PE lose court case at St Albans (again)

Ivor_Pecheque

And here's one from the staff......

I've just found out I have been ticketed. I am NHS Staff and work in the Community. I was asked to visit a new mum on the postnatal ward at short notice. I left a note in my car with my contact number on official paper and my Waters Green Work badge. I wasn't aware it was a camera system they use - thought it was warden-monitored.

Half_way

One of the things i'm curious about is how NHS trusts protect patient confidentiality.
For example, The Driver is in Hospital for a check up as they are worried about something.
In this hypothetical scenario the Driver is not the RK, the RK could be an employer ( ie a company car) a Husband/Wife/Partner or a parent ( and so on) and the last thing the driver /owner of the vehicle wants, or would want is the Registered keeper finding out about their hospital visits.
What does the hospital do to stop the RK receiving a letter stating the driver/owner visited the hospital?

hoohoo

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.

And Beavis is a complete Red Herring really. I don't remember winning ANY claims on the level of charge. The wins have all been on other areas; signage, authority, no offence occurred, defendant sold car, etc, etc.

Even POPLA say that only 5% of their cases involve GPEOL...yet 50% of cases win at POPLA.

Coupon-mad

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

this one's from last November.....
''We got a ticket last year when we took our son to a &e at 4am. The ticket did get cancelled but that was after I wrote to George Osborne and sent that to the hospital as well.''

Hmmmm...that is food for thought.

Imagine if every NEWBIE here sent a concise complaint and a copy of their unfair PCN to one particular person of influence, every time, and as part of the appeal, showed the PPC every time that they'd done so?

For the sake of one extra stamp/envelope per newbie, we could create an interesting new slant to the campaign and the PPCs would hate it.

salmosalaris

bargepole wrote: »

I think this is the part in the judgment at [32] which TDA was referring to:

"... But compensation is not necessarily the only legitimate interest that the innocent party may have in the performance of the defaulter’s primary obligations. This was recognised in the early days of the penalty rule, when it was still the creature of equity, and is reflected in Lord Macclesfield’s observation in Peachy (quoted in para 5 above) about the application of the penalty rule to provisions which were “never intended by way of compensation”, for which equity would not relieve. It was reflected in the result in Dunlop. And it is recognised in the more recent decisions about commercial justification..."

So in other words, the legitimate interest doesn't necessarily have to be about the sums of money involved. It can be about deterring breaches of contract which may, directly or indirectly, harm the commercial interest of a party, or impact adversely on the principal for whom they are providing a service.

This clearly signposts the conclusion reached later in the judgment, that if PE's charges were deemed unenforceable, the landowner and the tenants (retailers) would suffer because customers may not be able to park and spend money in the shops (ignoring for the moment the lack of evidence to substantiate that assertion).

So I think it's correct to say that it wouldn't make any difference whether it's a car park where parking is free for X hours, or one where the hourly charge is Y, the principle still applies, and defendants would have a hard job convincing a District Judge otherwise.

I agree with you entirely that you would struggle to convince a DJ and that is borne out by experience

There is a subtle difference however between a contract where you were required to leave after a finite time and one where you were welcome to stay as long as you did providing payment of a small tariff was made. In the latter scenario the only interest both the PPC and landowner have is that such payment is made, any argument revolving around the need to free up spaces or commercial interests etc is surely irrelevant because all parties were quite happy for that bay to be occupied for the time it was by a single vehicle in return for a set sum.

It would therefore follow that simply the desire to deter non payment or punish inadvertent underpayment is considered a legitimate interest disengaging the penalty rule and that charging 100X the actual loss is proportionate to that interest.

bargepole

salmosalaris wrote: »

I
There is a subtle difference however between a contract where you were required to leave after a finite time and one where you were welcome to stay as long as you did providing payment of a small tariff was made. In the latter scenario the only interest both the PPC and landowner have is that such payment is made, any agree with you entirely that you would struggle to convince a DJ and that is borne out by experience
argument revolving around the need to free up spaces or commercial interests etc is surely irrelevant because all parties were quite happy for that bay to be occupied for the time it was by a single vehicle in return for a set sum.

It would therefore follow that simply the desire to deter non payment or punish inadvertent underpayment is considered a legitimate interest disengaging the penalty rule and that charging 100X the actual loss is proportionate to that interest.

The argument would be that, in the latter scenario, if the penalty charges were not enforceable, there would be no incentive for motorists to pay the correct hourly charge, or indeed any amount at all.

This would soon escalate to a point where it became generally known that it could be treated as a free car park, and used by all and sundry for purposes unconnected with the businesses attached to it.

salmosalaris

But motorists with no desire to use local businesses can use the car park to picnic in if they wish to in return for the parking tariff so the justification centreing on that aspect is a little lean and contrived .
In fact in many paid sites attached to a business genuine customers are refunded the parking tariff so that tariff is in reality the cost of parking to non patrons.


Actually ( despite the fact I argue to the contrary ) I think the parking companies could use the SC judgment far more effectively to justify their charges on paid sites and others that differ from the Beavis free car park model . But I'm not going to print it here as POPLA's C&P paragraphs are presently weakly picked from the SC press release.

bargepole

salmosalaris wrote: »

But motorists with no desire to use local businesses can use the car park to picnic in if they wish to in return for the parking tariff so the justification centreing on that aspect is a little lean and contrived .
In fact in many paid sites attached to a business genuine customers are refunded the parking tariff so that tariff is in reality the cost of parking to non patrons

Indeed, and this is where the typical PPC 'business model' starts to creak a bit.

Ideally, the contractual terms should be clearly set out on the signage, stating that the conditions of use of the car park are that parking is for 'customers only', and that tariffs must be paid. If the shops want to refund parking tariffs against purchases, that is a discretionary concession they are entitled to make.

But then you get into the minefield of whether such a notice makes any offer of parking to non-customers, and if there is no offer capable of being accepted, there is no contract to be in breach of.

salmosalaris

And what about paid sites that have no direct connection with businesses but are run as a commercial enterprise ?. The potential commercial benefit to some distant and unrelated third party is not a legitimate interest surely ?

Herzlos

bargepole wrote: »

The argument would be that, in the latter scenario, if the penalty charges were not enforceable, there would be no incentive for motorists to pay the correct hourly charge, or indeed any amount at all.

This would soon escalate to a point where it became generally known that it could be treated as a free car park, and used by all and sundry for purposes unconnected with the businesses attached to it.

Then they use POFA to pursue the keeper/driver for the unpaid parking charges, plus reasonable costs, as they are supposed to do. I doubt anyone would defend an invoice of the actual shortage in tariff + admin costs. Unfortunately for the PPC's, that is probably a total of under about £20 each time, and considerately less profit than a £100 breach fee.