I'm sure we've discussed previously the legal case between Mr Beavis and Parking Eye. Basically a parking on private land issue around whether £85 overstay charge is reasonable.
The Supreme Court will give its judgement next Wednesday - 04/11/2015.
www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html
|
|
I've nearly fallen asleep. Watch the tee wat on the 2nd right of the speaker. Where's my gu.......
Last edited by: MD on Thu 29 Oct 15 at 20:19
|
>> I've nearly fallen asleep. Watch the tee wat on the 2nd right of the speaker.
>> Where's my gu.......
The guy with the wild hair? Jonathan Sumption was a mildly controversial appointment who has sought further controversy by speaking out on diversity in the judiciary.
|
Two other thoughts having watched the vids:
Firstly the judges themselves. Lord Sumption, who actually gives the judgement, appears to have his Poppy in his breast pocket rather than his lapel. The President, Lord Neuberger, is constantly fidgeting either with his copy of the judgement or some other document and looks like he cannot wait to escape. The judge on the left, who I don't recognise, OTOH manages to look as though he's paying attention. Lord Carnwath is able to stay off camera.
Secondly I wonder what BBD thinks of Joanna Smith QC?
|
>> The Supreme Court will give its judgement next Wednesday - 04/11/2015.
In a judgement severely critical of Mrs. Beavis, Lord Butthead said notably that...
|
Don't know if it is related but back in 2012 I got a parking charge for overstaying in a Morrisons carpark. I ignored it, got one reminder and that was it, never heard of again.
Yesterday I received a letter from another company about the same fine asking me to stomp up £135! Totally out of the blue!
Coincidence?
|
>> Coincidence?
As you're in Scotland and (a) you got message yesterday (b) this case was about English law and published today I'd be 99.99% certain of no connection
|
>> As you're in Scotland and (a) you got message yesterday (b) this case was about
>> English law and published today I'd be 99.99% certain of no connection
>>
Might be English Company unaware that the Parking Regulations are different in Scotland.
In Scotland you can only attempt to recover money for "breaking a contract" if you know who the driver was - currently there is no way the debt collector knows who was driving - they only know the registered owner.
|
|
Alas this was the wrong fight, fought by the wrong person for the wrong reasons. Having lost (as he was bound to given the circumstances) he has screwed it for everyone.
|
I don't quite follow.
All that this been established is that a parking company is entitled to charge for overstays providing signage is adequate and that an overstay charge of £85 is not unreasonable for an overstay in a busy city centre car park.
Ended a few bar room lawyers careers though.
|
I'm not clear why legally the penalty for doing something which you have no right to do on someone else's land that you have been informed is unacceptable and for which you have no mitigation should be or needs to be reasonable.
Surely if its supposed to be a deterrent it'll be scary expensive. If it is revenue generating it'll be "reasonable".
As per the London Congestion Charge.
|
|
The judgement doesn't actually say unreasonable it say exorbitant or unconscionable so I suppose scary expensive would be OK.
|
A deterrent has to be unreasonable surely for it to be effective?
What's a reasonable deterrent - one that is so finely balanced that it is only just effective when applied to timid or law-abiding people?
|
>> I don't quite follow.
1/ His actions on the day were unreasonable, having overstayed by nearly 50% allowed time, a point alluded to by the judgement.
2/ Beavis was a poor respondent and example.
He was onto a loser because of the way the original case was fought.
|
As Zero says, wrong person. They should have found someone who was charged £140 for failing to put one of the free tickets on display at big, mostly empty, retail parks but still left within the allotted free hour.
|
>> Who is "they"?
I had that thought too. Barry Beavis, for whatever reason, was the person with the determination to push a case through the courts. Presumably his legal team were acting pro-bono or were externally funded. If not then he's got a hell of a bill to pay.
|
One thing I need help with -
In the judgement one of the reasons for the £85 charge was for '(ii) the generation of income in order to run the scheme', therefore I guess if no one over stayed then the income would be £0 and the scheme would be in trouble.
|
|
Beavis has just been on BBC Radio 4's You and Yours. He said his QC was pro bono (why can't they - and you - use the word 'free?), other fees and charges were crowd funded.
|
|
It is actually short for pro bono publico - "for the good of the public" and implies something a little more than just free.
|
I think they have got this one wrong. Accepting that there is an element of deterrence which might push the fee beyond the loss, and the actual value of extra parking, the commentsfrom the court included
- reference to the operator needing to make a profit. What possible business is that of a court?
- reference to charges commonly levied elsewhere as a measure of reasonableness. It isn't, quite obviously, especially as many of the charges are set by Parking Eye.
