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

Half_way

Smoking fine in a travel lodge?
Also the consumer association/which article mentions some of the possibilities

Castle

Half_way wrote: »

Smoking fine in a travel lodge?
Also the consumer association/which article mentions some of the possibilities

Technically the "fine" would be for breach of contract as Travelodge cannot actually fine anybody. They would probably call it a extra cleaning charge for your room. Talking of hotels, maybe I can charge £100 for when the free wifi drops out; breach of contract and all that!

Marktheshark

Courts service in the UK operate as a business and make a profit.
Therefore the judiciary had a vested interest in the decisioning as their employer stands to financially gain by a gross increase in court applications and revenue.
This can not be fair justice where those making the decisions stand to profit.

I am quite sure the EU courts would look at this point.

It does not have to be Beavis, the whole system can be bypassed on Human rights act if fair justice is denied by a rubber stamping based on this precedent.

The_Slithy_Tove

Marktheshark wrote: »

The wider implications for every scammer in the country are enormous.
Offer someone a phone contract that looks a bargain and build in a penalty that they lose their house ?

No. Read John de Waal's analysis where he paints just such a scenario (though with a somewhat less sever penalty - yours is clearly "unconscionable and extravagant"):
http://www.hardwicke.co.uk/insights/articles/the-law-on-penalties-after-parkingeye-v-beavis

Castle

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

No. Read John de Waal's analysis where he paints just such a scenario (though with a somewhat less sever penalty - yours is clearly "unconscionable and extravagant"):
http://www.hardwicke.co.uk/insights/articles/the-law-on-penalties-after-parkingeye-v-beavis

The analysis is recommended reading but as John says:-
"But what that commercial justification is and – dare we say it – whose commercial interest – remains to be worked out on a case by case basis".

bazster

Marktheshark wrote: »

Counter claiming the parking charge against the actual landowner so they are dragged in to court and only get £90 towards their solicitors bill is a new idea.

They will soon get fed up with getting dragged in to court over parking matters.
Time to start playing the dirty game me thinks.

I can see the potential. Many companies simply pay small claims because it's not worth the trouble and expense of fighting them. A significant number of such would put them in a cleft stick: pay them to avoid the expense and hassle, or defend them and be put to considerable expense and hassle.

trisontana

If you take that "commercial interest and the need to make a profit" argument to its logical conclusion, then any mugger could claim that point in justifying robbing people to feed their drug habit.

Going back to the penalty argument, I though that one of the tenants of our common law was that one citizen (in this case the PPC) cannot "punish" another citizen (the motorist) by means of a penalty. Only the courts can punish citizens, not some private individual. That way lies vigilantes and mob rule.

Marktheshark

bazster wrote: »

I can see the potential. Many companies simply pay small claims because it's not worth the trouble and expense of fighting them. A significant number of such would put them in a cleft stick: pay them to avoid the expense and hassle, or defend them and be put to considerable expense and hassle.

I feel for the extra £90 risk, dragging the actual landowner/ contract party in to court, will soon make them aware of what is happening to their customers as well.
They will be getting a front row seat.
They wont be able to use the litigants solicitor as they joint defendant.
It will all get very expensive indeed for them, if they fail to turn up, you should get counter claim by default of no defence entered.

At present its a win win situation for the greedy landowner, sit back, wait for the easy money.
Getting dragged to court and rolled up in the court case is not going to be fun is it.
Not so easy money now.

trisontana

There is a suspicion that certain stores (such as Aldi) have a secret agreement with the PPC that none of their customers will be taken to court. This does show that they are very wary of bad publicity over this issue.

Fruitcake

I am not clever enough to understand all the implications or methods needed to combat this travesty, but is there any mileage in adding one's own contract clause in an appeal?


Something like, "if you do not cancel this now, you agree to pay me a contractual fee of 85 quid if my appeal is upheld by PoPLA or a court, in addition to any other expenses I have incurred in fighting your baseless claim"


Obviously this would only work with correct legal wording, and only if someone would then actually take this to the small claims court.