private parking firms ParkingEye V Beavis

[bha100]

They have won a ruling in the Court of Appeal that tickets are enforceable.

The court ruled that PE’s charges should not be treated as penalties, and therefore unenforceable, because the level of charge is not ‘extravagant and unconscionable’ which they say is the true test of whether a clause is a penalty.

If you fancy a read

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/402.html

 

[chimneys]

Spotted that. Truly outrageous, as its all of our God given rights to park where we like, when we like.

Isn't that right Westdene Seagull?!

 

[Dick Swiveller]

Huuuuhhhh, Huuuhhhh. That's pretty cool, dumbass. Uhhhhhh, uhhhhh.

Beavis should be awarded TP for his bunghole.

 

[Tory Boy]

It's going to the Supreme Court, but I suspect the next government, of whatever colour, will legislate to ensure a charge of £25 (ish) will be allowed, nothing more.

TB

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Spotted that. Truly outrageous, as its all of our God given rights to park where we like, when we like.

Isn't that right Westdene Seagull?!

And where have I said that ? If these criminal, corrupt bullying companies actually MANAGED car parks then there wouldn't be a problem. I challenge anyone to explain how ANPR manages car parks ? For example, how does it prevent people abusing disabled parking spots ?

While I agree that this case loss is a dent in the campaign it certainly isn't then end. For starters leave to appeal was granted and will be taken up. Secondly it was for very specific cicumstances - Parking Eye were leasing the car park. In 99% of car parks the parking 'management' company does not lease the land. What is really ironic is that PE relied on having have a lease to 'win' this case yet they try and run roughshot over leases at private blocks of flats.

What it also doesn't negate is that in those 99% of cases they still have to prove GPEOL - which none of them do.

The advice - still don't pay these cowboys and go through the appeals procedures.

EDIT - and the lawyer that Beavis had presented a very poor case. He clearly didn't understand the in's and out's.

 

[chimneys]

And where have I said that ? If these criminal, corrupt bullying companies actually MANAGED car parks then there wouldn't be a problem. I challenge anyone to explain how ANPR manages car parks ? For example, how does it prevent people abusing disabled parking spots ?

While I agree that this case loss is a dent in the campaign it certainly isn't then end. For starters leave to appeal was granted and will be taken up. Secondly it was for very specific cicumstances - Parking Eye were leasing the car park. In 99% of car parks the parking 'management' company does not lease the land. What is really ironic is that PE relied on having have a lease to 'win' this case yet they try and run roughshot over leases at private blocks of flats.

What it also doesn't negate is that in those 99% of cases they still have to prove GPEOL - which none of them do.

The advice - still don't pay these cowboys and go through the appeals procedures.

EDIT - and the lawyer that Beavis had presented a very poor case. He clearly didn't understand the in's and out's.

My view is that there needs to fairness and accountability on both sides. Therefore parking firms can charge a maximum fee of say £50, halved if paid within 14 days (and this legislated upon by Government), and members of the public take responsibility for their actions by not being able to wriggle if properly charged. People don't flout these rules on street as they know they are enforceable.

It cannot be right that parking firms charge what they want, but it also cant be right that car owners can park pretty much where they like, all day if they feel like it.

 

[BensGrandad]

I think the biggest complaint is firms having wardens hiding and waiting for people to overstay. I have seen on a number of occasions when taking my m,um out shopping the NCP attendants in their car park in Liverpool Gardens hiding amongst cars waiting for the clock to go round on certain cars so they can issue a ticket. You get the option to pay £10 by card at the machine but when it happened to mum I tried 4 of her cards and it wouldnt accept the payment and it wasnt due to lack of funds.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Disappointed it took you so long to reply Westdene Seagull

 

[Notters]

Spotted that. Truly outrageous, as its all of our God given rights to park where we like, when we like.

Isn't that right Westdene Seagull?!

He's NEVER said that and is very reasonable.

So you're saying that £140, for example, is a reasonable charge for costs incurred for someone parking in a visitors bay with no signage at a friend's flat as happened to me?

 

[chimneys]

He's NEVER said that and is very reasonable.

So you're saying that £140, for example, is a reasonable charge for costs incurred for someone parking in a visitors bay with no signage at a friend's flat as happened to me?

Pretty sure I'm not saying that if you bother to read my view very clearly set out 3 posts above yours. You will note it says £50 and I would add, where properly chargeable. Of course your case would not fall under that criteria if there was no signage.