This endorses what is really a contractual trap, and licences the approach in other contexts - one that was speculatively mentioned on the wireless earlier was exceeding one's monthly download allowance - fined £85.
Competition being what it is, I can see this happening - providers offering ever lower headline prices and making the income up on fees and penalties. It happened with credit cards, with £30 fees being added for late payments etc, before fees were capped at £12.
|
I seem to recall something similar with 0% interest deals at certain stores, run by independent finance agencies at no cost to the stores.
Basically it was 0% interest if you paid back the full sum within 12 months - if you did not then the entire year's interest (typically at 25%+ APR) became liable immediately, even if there was still just a few quid to pay off.
|
>> - reference to the operator needing to make a profit. What possible business is that
>> of a court?
Because that's how the argument was put to the court.
Parking Eye submitted that £85 penalty was not a disproportionate and potentially unlawful penalty. Allowing a commercial operator, necessarily making a profit, was a reasonable means of achieving the proper objective of keeping the car park 'moving' to the benefit of the owners retail tenants and their customers. The court preferred that to Mr Beavis's assertion that the charge was an unlawful penalty. Not wholly surprising given he lost at first instance and in the Appeal Court.
Neither do I think it opens the floodgates for operators to charge what they like. The judgement is actually quite clear on that point. It will now be for the lower courts to apply the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. There will be further skirmishes including probably cases where the Appeal Court has to decide more specifically what is reasonable.
Those who chance it in on private car parks are going find the parking companies more willing than they were to go the distance and sue in the County Court. Or at least assert the probability of doing so with more authority than before.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 8 Nov 15 at 19:59
|
>> (why can't they - and you - use the word 'free?)
Because it doesn't mean free. It means work undertaken at a reduced charge for the public good.
|
>> Because it doesn't mean free. It means work undertaken at a reduced charge for the
>> public good.
I am grateful to my learned friend Mr Pope or his clear and succinct explanation.
Lord Woolf's review of Civil Justice back in the nineties did away with most legal latin with terms such as Guardian ad Litem consigned to the history books. A few terms though are so specific as to continue in use and indeed are generally understood.
|
"I am grateful to my learned friend Mr Pope or his clear and succinct explanation."
Objection.
He is simply repeating mine. ;-)
|
....I didn't put my hand up.....
That was the Rolf Harris defence and it didn't work either.....
|
>>
>> Objection.
>>
>> He is simply repeating mine. ;-)
>>
Sustained.
I offer my apologies to my learned friend, and withdraw the observation.
(I have a suspicion they don't say sustained here - that's from Perry Mason ?)
|
|
I am obliged to my learned friend.
|
M'lord...In view of the non-appearance of The Hon BBD at this hearing....................
......I vote Joanna Smith QC as being tickety-boo !
|
I thought that there was meant to be some element of the penalty directed at mitigating any loss sustained by the owner/operator of the car park. If you overstay 30 minutes in a Free for 2 hours
car park i see no loss
|
That was Iffy's argument. Now shown to be definitely wrong. As long asthe penalty is not "exorbitant or unconscionable" you will have to pay
|
>> Now shown to be definitely wrong.
Well, not "definately". Just in the opinion of the Judges.
|
|
I think it's their opinion that counts.
|
>> That was Iffy's argument.
Has he been paroled yet?
|
>>Has he been paroled yet?
I don't think he's eligible yet. Quite a long minimum term I believe.
|
>> >>Has he been paroled yet?
>>
>> I don't think he's eligible yet. Quite a long minimum term I believe.
His term was longer because he was inciting others, running some kind of fundamentalist car parking terror group I believe.
|
|
I heard that. At one point they were threatening to park crooked as some kind of grassroots protest movement.
|
>> I don't think he's eligible yet. Quite a long minimum term I believe.
Did a runner and believed to be holed up in a caravan somewhere in the North East (according to the Daily Mail).
|
|
I thought he had been removed from the gene pool, even after Gazza tried to talk him down with a chippie.
|
|
funnily enough, they did both disappear at the same time?
|
>> I thought that there was meant to be some element of the penalty directed at
>> mitigating any loss sustained by the owner/operator of the car park. If you overstay 30
>> minutes in a Free for 2 hours
>> car park i see no loss
In this case - It was nothing to do with loss for the car park operator, the charge was levied purely as a deterrent. The argument was about weather 80 quid was a reasonable deterrent. It was deemed to reasonable deterrent and to pay for policing the deterrence.
One of the reasons this was a bad case to take to court and set precedence.
|
|
If only the Weather had been different.
|
|
Yes we all know wardens hyde in the rain
|
Parking - Supreme Court Judgement - MD
