county claim form vehicle control services ltd

Coupon-mad

Or take screenshots of pages and put them in a word document, click within the image and FORMAT comes up in your top taskbar in Word. Click on Format and on the right you get Crop as an option and you can use the little corner icons to crop out the edges of your page.

Sorry if that’s obvious!  I screenshot and crop stuff a lot as you can then increase the size of your captured image and only show the relevant bits rather than entire PDF page captures.

Just don’t edit actual transcripts of court cases except the Beavis case where you can just grab paras 98,100, 193 and 198 and stick them in a word doc, because that’s a Supreme Court case that Judges can find easily anyway.  So that case is never needed to be exhibited as such but grabbing the paras that talk about the fact that £85* covered all costs and profits, assists the Judge to see what you are saying.

* it came out in the earlier hearings that ParkingEye paid an average £1000 bounty per week to the landowner and most payers paid at the discount (£50) so the first twenty PCNs per week were no profit for P/Eye.  That point is a useful one to know and use in everyone’s responses to the MHCLG Public Consultation on the level of parking charges in the coming weeks.

PPCs point to the ‘£85 in Beavis’ ... but in reality it wasn’t what it seems, it was an incentivised model where P/Eye wrote off the first £1000 each week and ‘had’ to issue lots of PCNs to make it pay (at the expense of the shoppers who were slower) but on average per PCN issued they’d have been getting much less than £50 per victim because of those given to the landowner and those cancelled on appeal or when people complained to retailers.

merits28

Thank you coupon-mad

merits28

Thank you keithP

merits28

Coupon-mad said:

Or take screenshots of pages and put them in a word document, click within the image and FORMAT comes up in your top taskbar in Word. Click on Format and on the right you get Crop as an option and you can use the little corner icons to crop out the edges of your page.

Sorry if that’s obvious!  I screenshot and crop stuff a lot as you can then increase the size of your captured image and only show the relevant bits rather than entire PDF page captures.

Just don’t edit actual transcripts of court cases except the Beavis case where you can just grab paras 98,100, 193 and 198 and stick them in a word doc, because that’s a Supreme Court case that Judges can find easily anyway.  So that case is never needed to be exhibited as such but grabbing the paras that talk about the fact that £85* covered all costs and profits, assists the Judge to see what you are saying.

* it came out in the earlier hearings that ParkingEye paid an average £1000 bounty per week to the landowner and most payers paid at the discount (£50) so the first twenty PCNs per week were no profit for P/Eye.  That point is a useful one to know and use in everyone’s responses to the MHCLG Public Consultation on the level of parking charges in the coming weeks.

PPCs point to the ‘£85 in Beavis’ ... but in reality it wasn’t what it seems, it was an incentivised model where P/Eye wrote off the first £1000 each week and ‘had’ to issue lots of PCNs to make it pay (at the expense of the shoppers who were slower) but on average per PCN issued they’d have been getting much less than £50 per victim because of those given to the landowner and those cancelled on appeal or when people complained to retailers.

hello everyone, please if you don't can you share the link for the BEAVIS CASE? so i can get the pages Coupon-mad suggested . i have google it but i just want to be sure i got the right case. thank you.

Coupon-mad

Google has the Supreme Court judgment in a nano second...the case is so well known.

merits28

OK, i guess the one i saw on google is right, i will extract those pages now, and add it to the witness and email them off. thank you Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad

You can tell it's right if you read those paragraphs, they are in ordinary language pretty much.  You can see what they say and spot the meaning, and how it helps the argument against the added £60 (you need to understand that those paras are saying and not just lift and copy them because we said so).

merits28

98.Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars. This was to be achieved by deterring commuters or other long-stay motorists from occupying parking spaces for long periods or engaging in other inconsiderate parking practices, thereby reducing the space available to other members of the public, in particular the customers of the retail outlets. The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services, without which those Page 43 services would not be available. These two objectives appear to us to be perfectly reasonable in themselves. Subject to the penalty rule and the Regulations, the imposition of a charge to deter overstayers is a reasonable mode of achieving them. Indeed, once it is resolved to allow up to two hours free parking, it is difficult to see how else those objectives could be achieved. 

