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

Marktheshark

The attack will just have to move lower, a stronger more robust researched case on Locus Standi.
The GPEOL argument has sunk thats all, they are still several very good legal points left.
We are also forgetting that it is an EU directive that sets consumer contract regulations, this is supreme law and the EU judges will put the British judges back on their perches first tests case they get an opportunity.
The appeal court is not the highest court in the land, the EU court is and they are not going to over rule their own directives.

TDA

I've never gone in for the existing obligation argument on the Consideration point.

Firstly, there is a subtle difference between an existing obligation not to be on someones land and an obligation to leave that land after two hours, specifically. They are not the same obligation.

But, more critically, Scotson v Pegg has told us that an existing obligation to a third party can still amount to good consideration. Clearly that is the case here. The obligation not to be on the land is one owed to the landowner (the third party), not one owed to the parking operator (until after the contract is formed).

As for the suggestion that there can be no contract in 'Permit Holder' only cases, only trespass, because there cannot be acceptance through conduct when the conduct is impermissible under the proposed terms (in other words you can't be deemed to accept the contract by the very doing of that which you have promised not to do), I fear this argument may not pass muster.

Whilst I think it is the correct analysis, there is a hint in the Parking Eye v Beavis case that you could contract to not park outside of a marked bay (same argument as for parking without a valid permit) at para 189. Granted, on the facts of that case that wasn't how the contract was concluded but it may be that the courts take the implication to be that such contracts are perfectly capable of being formed in this manner.

The_Slithy_Tove

TDA wrote: »

As for the suggestion that there can be no contract in 'Permit Holder' only cases, only trespass, because there cannot be acceptance through conduct when the conduct is impermissible under the proposed terms (in other words you can't be deemed to accept the contract by the very doing of that which you have promised not to do), I fear this argument may not pass muster.

Whilst I think it is the correct analysis, there is a hint in the Parking Eye v Beavis case that you could contract to not park outside of a marked bay (same argument as for parking without a valid permit) at para 189. Granted, on the facts of that case that wasn't how the contract was concluded but it may be that the courts take the implication to be that such contracts are perfectly capable of being formed in this manner.

I disagree. In the Beavis case, there is a general invitation to come onto the land and to park, subject to certain conditions. In a permit holder only car park, there is no invitation to the general public to enter. Any signage which goes on to attempt to say that failure to comply means you are contracturally agreeing to pay £100 is nonsense, as there is not the intention to offer parking to the hoi-poloi for £100 or any other amount.

salmosalaris

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

I disagree. In the Beavis case, there is a general invitation to come onto the land and to park, subject to certain conditions. In a permit holder only car park, there is no invitation to the general public to enter. Any signage which goes on to attempt to say that failure to comply means you are contracturally agreeing to pay £100 is nonsense, as there is not the intention to offer parking to the hoi-poloi for £100 or any other amount.

But in the real world such legal niceties would be ignored . PPC charges have been sanctioned by the SC and such a defendant would hardly be adopting the moral high ground .
Claim upheld , costs awarded

fil_cad

dxc_chappie wrote: »

So are PPCs now going to resurrect all old claims going back 6 years? Will there be flood of letters from PPCs going out to past "offenders"?

Let them waste their pulp, I won't be paying them jack s**t if any Scamming PPc try it on.:money:

Fight_the_good_fight

Why not pull up at the entrance get out of your vehicle to read the T&C,s and not being of a legal mind look for an employee to explain ,which would take some time in a PE infested car park!!! On failing to find such a person go into a store to see if anyone in there can explain before you make a decision whether to park, all of the time your car is at the entrance.

I feel a day of action is required

enfield_freddy

kerchang , its started , reduce the time increase the rake in http://m.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/13948093.Bradford_retail_park_slashes_free_parking_time_limit_as_The_Broadway_shopping_centre_opens/

Half_way

If i had the time it may be worth warning motorists not to enter or park at certain sites, all it would need would be a high vis jacket, two way radio and an old road cone in the entrance, motorists could be advised to go elsewhere.
This would help keep the car parks clear, reduce litter ( no customers) and prevent anyone overstaying

salmosalaris

Half_way wrote: »

If i had the time it may be worth warning motorists not to enter or park at certain sites, all it would need would be a high vis jacket, two way radio and an old road cone in the entrance, motorists could be advised to go elsewhere.
This would help keep the car parks clear, reduce litter ( no customers) and prevent anyone overstaying

Indeed how perverse would it be if the likes of PE objected to someone encouraging drivers to abide by the t&c ?

Cornucopia

ISTR some TV footage of some "parking angels" who were patrolling a Pay & Display car park, and adding extra time to cars as their parking expired.