Parking Eye v Beavis

Olibird

I’ve received a PCN from Highview Parking. They state that ‘following the landmark Supreme Court ruling of Parking Eye v Beavis, it has now been established that a parking charge on private land is enforceable.’

Is this true? I’m a bit loathe to risk letting them take me to court as the last time I did this I lost the case, despite following MSE guidelines. 

KeithP

What they should be saying is that Beavis lost a case against ParkingEye in the Supreme Court.

They really cannot say that every parking case since Beavis is doomed to fail. That is quite simply wrong.

Even if your case went to court and even if you lost that case, you would pay less than what the parking company will be demanding.

Do you have a parking issue you would like help with?
If so, tell us more.

Coupon-mad

Of course Beavis is true. Google it and read it if you want to read it.  We were involved, knew all about it, and hardly blinked.

But it's eight year old news. Nothing new.

It doesn't affect other cases that involve different facts and signs. We still win practically every appeal and court defence.

Highview are a cinch to beat by using PLAN A in the NEWBIES thread. 

And the current news is that the Government are about to regulate this rogue industry and it is almost over the line.  Beavis is history.

Half_way

Cont5ext is key, and at a guess there is a heck of a lot of context missing from what you have been sent by high view..

Whos car park was it?

Why was a parking charge issued?

fisherjim

From the BPA COP

20.10:

If an Operator seeks to use extracts from the ‘ParkingEye
v Beavis’ judgement laid down by the Supreme Court, the
judgement must be referenced and that extracts from it
must be properly quoted. Best practice would be adding
the website link to the summary of the judgement, when
making reference to it.

But of course the PPC's don't really want you to seek the real truth only their one sided distorted version of it!!

Mouse007

Olibird said:

I’ve received a PCN from Highview Parking. They state that ‘following the landmark Supreme Court ruling of Parking Eye v Beavis, it has now been established that a parking charge on private land is enforceable.’e case, despite following MSE guidelines.

Total and absolute !!!!!!. The case of Parking Eye v Beavis was not about parking charges, it was about the penalty rule in contract law.

Mr Beavis claimed the parking charge, under the contract created by the sign, was a penalty. The Law Lords ruled it was not because Parking Eye had a legitimate interest in the secondary obligation.

Head popped?

Read para 99 of the Law Lords Judgment.

Le_Kirk

You have two other threads running in the parking forum, is your question to do with one of those; if so, which one?

Johnersh

@mouse007 it's not even that simple, since the penalty rule was engaged... Accordingly, in the correct circumstances the fee sought by a ppc most definitely could constitute a penalty 😁

Olibird

Half_way said:

Cont5ext is key, and at a guess there is a heck of a lot of context missing from what you have been sent by high view..

Whos car park was it?

Why was a parking charge issued?

A hospital car park. I didn’t pay for the car I parked. I think I paid for my own car which I wasn’t in, but I can’t find any evidence of this, it was an emergency visit so rather stressful and memory vague.

Coupon-mad

Olibird said:

Half_way said:

Cont5ext is key, and at a guess there is a heck of a lot of context missing from what you have been sent by high view..

Whos car park was it?

Why was a parking charge issued?

A hospital car park. I didn’t pay for the car I parked. I think I paid for my own car which I wasn’t in, but I can’t find any evidence of this, it was an emergency visit so rather stressful and memory vague.

OK - so you appeal inline (as the back of the PCN says) stating the VRM of the car you think you may have paid for and tell them you think you made a 'keying error.'

Attach a photo of that car's V5C to prove that the car you paid for is in fact yours.

They will offer to settle at £20 if you appeal saying that.  It's up to you if you accept that time-bound offer (but you will not win at POPLA and it will go back up to £100).

Aren't you too late to appeal? You only have 28 days, which might still just be OK if they allow extra time for postage.

DO IT NOW.

Johnersh

Anyone know how much it cost Beavis, his legal loss? Considering it went to the Supreme Court?

Very little by that point. Various entities had taken on the interests and most counsel were appearing pro bono.  You ain't taking this to the supreme court, even if permission was given.