100.None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service. But there is no reason to suppose that £85 is out of all proportion to its interests. The trial judge, Judge Moloney QC, found that the £85 charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable having regard to the level of charges imposed by local authorities for overstaying in car parks on public land. The Court of Appeal agreed and so do we. It is higher than the penalty that a motorist would have had to pay for overstaying in an on-street parking space or a local authority car park. But a local authority would not necessarily allow two hours of free parking, and in any event the difference is not Page 44 substantial. The charge is less than the maximum above which members of the BPA must justify their charges under their code of practice. The charge is prominently displayed in large letters at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals within it. The mere fact that many motorists regularly use the car park knowing of the charge is some evidence of its reasonableness. They are not constrained to use this car park as opposed to other parking facilities provided by local authorities, Network Rail, commercial car park contractors or other private landowners. They must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for overstaying as an acceptable price for the convenience of parking there. The observations of Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Workers Bank at p 580 referred to in para 35 above are in point. While not necessarily conclusive, the fact that ParkingEye’s payment structure in its car parks (free for two hours and then a relatively substantial sum for overstaying) and the actual level of charge for overstaying (£85) are common in the UK provides support for the proposition that the charge in question is not a penalty. No other evidence was furnished by Mr Beavis to show that the charge was excessive.

193.The penalty doctrine is therefore potentially applicable to the present scheme. It is necessary to identify the interests which it serves. They are in my view clear. Mr Beavis obtained an (admittedly revocable) permission to park and, importantly, agreement that if and so far as he took advantage of this it would be free of charge. ParkingEye was able to fulfil its role of providing a traffic management maximisation scheme for BAPF. The scheme met, so far as appears, BAPF’s aim of providing its retail park lessees with spaces in which their customers could park. All three conditions imposed were directed to this aim, and all were on their face reasonable. (The only comment that one might make, is that, although the signs made clear that it was a “Customer only car park”, the Parking Charge of £85 did not apply to this limitation, which might be important in central Chelmsford. The explanation is, no doubt, that, unlike a barrier operated scheme where exit can be made conditional upon showing or using a ticket or bill obtained from a local shop, a camera operated scheme allows no such control.) The scheme gave BAPF through ParkingEye’s weekly payments some income to cover the costs of providing and maintaining the car park. Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye’s costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.

198. The £85 charge for overstaying is certainly set at a level which no ordinary customer (as opposed to someone deliberately overstaying for days) would wish to incur. It has to have, and is intended to have, a deterrent element, as Judge Moloney QC recognised in his careful judgment (para 7.14). Otherwise, a significant number of customers could all too easily decide to overstay, limiting the shopping possibilities of other customers. Turnover of customers is obviously important for a retail park. A scheme which imposed a much smaller charge for short overstaying or operated with fine gradations according to the period of overstay would be likely to be unenforceable and ineffective. It would also not be worth taking customers to Page 88 court for a few pounds. But the scheme is transparent, and the risk which the customer accepts is clear. The fact that, human nature being what it is, some customers under-estimate or over-look the time required or taken for shopping, a break or whatever else they may do, does not make the scheme excessive or unconscionable. The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit. Unless BAPF was itself prepared to pay ParkingEye, which would have meant, in effect, that it was subsidising customers to park on its own site, this was inevitable. If BAPF had attempted itself to operate such a scheme, one may speculate that the charge might even have had to be set at a higher level to cover its costs without profit, since ParkingEye is evidently a specialist in the area. 

merits28

hello Coupon-mad, is this how i should put it on word? and email it with the other documents? SORRY for the back and forth, i am new to this and i cant tell you how stressful this has been. thank you

Coupon-mad

Yes plonk that in word and give it a title and exhibit number then save it as a PDF and merge all your PDFs into one document that is fully page numbered.