Does the Cargius case still stand

ShropshireL4d

Our car overstayed the payment made in a Parking Eye control pay and display car park. We paid £1 for an hour but stayed longer.
Having read many of these forums we appealed to Popla stating Parking Eye v Cargius as this covers overstaying on paid for parking and amount of invoice is a penalty.
Appeal rejected stating Parking Eye v Beavis. But our understanding is this is for overstaying on a free car park.
Please can someone confirm if Cargius still stands after the Beavis supreme court ruling.

Coupon-mad

Yes it has relevance to some cases. But POPLA won't take it into account as it was only a county court decision. Beavis was Supreme Court level, but as you say, about a different situation entirely.

POPLA have swallowed the line that the Beavis case trumps all others. Not so, not where the situation is not broadly the same, but POPLA think they know and they quote a standard load of guff about the Beavis case and chuck cases in the 'computer says no' bin.

How long was the time before, and the time after, paid-for time in your case?
Did you cite BPA Grace periods?
Did you also cite other usual POPLA stuff like no landowner authority?
Which car park?

ShropshireL4d

Thanks for reply.
The car entered The Crown Public House car park in Bridgnorth at 19.28. We paid for 1 hour to 20.29 but actually left at 21.22.
Did not read signs as lighting not good and we were late to meet friends, but it seems there are loads of signs and we could have had our money returned at bar, but did not realise that either.
I stated genuine customer, poor lighting and the Cargius case in my defence.
Now have the latest threatening letter from PE.
Any advice welcome

beamerguy

ShropshireL4d wrote: »

Thanks for reply.
The car entered The Crown Public House car park in Bridgnorth at 19.28. We paid for 1 hour to 20.29 but actually left at 21.22.
Did not read signs as lighting not good and we were late to meet friends, but it seems there are loads of signs and we could have had our money returned at bar, but did not realise that either.
I stated genuine customer, poor lighting and the Cargius case in my defence.
Now have the latest threatening letter from PE.
Any advice welcome

Get The Crown Public House to cancel the ticket if they still want your business

If this is the one, leave a warning on trip advisor if they don't cancel
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g644364-d4063738-Reviews-The_Crown_Inn-Bridgnorth_Shropshire_England.html

ShropshireL4d

Thanks Beamerguy. I have written to the Crown (twice) asking for it to be cancelled and no reply.
Will try the tripadvisor route.

Umkomaas

Reading some of those reviews (food and drink, rather than parking) on TA and the seeming disinterest of the management, I rather suspect you'll draw another blank.

There are quite a number of pubs with PE engaged who have poor reviews about their service and products. Seems like they attract each other.

One for the future, if you roll up at a random pub and see a PE parking notice, drive on; there's a good chance the experience you've just had will be repeated again. Once bitten .......

The_Slithy_Tove

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Beavis was Supreme Court level, but as you say, about a different situation entirely.

And yet it is relevant in a way. At the Court of Appeal, pay-per-hour car parks were specifically mentioned as still being subject to the "penalty" criteria. In other words, charging £100 for an overstay when the rate is £1/hour (say) would be "perverse" (unless you overstayed 100 hours

Coupon-mad

Yep, agreed, the Supreme Court Judges' words (and those of the Court of Appeal) are useful in some ways, despite the fact they got the decision hopelessly and terribly wrong in the worst anti-consumer way they could have invented. IMHO, they must bear a level of responsibility for the current scumbag feeding frenzy, their decision was DIRE.

ShropshireL4d

Thanks guys,
Should we offer them a tenner to cover the underpayment and a bit for their time?

Umkomaas

ShropshireL4d wrote: »

Thanks guys,
Should we offer them a tenner to cover the underpayment and a bit for their time?

Nope, because they won't accept it and they can argue that you have (tacitly) admitted some liability.

It's all or nothing for both sides. You need to see if PE progress this to the small claims court, or whether they involve debt collectors. You'll know soon enough.

waamo

If it does go to court, which isn't a certainty, PE will often settle for less than the amount they are claiming.

£60 seems to be the going rate for them to drop court action.