme Court




Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

bod1467

At least MSE are on the ball (time-wise) this time ... usually they are at least a week late with their articles.

HO87

Best be careful.

MSE might impose a maximum post length or maximum number of posts daily and charge £10 for going over those limits.

A restaurateur might charge you for dirtying his napkins or spilling food on his carpet, drinking from the wrong side of a wine glass or arriving a couple of minutes late for a booking.

Supermarkets could impose extra charges for pushing a trolley the wrong way up/down an aisle, going over trolley use time limits or loading beyond the load line.

Bus and coach operators might charge for failing to sit within seat lines or wiping the windows of condensation.

It seems that provided there is some overriding principle in play and the charge is a deterrent against doing other than that principle then that's good enough - provided there was a warning sign.

This is what this judgment allows for.

fermi

The Law on Penalties After ParkingEye v Beavis : Articles : Insights : Hardwicke

Author: John de Waal QC - Barry's QC

phillw

To avoid junk mail I am going to start sending invoices for £100 to anyone who sends me unsolicited material.

I'll make sure I put the sign somewhere which makes it pretty much unreadable.

The supreme court says these charges are ok.

robbies_gal

rididculus just watching now-the charge the judge said wasnt unreasonable

not looking good for my invoice!

Coupon-mad

Lord Toulson was the only one who saw it for what it really is.

fil_cad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Lord Toulson was the only one who saw it for what it really is.

The rest must have shares in crapita.

Marktheshark

I shall place this notice inside my car windscreen.

Contractual parking offers:
Any offered contractual parking charge notices shall be subject to a contract formation fee of £150, if you do not agree to this contractual offer, do not send a parking charge notice to the keeper of this vehicle.
This is a Contractual offer to accept the contractual formulation charge.

As I read the judgement of the Judges, this is good enough to constitute a contract, its a sign and they have ample opportunity to read and accept the offer.

Lets not get over carried away here, they can have it one way or the other and what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Get your contractual offers printed and displayed in your cars, its open season !

Jim_AFCB

Now that would make for an interesting court case.... I dare someone to try it! Anything to match the PPCs in the sh*t-housery stakes...

It wouldn't work, surely... much as I would like it to! Especially with ANPR operated car parks. How could they enter into a contract?

Marktheshark

Jim_AFCB wrote: »

Now that would make for an interesting court case.... I dare someone to try it! Anything to match the PPCs in the sh*t-housery stakes...

It wouldn't work, surely... much as I would like it to! Especially with ANPR operated car parks. How could they enter into a contract?

You have afforded them every available opportunity to read the contract, which according to the judges is more than good enough to form a contract.

Lets be honest, it is not a bad thing they won.
Now they will overcook the goose once and for all and MP's are going to be forced to act like they did clampers.
Let us not forget, many Judges supported Clampers in court cases as well.