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

salmosalaris

No , the judgment makes quite clear that the correct interpretation is that there was a contractual licence . So the argument that there is no contract in a free car park is destined to fail unless the signage is dramatically different .

nigelbb

I think that it's pretty clear for a supermarket car park that the retailer is offering a licence to park as an incentive for the motorist to shop in their store rather than that of another retailer. One local Tesco has an enormous FREE PARKING sign at the entrance that cannot possibly be supplanted by claims of a contract with the PPC who have their signs high up on lamp posts in an unreadably tiny font. The retailer offers other free facilities e.g. WiFi, trolleys, toilets none of which involve the claim that the shopper enters into a contract with the retailer.

The situation is murkier when as in Riverside Chelmsford it's a retail park & the car park isn't managed by the retailer nor by their agent but is actually operated by a PPC by payment of a fishing licence to the landowner.

Another reason why there is no contract because there is no consideration despite HHJ Moloney's convoluted reasoning that a pre-existing obligation was also good consideration. If Beavis had won on lack of consideration then it isn't such a big barrier to PPCs as they could introduce some peppercorn payment like the £1 deposit on shopping trolleys. However they haven't implemented this yet so their so called contract in a free car park still fails through lack of consideration.

The_Slithy_Tove

nigelbb wrote: »

I think that it's pretty clear for a supermarket car park that the retailer is offering a licence to park as an incentive for the motorist to shop in their store rather than that of another retailer. One local Tesco has an enormous FREE PARKING sign at the entrance that cannot possibly be supplanted by claims of a contract with the PPC who have their signs high up on lamp posts in an unreadably tiny font. The retailer offers other free facilities e.g. WiFi, trolleys, toilets none of which involve the claim that the shopper enters into a contract with the retailer.

The situation is murkier when as in Riverside Chelmsford it's a retail park & the car park isn't managed by the retailer nor by their agent but is actually operated by a PPC by payment of a fishing licence to the landowner.

Another reason why there is no contract because there is no consideration despite HHJ Moloney's convoluted reasoning that a pre-existing obligation was also good consideration. If Beavis had won on lack of consideration then it isn't such a big barrier to PPCs as they could introduce some peppercorn payment like the £1 deposit on shopping trolleys. However they haven't implemented this yet so their so called contract in a free car park still fails through lack of consideration.

But would you want to argue that in front of a judge who has "Beavis Supreme Court judgement" rattling around in his/her head?

salmosalaris

nigelbb wrote: »

I think that it's pretty clear for a supermarket car park that the retailer is offering a licence to park as an incentive for the motorist to shop in their store rather than that of another retailer. One local Tesco has an enormous FREE PARKING sign at the entrance that cannot possibly be supplanted by claims of a contract with the PPC who have their signs high up on lamp posts in an unreadably tiny font. The retailer offers other free facilities e.g. WiFi, trolleys, toilets none of which involve the claim that the shopper enters into a contract with the retailer.

The situation is murkier when as in Riverside Chelmsford it's a retail park & the car park isn't managed by the retailer nor by their agent but is actually operated by a PPC by payment of a fishing licence to the landowner.

Another reason why there is no contract because there is no consideration despite HHJ Moloney's convoluted reasoning that a pre-existing obligation was also good consideration. If Beavis had won on lack of consideration then it isn't such a big barrier to PPCs as they could introduce some peppercorn payment like the £1 deposit on shopping trolleys. However they haven't implemented this yet so their so called contract in a free car park still fails through lack of consideration.

Their lordships disagree with you

"190. It may be suggested that Mr Beavis thereby promised nothing which can in law constitute valuable consideration. He was being given a licence, on conditions, and he would have been a trespasser if he overstayed or failed to
comply with its other conditions. But ParkingEye was not in possession of the car park, or capable of bringing proceedings in trespass. It had a mere right to
control parking at the site - the right to permit or refuse others to park there on such conditions as it might stipulate. By promising ParkingEye not to overstay
and to comply with its other conditions, Mr Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise have had, to enforce such conditions against him in contract. Even if no Parking Charge had been stipulated, enforcement would
still have been possible in law, even if a claim for damages or for an injunction might not in practice have been likely. With the stipulated Parking Charge, the nature of the intended contract is even clearer, although the question arises
whether the Parking Charge is an unenforceable penalty. The quid pro quo provided by ParkingEye in return for Mr Beavis’s promise was the grant of permission to park for up to two hours in its discretion free of charge, on conditions. Each party thus gave the other valuable consideration."

