Parking Eye v Beavis ( now with appeal judgment)

[Amethyst]

Re: Parking Eye v Beavis ( now with appeal judgment)

Is that being appealed?

[Amethyst]

Re: Parking Eye v Beavis ( now with appeal judgment)

An interesting article in the Spectator...

The basic premise is that, seeing the CoA have effectively sanctioned these "speculative invoices", then why not send the same to a parking company for dealing with their correspondence?
£85/letter for example (whilst not being a true pre-estimate of loss! ) could certainly prove to be a deterrent!

Imagine if the Beavis ruling could actually be completely turned on to the private parking companies!

Could prove to be interesting times!

from the Spectator...

Mr Beavis can appeal to the Supreme Court. But maybe a better, and more financially rewarding, way to tackle parking cowboys is to play them at their own game. If you receive a letter from them asking for money, why not write back and tell them that from now on you are introducing a ‘communication handling fee’ for any correspondence. If they write to you again they agree to pay a fee of £85.

Now that the Appeal Court has decided that speculative invoices for spurious charges are enforceable in court, your communication handling fee will carry no less weight than their parking charge.

Have to say I completely disagree.

[Amethyst]

Re: Parking Eye v Beavis ( now with appeal judgment)

Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...king-fine.html

Richard Lloyd, of Which?, the consumer watchdog, said: "We are concerned this decision waters down the law on penalty charges and may encourage excessive default charges across a wide range of consumer markets.

"Given the possible ramifications of this case for all consumers, we will be looking to intervene again in the Supreme Court hearing."

The AA said it hoped the appeal would "bring some clarity" to private parking enforcement and end "rip-off" charges - or the Government would impose a fairer regulatory system.

Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said: "It is deeply frustrating that the case has gone against Mr Beavis, but we believe the days of sky-high charges and business models that incentivise firms to issue tickets like confetti no matter how minor the misdemeanour are numbered.

“It should not be up to the industry to self-regulate and there needs to be a fair and reasonable code of practice set up by government."

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye v Beavis ( now with appeal judgment)

Is that being appealed?

Yes. https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/per...al-2014-05.pdf

Cavendish Square Holdings BV (Appellant) v
Talal El Makdessi (Respondent)
UKSC 2013/0280
Lord Neuberger
Lord Reed
Lord Toulson
Granted
22 May 2014

M1

[sean5302]

Re: Parking Eye v Beavis ( now with appeal judgment)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...king-fine.html

Mr Beavis, 48, parked at the Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford and returned to his vehicle 56 minutes after the two-hour time limit.
When he refused to pay an £85 penalty charge, he was sent a court summons to appear at Chelmsford magistrates' court and informed the fine had been increased to £150.

What?
I don't think this went before the Mags.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye v Beavis ( now with appeal judgment)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...king-fine.html

Mr Beavis, 48, parked at the Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford and returned to his vehicle 56 minutes after the two-hour time limit.
When he refused to pay an £85 penalty charge, he was sent a court summons to appear at Chelmsford magistrates' court and informed the fine had been increased to £150.

What?
I don't think this went before the Mags.

I know it didn't. It's not a criminal offence although given the CoA ruling perhaps the judges wished it was !

M1

[Amethyst]

Re: Parking Eye v Beavis ( now with appeal judgment)

Yes. https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/per...al-2014-05.pdf

Cavendish Square Holdings BV (Appellant) v
Talal El Makdessi (Respondent)
UKSC 2013/0280
Lord Neuberger
Lord Reed
Lord Toulson
Granted
22 May 2014

M1

Ahhh interesting.

Commercial justifiability arguments on the menu for the foreseeable then.

[Amethyst]

Re: Parking Eye v Beavis ( now with appeal judgment)

http://www.brentwoodgazette.co.uk/Su...ail/story.html

Supporters have donated over £6,000 to back a Billericay chip-shop owner who will take his parking ticket appeal to the Supreme Court.

Barry Beavis, who owns The Happy Haddock on Morris Avenue, started a fundraising page so he could afford to appeal the decision after the Court of Appeal dismissed his case.

The target was £6,000 which was exceeded in one day.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Beavis' case last Thursday (April 23) after Lord Justice Moore-Bick, Lord Justice Patten, and Sir Timothy Lloyd claimed the fine was "neither extravagant nor unconscionable".

Read more: http://www.brentwoodgazette.co.uk/Su...#ixzz3YVBCMmgq
Follow us: @Gazetteseries on Twitter | gazettebrentwood on Facebook

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye v Beavis ( now with appeal judgment)

If you are due in court soon i'd ask the court to stay matters pending the result.


John de Waal QC @johndewaalqc 37m37 minutes ago
ParkingEye v Beavis appeal to Supreme Court now listed for 21 July this year with other case on penalties Barrybeavis @racfoundation

Other case being http://www.wilberforce.co.uk/case-st...re-holding-bv/

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1539.html

M1

[Smasher]

Re: Parking Eye v Beavis ( now with appeal judgment)

from the Spectator...

Mr Beavis can appeal to the Supreme Court. But maybe a better, and more financially rewarding, way to tackle parking cowboys is to play them at their own game. If you receive a letter from them asking for money, why not write back and tell them that from now on you are introducing a ‘communication handling fee’ for any correspondence. If they write to you again they agree to pay a fee of £85.

Now that the Appeal Court has decided that speculative invoices for spurious charges are enforceable in court, your communication handling fee will carry no less weight than their parking charge.

Have to say I completely disagree.

Just wondering, if they wrongly issued the charge, would this be possible then?
My mum got a charge from Parking Eye yesterday from when she took my dad to Barnet Hospital. Now I may just be being over optimistic, because there was a 6min gap between time stamp on the camera showing her entering the car park and the time stamped on the ticket. But if this was wrongly issued, it's not fair that she should have to go through the whole appeal process with no mutual redress. Not that there is anything fair about these cowboys anyway.

That is of course assuming she didn't overstay. It doesn't show an expiry time on the ticket, but she was there for 6 hours and paid £6.00. I guess I better go have a look at the machine & see what the tarriffs are before I go any further..