The IPC and Beavis

The_Deep

Is the Beavix judgrmrnt of any comfort to IPC members?

The IPC seem to think that it is, this from the IPC website.

Parking Eye v Beavis - victory for the private parking sector!

The decision in the Parking Eye v Beavis case has been handed down by the Supreme Court on the 4th November 2015. The judgment confirms parking regimes which impose charges where motorists overstay or breach the terms of their contractual licence to park are enforceable charges. The summary to the judgment can be found HERE The full judgment is also available at HERE


They strenuously argue that they do not have to prove losses, but Beavis is all about losses, do they have a snowball's ...

bargepole

Before the Beavis verdict was published, Will Hurley appeared on some TV and radio programmes, trying to assert that the case had no bearing on IPC members, because theirs are contractually agreed core terms, not damages for breach of contract.

The problem, however, is that most of their members don't seem to realise that in order to bind a motorist to a contractual term, they have to make an offer of parking for £100 - no offer, no contract.

Typically, their signage will say "Parking for permit holders only. If you park here without displaying a valid permit, you contractually agree to pay a parking charge of £100".

So non-permit holders are not permitted to park, and thus there is no offer of parking - you cannot make an offer which is forbidding. The only way they could enforce that is to get the landowner to bring a claim for trespass, but it's doubtful that damages of £100 would be awarded.

TDA

@The Deep - that is exactly what the case has made clear - you do not have to prove any loss where you can demonstrate that a clause which would otherwise be a penalty serves a legitimate interest and is not disproportionate (I.E. Significantly more than it needs to be to achieve the desired effect). Paragraph 32 of the judgment sets out the new test which replaces that in Dunlop (GPEOL etc).

@Bargepole - oh how embarrassed the
IPC must have been after convincing all their members to change their signage to go down the contractual charge route only to have he SC rule that the breach model was fine after all!

As for that permit holder issue it would be so simple for them to solve. Just remove the 'parking for permit holders only' wording. How tinpot are Gladstones?

Guys_Dad

The problem with SCC judges is that they have to decide on all types of cases, not just parking. They can not be experts on everything and some seem remarkably inexpert on lots of matters.

The nuances of the different parking "contracts" whether th IPC non-contract or the usual BPA members' signs will be over their heads and isn't it much easier to work on Beavis applies to all parking cases? I bet that is what we will see .

peter_the_piper

None of this will make any difference to IPC, they reject 80% anyway. :rotfl:

The_Deep

peter_the_piper wrote: »

None of this will make any difference to IPC, they reject 80% anyway. :rotfl:

Which re-inforces my opinion that all should be appealed, O percentage of over 50% refusals does nothing to enhance their credibility.

System

Which re-inforces my opinion that all should be appealed, O percentage of over 50% refusals does nothing to enhance their credibility.

They argue differently. Their spin is that each sign and process is checked by them (which they charge for). If the "independent" barista allows an appeal based on signs or process the IPC checks why and changes the signs/process (which they charge for).

If it then goes to a claim which they prepare and charge for, and it fails, they change the signs/process (which they charge for).

It supposedly a self-improvement scheme and certainly improves Gladstones bank balance as they charge the IPC for running it.

Meanwhile in Maidstone today, an IPC member was so confident of winning using this self-improving formula that they did not need to turn up. "Unexpectedly" they lost and the driver was awarded costs. So it looks like the IPC will be charging the IPC member again for more self-improvement.

Castle

Maybe the IPC could organise some training courses for their members at a special discounted price; this could also include some professional advice from the IAS and a local firm of Solicitors. (Free parking and refreshments will be provided)

Kite2010

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The problem with SCC judges is that they have to decide on all types of cases, not just parking. They can not be experts on everything and some seem remarkably inexpert on lots of matters.

The nuances of the different parking "contracts" whether th IPC non-contract or the usual BPA members' signs will be over their heads and isn't it much easier to work on Beavis applies to all parking cases? I bet that is what we will see .

The problem with SCC judges is that they see sums like £100 as mere change as they are on high enough wages not to live in the real world (so to speak)

The_Deep

Actually, County Court judges are not that well paid, about the same as G.Ps, so, if they are sending their kids to private schools £100 is a significant amount of money .


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/419123/judicial-salaries-1-april-2015.pdf


CCJs are towards the bottom of the pay scale.

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

... CCJs are towards the bottom of the pay scale.

£106,040 per year, which gives them a monthly take-home pay of £5,635 according to the MSE calculator.

That's probably considerably more than most on here, but obviously if they are sending a child to, say, Millfield at £11,500 per term, that will make a big dent.