GPEOL.....still life in the old dog???

Computersaysno

Does GPEOL still stand as a defence where PE [and other scum co's] don't pay to run the car-park [ie non-Beavis] ??


By defence I mean


1. At POPLA
2. In court




I appreciate it's risky but I know someone who is happy to test this approach out as a single point of defence....

waamo

It's a bit more complicated than simply not running the car park. The penalty test is very vague but this article (by the QC that represented Barry at the Supreme Court) explains the position very well

http://www.hardwicke.co.uk/insights/articles/the-law-on-penalties-after-parkingeye-v-beavis

Thorsson

waamo wrote: »

It's a bit more complicated than simply not running the car park. The penalty test is very vague but this article (by the QC that represented Barry at the Supreme Court) explains the position very well

http://www.hardwicke.co.uk/insights/articles/the-law-on-penalties-after-parkingeye-v-beavis

That's a very well written synopsis and makes the position fairly clear. Thanks for posting the link.

Does anyone know if the proposed "Parking Act" does anything on these penalties? I ask, because regardless of this determination, I don't think that £100 (say) is reasonable for going 25 minutes over a 3 hour limit in a "free" car park.

Computersaysno

Thanks for the responses.....


I recall that it was widely stated that if PE hadn't been paying the landowner for the car park their claim would have failed.....or am I imagining that??

Thorsson

Computersaysno wrote: »

Thanks for the responses.....


I recall that it was widely stated that if PE hadn't been paying the landowner for the car park their claim would have failed.....or am I imagining that??

That's not what the judgement says, unless my comprehension skills have deteriorated.

nosferatu1001

It gave them more stnaidng than otherwise, from memory

Thorsson - presumably it would have to be in line with councils, so outside of longodn thats £35/£70?

Thorsson

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

It gave them more stnaidng than otherwise, from memory

Thorsson - presumably it would have to be in line with councils, so outside of longodn thats £35/£70?

I would say, in simple terms, that the only measure would be the normal legal one of reasonableness. Beavis was £85 and clearly they thought that was reasonable.

They key bit of that article is this summary of the tests they think the claim has to pass:

To summarise this, the position as to whether or not a clause in a contract is unenforceable as a penalty seems now to follow these lines:

1. Does the clause engage the penalty rule? (Or, to put it another way, is the clause under scrutiny a genuine pre-estimate of the innocent party’s loss? If yes, then the penalty rule is not engaged; if no, then it is engaged.) So if yes…
2. Does the innocent party have a legitimate interest in charging the defaulting party a sum which extends beyond the loss the innocent party has actually suffered? (ParkingEye’s legitimate interest was deemed to be that it sells its services as the manager of car parks and meets the costs of doing so from charges for breach of the terms.) If yes, and …
3. There is some other wider commercial or socio-economic justification for the clause, then it does not contravene the penalty rule.