And
"94. It was common ground before the Court of Appeal, and is common
ground in this court, that on the facts which we have just summarised there was
a contract between Mr Beavis and ParkingEye. Mr Beavis had a contractual
licence to park his car in the retail park on the terms of the notice posted at the
entrance, which he accepted by entering the site. Those terms were that he
would stay for not more than two hours, that he would park only within the
marked bays, that he would not park in bays reserved for blue badge holders,
and that on breach of any of those terms he would pay £85. Moore-Bick LJ in
the Court of Appeal was inclined to doubt this analysis, and at one stage so
were we. But, on reflection, we think that it is correct. The £85 is described in
the notice as a “parking charge”, but no one suggests that that label is
conclusive. In our view it was not, as a matter of contractual analysis, a charge
for the right to park, nor was it a charge for the right to overstay the two-hour
limit. Not only is the £85 payable upon certain breaches which may occur
within the two-hour free parking period, but there is no fixed period of time for
which the motorist is permitted to stay after the two hours have expired,...."

The_Slithy_Tove

salmosalaris wrote: »

Their lordships disagree with you

"190. It may be suggested that Mr Beavis thereby promised nothing which can in law constitute valuable consideration. He was being given a licence, on conditions, and he would have been a trespasser if he overstayed or failed to
comply with its other conditions. But ParkingEye was not in possession of the car park, or capable of bringing proceedings in trespass. It had a mere right to
control parking at the site - the right to permit or refuse others to park there on such conditions as it might stipulate. By promising ParkingEye not to overstay
and to comply with its other conditions, Mr Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise have had, to enforce such conditions against him in contract. Even if no Parking Charge had been stipulated, enforcement would
still have been possible in law, even if a claim for damages or for an injunction might not in practice have been likely. With the stipulated Parking Charge, the nature of the intended contract is even clearer, although the question arises
whether the Parking Charge is an unenforceable penalty. The quid pro quo provided by ParkingEye in return for Mr Beavis’s promise was the grant of permission to park for up to two hours in its discretion free of charge, on conditions. Each party thus gave the other valuable consideration."

I hope that paragraph does not convert all "trespass" events into covenient breach of contract with a deterrent level (rather than GPEOL) charge. I hope that in cases of, say, a permit holders only car park, or area where parking is forbidden, then there is no offer to park (unless you have a permit), and therefore no contract can possibly be in force.

bazster

Wot Nigel said.

nigelbb

salmosalaris wrote: »

Their lordships disagree with you

"190. It may be suggested that Mr Beavis thereby promised nothing which can in law constitute valuable consideration. He was being given a licence, on conditions, and he would have been a trespasser if he overstayed or failed to
comply with its other conditions. But ParkingEye was not in possession of the car park, or capable of bringing proceedings in trespass. It had a mere right to control parking at the site - the right to permit or refuse others to park there on such conditions as it might stipulate. By promising ParkingEye not to overstay and to comply with its other conditions, Mr Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise have had, to enforce such conditions against him in contract. Even if no Parking Charge had been stipulated, enforcement would
still have been possible in law, even if a claim for damages or for an injunction might not in practice have been likely. With the stipulated Parking Charge, the nature of the intended contract is even clearer, although the question arises
whether the Parking Charge is an unenforceable penalty. The quid pro quo provided by ParkingEye in return for Mr Beavis’s promise was the grant of permission to park for up to two hours in its discretion free of charge, on conditions. Each party thus gave the other valuable consideration."

This is not the case where the retailer offers free parking on a conditional licence as an incentive to shop at the store. I agree that the situation is different when the 3rd party offering parking has no interest in whether shoppers park or not.

salmosalaris

With respect I think in reality the chances of that argument now succeeding are somewhere between nil and zero

rizla_king

Seems typical of many supreme court judgements

Most of the judges or lords knew exactly what outcome they wanted, and the only real question was how they could plot a plausible course to reach and justify the conclusion they wished for.

Northlakes

Regrettably from what I have seen, the Beavis case wasn't the best of cases to bring before the courts.

At the time of his parking event, if he had sought the advice of the expert posters on here he would have won a POPLA appeal!