UK Car Park Management Ltd - Case won Precedence set ????

Steve1564

Hi Guys... 
Long time looker 1st time poster etc...
So got a letter back from the court in the beginning of april.. Case thrown out all good....
BUT...
Paragraph b - looks like there saying the contract is invalid, or at least the court does not recognize it..
Does this set a precedence... ?
and would it make me
A. A national Hero ?
B. Very unpopular with private parking companies ?
(that's a win-win in my book !)

Waddya think ?
Steve.


P.S sorry its so big... (first time i ever said that!)

pphillips

Sorry, but the county court are simply not able set a precedent.
Next time, see if you can upgrade it to the High Court 😁

Steve1564

Ahh... !!!!!!, 
Would it be worth doing that ?
Is it at least something i could quote in future defenses ?

Thanks 
Steve.  

pphillips

Steve1564 said:

Ahh... !!!!!!, 
Would it be worth doing that ?
Is it at least something i could quote in future defenses ?

Thanks 
Steve.  

I'm pretty sure the High Court would refuse jurisdiction over a parking charge, they have bigger fish to fry. I don't see anything wrong in using the judgment as a tool to help you fight claims in the future. Just be aware that it's not something you can use as "a get out of jail free card".

Coupon-mad

I'm pretty sure the High Court would refuse jurisdiction over a parking charge, 

Well the Supreme Court took it on.  ParkingEye v Beavis 2015.  And Parliament are currently trying to 'fry those fish' by introducing a new Act to regulate the industry's Code of Practice, to rein them in.  So bad are the rogue practices that there is a lot of interest in such cases.

But you are correct there is no precedent set.

Steve - you took an enormous risk and it's hugely lucky you won.  No-one here would EVER have agreed to their parking case being heard 'on the papers' and that is about the best way for a Defendant to lose, in fact.  You got lucky!

We win 99% of defended cases, so wins are normal here.  But not on the papers.  Never agree to that again, you were meant to object when you got the Order telling you that the court wanted to do it that way - the answer is a firm '' no thanks, I'll have a hearing please''.

I can only think that (b) is a roundabout way of saying that the signs said 'no parking' and thus, there was nothing of value on offer.  i.e. the sign must have prohibited parking, yes? = no contract on offer, then.

Was the UKCPM WS signed by Jack Chapman?  Did you read this forum about him, in all the UKCPM threads first?

pphillips

Just to clarify my previous post, what I meant was that the High Court are unlikely to accept jurisdiction at first instance. Appeals are very different matter.

Johnersh

Coupon-mad said:

I'm pretty sure the High Court would refuse jurisdiction over a parking charge, 

I can only think that (b) is a roundabout way of saying that the signs said 'no parking' and thus, there was nothing of value on offer.  i.e. the sign must have prohibited parking, yes? = no contract on offer, then.

* Well done, good result.
* Not a precedent, as noted.
* I argued the same point in my own case.

Coupon, most likely correct: This all depends on the wording and circumstances:

Where the sign says "breach of the terms of parking will result in a charge of xxx being applied" that is self-evidently a penalty type clause.  The claimant cannot argue (on that wording) it is a generic fee to allow you to park there as it is a payment upon breach. That is what their advocate tried and failed to do in my case. 

Lots of signs now avoid using the word "breach" to avoid this issue and any distinguishing of Beavis.  With those, the sign effectively charges £100 to everyone but exempts permit holders etc.   In this latter scenario many DJs will happily accept this is consideration, from what I see on here. 

Coupon-mad

This is interesting because I was thinking only last week at a telephone hearing, that it makes no sense that the parking firms call it a breach, because surely that's the opposite of how it was argued in Beavis.

henrik777

The starting point in Beavis was that a contract existed and thus the reasoning that the contractual breach justified a payment. 

No contract makes Beavis ineffective.

No stopping, for example, cannot ever use Beavis as how do you form acontract to "not stop".

Steve1564

Coupon-mad said:

I'm pretty sure the High Court would refuse jurisdiction over a parking charge, 

Steve - you took an enormous risk and it's hugely lucky you won.  No-one here would EVER have agreed to their parking case being heard 'on the papers' and that is about the best way for a Defendant to lose, in fact.  You got lucky!

Hi
The case was heard on papers due to the covid 19 lockdown, it looked like they were "telling rather than asking" 
I really wanted my day in court but was allowed to "top up" my defense statement via e-mail
The ticket was issued on ANPR - i was parked for 1m58s waiting to use an air machine at a garage forecourt !
it was like being stopped in traffic & a warden jumps out drom behind a tree and slaps a ticket on the windscreen !

In other news Parking eye have just sent a letter saying they don't want to go to court now (another double visit ANPR ticket)
obviously we'll check with the court just in case the decide to change there mind.

This is fun.
Steve.

beamerguy

Another car crash for Gladstones ??  One would think that as Gladstones invented the scam IPC, they would have some idea about signs and rather proves that the IPC do not check and are not fit for purpose. 
The incompetent Gladstones strike again