Which precedents have been annulled by Beavis ?

STAVROS

Having spent approx.12 minutes searching for a space in a full car park I have lost a Popla appeal but the assessor never mentioned any precedents and only referred to Beavis. The operator does not deny car park was full.

I have located the legal precedent relating to this case....3JD08399 Parkingeye v Ms X ( Atrincham 17March 2014 ....
My Question is what difference has the subsequent Beavis judgement made on the above ?

pappa_golf

forget that angle


you might have lost at POPLa , but how a judge could or would keep a straight face after "The operator does not deny car park was full." was read out , would be interesting


although not a precedent , read this - I know you refer to it , but perhaps more detail http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html

System

What did the signs say. In the POPLA pack you were sent, there will have been a copy of the signs. Could you put them on tinypic or similar so we can see.

bargepole

STAVROS wrote: »

My Question is what difference has the subsequent Beavis judgement made on the above ?

The general principle is that County Court judgments, such as the one you have quoted, are not binding on other courts, but may be regarded as persuasive. Whereas a decision from a higher court - and the Supreme Court is the highest of the lot - is binding on lower courts, where the facts and circumstances are the same. or broadly similar.

The whole argument in the Beavis case was about whether the parking charge could be considered a penalty, and therefore unenforceable, as it did not reflect any loss suffered by Parking Eye.

The ruling was that while the penalties rule was engaged, as PE had suffered no direct loss, it should be upheld due to the legitimate interest in maintaining a turnover of spaces in that car park.

Individual cases are each judged on their particular facts, and Beavis may or may not be applicable. If you spent time driving around looking for a space but didn't park, your argument would be that you never actually entered into a contract, and therefore Beavis doesn't apply.

System

If you spent time driving around looking for a space but didn't park, your argument would be that you never actually entered into a contract, and therefore Beavis doesn't apply.

Whilst that is applicable to almost all cases so far, ParkingEye have changed their signs to say that the contract is formed by entering the site and not by the action of parking. Their offer is no longer parking despite the name but entry.

Hence the question - what do the signs say.

Half_way

see here, also from that same link this:

bargepole

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Whilst that is applicable to almost all cases so far, ParkingEye have changed their signs to say that the contract is formed by entering the site and not by the action of parking. Their offer is no longer parking despite the name but entry.

I suspect that supposed 'contract' would be difficult for them to uphold in court.

If someone drove into a P&D car park, found that all the spaces were taken, and drove out again, they wouldn't have had the opportunity to pay any tariff, unless they stopped and parked outside the bays to do so.

Can't see a DJ wearing that one.

rdr

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Whilst that is applicable to almost all cases so far, ParkingEye have changed their signs to say that the contract is formed by entering the site and not by the action of parking. Their offer is no longer parking despite the name but entry.

Hence the question - what do the signs say.

Can you read the signs from a moving car?

STAVROS

Premier park ltd Welcome Parking See Other Signs for details. So it states on entrance. You won't see other signs without parking. Photos in North Devon journal article by councillor Brad Bunyard of Braunton.

System

Can you read the signs from a moving car?

Have you been to Hayes & Harlington or JLA or Robin Hood?

STAVROS

Now having lost Popla appeal, do i wait and do nothing ( watching Debt Collectors letters amass ) or should I write to Premier Park's solicitors inviting them to commence
Small Claims Court action. I am happy to take a day off work to defend this. ???