PE lose court case at St Albans (again)

The_Deep

But why did they mention it? They must surely be aware that it has no relevance. Is there not a case for complaining to the S.R.A?

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

But why did they mention it? They must surely be aware that it has no relevance. Is there not a case for complaining to the S.R.A?

Whether PPCs are aware or not is not the point. It seems that some judges are unaware of the whole judgement in detail, can't be bothered to read it up, might miss the nuances and only look at the strap line.

On a scatter gun approach, then the PPC will win a considerable number of cases based on a flawed interpretation of Beavis

salmosalaris

The_Deep wrote: »

But why did they mention it? They must surely be aware that it has no relevance. Is there not a case for complaining to the S.R.A?

If other defence points had falied then whether the charge was a penalty would have been considered .
Your assertion that the judgment in Beavis is not relevant is moot and PE would have argued that it is , the defendant would have argued it is not .

But it is incorrect to say just because it is a paid car park the Beavis case is not relevant . If the defence is that the charge is a penalty then Beavis ,as the latest authority ,is highly relevant and must be used in an attempt to distinguish the case.

The_Slithy_Tove

salmosalaris wrote: »

But it is incorrect to say just because it is a paid car park the Beavis case is not relevant . If the defence is that the charge is a penalty then Beavis ,as the latest authority ,is highly relevant and must be used in an attempt to distinguish the case.

The SC judges made specific reference to pay-per-hour type car parks, distinguishing them from the Beavis scenario.

salmosalaris

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

The SC judges made specific reference to pay-per-hour type car parks, distinguishing them from the Beavis scenario.

I don't think they did , did they ? . I remember the Court of Appeal did though differentiate the contract in Beavis generally from a consumer financial contract but without specific reference to paid parking contracts.

yotmon

bargepole wrote: »

She did, however, find Mrs B to be a credible witness, and accepted her evidence that she never parked. PE had not made out their case to prove that she parked for 34 minutes, or at all, and the claim would fail on that basis.

The above boggles the mind ! One of the biggest (if not the biggest) private parking company takes an individual to court for a breach of their parking rules/regulations. Yet, despite having all the technology, statements, authority and legal representation at their disposal , they fail to prove that the actual vehicle ever parked at all. this is a complete 'school boy' error on their part. I do think that their (parking)eye is certainly being taken off the ball and instead of concentrating on the fundamentals they are instead relying on the bluff and bluster created by the Beavis case. Well, more fool them !! :T

The_Slithy_Tove

salmosalaris wrote: »

I don't think they did , did they ? . I remember the Court of Appeal did though differentiate the contract in Beavis generally from a consumer financial contract but without specific reference to paid parking contracts.

You're right, it was the Court of Appeal.

46. The terms of use of the car park need, therefore, to provide a disincentive to drivers which will make them tend to comply with the two hour limit. That is afforded by the parking charge of £85. It would not be afforded by a system of imposing a rate per hour according to the time overstayed, unless that rate were also substantial, and well above what might be regarded as a market rate for the elapsed time, even if the market rate were in some way adjusted to take account of the benefit to the driver of the first two hours being free.
47. It seems to me that the principles underlying the doctrine of penalty ought not to strike down a provision of this kind, in relation to a contract such as we are concerned with, merely on the basis that the contractual provision is a disincentive, or deterrent, against overstaying. When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker to the innocent party, should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome. The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 141 at 148: “But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times, endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.”

But as the SC didn't say it was wrong, it's therefore right!

Herzlos

yotmon wrote: »

Yet, despite having all the technology, statements, authority and legal representation at their disposal , they fail to prove that the actual vehicle ever parked at all. this is a complete 'school boy' error on their part.

That would require actual management though. It's much cheaper and more profitable to just use ANPR and fire out invalid invoices. :j

TDA

The_Deep wrote: »

I am surprised that Beavis was even mentioned. What has a Hospital car park, where you can stay as long as you like, provided you pay, to do with a retail park car park where you can stay for free for two hours.

In any event, should hospitals allow patients to be taken to court when they overstay through no fault of their own?

I hope this lady has complained to her M.P.r

Any belief that Beavis is not relevant to any other type of car park besides a free stay period retail park is misguided and should not be propagated as it only serves to mislead.

This is particularly unhelpful to those facing court claims who would be better served focusing on trying to distinguish their case on points which are relevant (i.e. why there was no legitimate interest in their case - a difficult task in a lot of cases).

The test that the Supreme Court set out for what will constitute a penalty going forward (at [32] in the judgment) covers an incredibly broad number of possible scenarios. There is an array of legitimate interests which can be identified in almost any scenario.

beamerguy

TDA wrote: »

Any belief that Beavis is not relevant to any other type of car park besides a free stay period retail park is misguided and should not be propagated as it only serves to mislead.

This is particularly unhelpful to those facing court claims who would be better served focusing on trying to distinguish their case on points which are relevant (i.e. why there was no legitimate interest in their case - a difficult task in a lot of cases).

The test that the Supreme Court set out for what will constitute a penalty going forward (at [32] in the judgment) covers an incredibly broad number of possible scenarios. There is an array of legitimate interests which can be identified in almost any scenario.

For the purpose of those on here and in particular the newbies, i am sure you will give a listing of "array of legitimate interest"

We all await to hear