When Beavis doesn't apply

Granny_P

If you have received an invoice from an independent parking company for overstaying in a car park, the company might quote the case of ParkingEye v Beavis as a reason why you have to pay, as Smart Parking did to my husband recently when they issued an invoice for £100 for an unavoidable 25 minute overstay at an airport car park where he paid for an hour. The following explains the case of Beavis and also states why that particular case doesn't apply if you overstay in a paid car park. If you have overstayed in a paid car park, simply send the company the fee you should have paid for the time you overstayed in our case, £1.80. You have case law on your side. This extract is from the parkingcowboys.co.uk site - a very useful site.

In the case of Parking Eye vs Cargius, it was held that the Beavis case did not apply since parking was paid for rather than free for a limited period. The judge distinguishes it by reasoning that in Beavis the charge was justifiable as it was their only income, whereas in a paid car park, only the hourly charge is being lost by overstaying (eg £2); anything above that is clearly a penalty.

As we know, independent companies are not allowed to issue penalties, only invoices. Unfortunately, if you overstay in a car park with free parking for a limited time then the law doesn't state what is a fair and reasonable charge for the time you overstayed, but if you check what the local council are charging as a fine and the company is asking for more, you could argue that the amount demanded is not fair and reasonable.

Don't pay up immediately. Do some research and find out what your options are first. These companies rely on us being scared of what they might do and so get away with extortionate charges. Use the information on this site and parkingcowboys.co.uk to make an informed choice.

Johno100

Granny teaching others to suck eggs. I thought it was meant to be the other way around.

The_Deep

No doubt granny meant well.

Beavis is unlikely to apply in many cases.

Over a line, grace periods, MSAs, returning within 2 hours, double dipping, over a line, stations and airports, paid for time, residential, hospitals and surgeries, universities, permits required, to name a few.

If Beavis is ruled out then, imo, GPEOL is ruled in, as are UTCCC. I am waiting for someone to convince me that this is not the case. Any comments Red?

beamerguy

Everything you say is already known.

Barry Beavis took Parking Eye to court because he claimed
the charges were unfair. The court said they were ... and
that was it. So unless you are claiming that the charge
was unfair, the Supreme court decision has no bearing
on you.

In nearly 99% of claims made by PPC's the Beavis case is Irrelevant.

PPC's, Debt Collectore and dodgy legals use this to scare people

The courts already know that quoting Beavis is Irrelevant

The_Deep

In nearly 99% of claims made by PPC's the Beavis case is Irrelevant.

In which case, GPEOL and UTCCC fly. Surely?

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

In nearly 99% of claims made by PPC's the Beavis case is Irrelevant.

In which case, GPEOL and UTCCC fly. Surely?

Not forgetting of course that the Supreme court opened the doors wide open for the county courts to suffer abuse and timewasting claims from dodgy legals.

The county courts are being ripped off and ... it only costs £25 to do so

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

In nearly 99% of claims made by PPC's the Beavis case is Irrelevant.

In which case, GPEOL and UTCCC fly. Surely?

UTCCC (I presume you mean UTCCR?) was removed from existence 4 years ago, being replaced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

2015 was an auspicious year, as to all intents and purposes, for at least private parking matters, The Supreme Court all but blew GPEOL out of the water in the same year.

Whilst I'm sure there are some very sharp legal minds who could produce the elasticity of thought and persuasion to make a decent fist of arguing it in a suitable case to a receptive Judge, there's precious few of that ilk who come knocking on the forum's door. Have you seen one lately?

Since the fateful Beavis day, I have never seen a single POPLA or a court case which has been successful on a GPEOL argued point.

Have you got some examples of how such a suitable argument might flow in a private parking case, where most PPCs will shout 'Beavis, M'Lud, innit', with many a reply, 'Yes of course, is it not!'

The_Slithy_Tove

Granny_P wrote: »

In the case of Parking Eye vs Cargius, it was held that the Beavis case did not apply since parking was paid for rather than free for a limited period. The judge distinguishes it by reasoning that in Beavis the charge was justifiable as it was their only income, whereas in a paid car park, only the hourly charge is being lost by overstaying (eg £2); anything above that is clearly a penalty.

It didn't even need the judge in that case to distinguish it from Beavis. The Court of Appeal had already done so:

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.”

Good to have Cargius as an additional bat to hit PPCs with, though, when it comes to penalties in pay-per-hour car parks.