There must be some repercussion to stop people parking where they want and for as long as they want, if its clearly signed otherwise, as we all know some people will take advantage unless there are consequences.

 

[bha100]

My view is that there needs to fairness and accountability on both sides. Therefore parking firms can charge a maximum fee of say £50, halved if paid within 14 days (and this legislated upon by Government), and members of the public take responsibility for their actions by not being able to wriggle if properly charged. People don't flout these rules on street as they know they are enforceable.

It cannot be right that parking firms charge what they want, but it also cant be right that car owners can park pretty much where they like, all day if they feel like it.

A consultation is currently under way

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/parking-reform-tackling-unfair-practices

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Pretty sure I'm not saying that if you bother to read my view very clearly set out 3 posts above yours. You will note it says £50 and I would add, where properly chargeable. Of course your case would not fall under that criteria if there was no signage.

There must be some repercussion to stop people parking where they want and for as long as they want, if its clearly signed otherwise, as we all know some people will take advantage unless there are consequences.

But the implication in your post is that there is wide spread abuse. There isn't.

A consultation is currently under way

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/parking-reform-tackling-unfair-practices

Indeed and I've filled in my view a while back. I've also contacted my prosepctive MPs - Labour, Tory, UKIP and Lib Dem all agreed something needs to be done about these cowboys firms. The Greens didn't even bother to reply.

 

[Notters]

Pretty sure I'm not saying that if you bother to read my view very clearly set out 3 posts above yours. You will note it says £50 and I would add, where properly chargeable. Of course your case would not fall under that criteria if there was no signage.

There must be some repercussion to stop people parking where they want and for as long as they want, if its clearly signed otherwise, as we all know some people will take advantage unless there are consequences.

Fair enough, but I think the point is that they very rarely do make it clear. This is because they can make more money from praying on those who just pay-up "fines" without questioning them.

 

[BensGrandad]

But the implication in your post is that there is wide spread abuse. There isn't.



Indeed and I've filled in my view a while back. I've also contacted my prosepctive MPs - Labour, Tory, UKIP and Lib Dem all agreed something needs to be done about these cowboys firms. The Greens didn't even bother to reply.

Did you expect the Greens to reply?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Fair enough, but I think the point is that they very rarely do make it clear. This is because they can make more money from praying on those who just pay-up "fines" without questioning them.

Generally the only way these vermin make money is from the 'fines'. They offer their services to the retailers for free and keep any money paid. That's what shows this industry up as the nasty corrupt one it is. If the only way a company can stay trading is issung unenforcable invoices and hoping people pay them then it's clearly an unsustainable business model. Of course, if the retailer paid them to actually manage the car park that would be entirely different.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Did you expect the Greens to reply?

Well I generally think it's polite to respond to someone that's contacted you that may vote for you. If he doesn't reply when he's looking for votes imagine how bad he'll be if he ever gets elected an MP !

 

[BensGrandad]

Politeness and responding to letters seem to have gone out of the window as it is much easier to phone somebody up and even if they dont answer it is registered as an attempt to contact you. I scan every letter. bill etc and answer it on receipt then shred it but perhaps I am different to most.

 

[Creaky]

And where have I said that ? If these criminal, corrupt bullying companies actually MANAGED car parks then there wouldn't be a problem. I challenge anyone to explain how ANPR manages car parks ? For example, how does it prevent people abusing disabled parking spots ?

While I agree that this case loss is a dent in the campaign it certainly isn't then end. For starters leave to appeal was granted and will be taken up. Secondly it was for very specific cicumstances - Parking Eye were leasing the car park. In 99% of car parks the parking 'management' company does not lease the land. What is really ironic is that PE relied on having have a lease to 'win' this case yet they try and run roughshot over leases at private blocks of flats.

What it also doesn't negate is that in those 99% of cases they still have to prove GPEOL - which none of them do.

The advice - still don't pay these cowboys and go through the appeals procedures.

EDIT - and the lawyer that Beavis had presented a very poor case. He clearly didn't understand the in's and out's.

Parking Eye weren't leasing the car park - the owners leased the land to various 'chains' in the retail park and contracted Parking Eye to manage the carparks.

As for GPEOL the judge covered that:-

The judge accepted that ParkingEye did not suffer any specific financial loss if a motorist overstayed, because, if the space in question had been vacated, it would have either have remained unoccupied or would have been occupied by another car free of charge. He therefore held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount.

 

[Ernest]

Get the CLAMPS out

 

[BensGrandad]

Get the CLAMPS out

Didnt that start all this car parking fly boys nonsense.