Loading...
-
-
Re: A view on the recent win by Parking Eye in Cambridge
Judgment --- >
Download the Judgment (PDF)
Parking Prankster's analysis of the case hereOriginally posted by Parking Prankster
#staysafestayhome
Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.
Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps -
Re: A view on the recent win by Parking Eye in Cambridge
IMO (not that it's worth much:tinysmile_cry_t
the result is not as damaging as appears on first sight.
Firstly as judge emphasised it was a CC judgement that is only suasive on other courts.
Secondly as it is held that this is a penalty, and justified on commercial grounds, it makes a nonsense of PE displaying the BPA logo on their signs.
Codes of Practice must be followed by those who display them & it is very clear that BPA code states charges must be based solely on GPeOL .
Charges which are commercially justified penalties are not GPEOL and so code is breached.
PE should, if they are going to rely on this judgement, remove the logo from their signs.
It is interesting that PE did not argue the charge was a penalty, it was the judge who decided it was so.
Anyway, that will get a discussion going
Comment
-
Re: A view on the recent win by Parking Eye in Cambridge
Well for starters the judge missed, or was not directed to, the code of practice http://www.britishparking.co.uk/writ...,_Feb_2014.pdf
19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to
pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this
charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of
loss that you suffer. We would not expect this amount
to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this,
operators must be able to justify the amount in advance.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually
agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or
unreasonable. If it is more than the recommended
amount in 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could
lead to an investigation by The Office of Fair Trading.
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...768#post386768
In the attachment, a document submitted to the court, the claim to "conform to BPA regulations"
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...771#post386771
In the witness statement para 10 again this says much the same.
This is not an isolated issue. There is a live case in VIP where the same has happened.
The parking eye signs all have the BPA logo and the code of practice becomes an implied term of contract.
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ight=cambridge
7.1 e makes it plain that the charges are penalties.
Commercial justification is not allowed under the implied term of contract.
There are many flaws in the logic of the judgement but this is a real pain for anyone going to court.
M1Comment
-
Re: A view on the recent win by Parking Eye in Cambridge
Originally posted by des8 View PostIMO (not that it's worth much:tinysmile_cry_t the result is not as damaging as appears on first sight.
Firstly as judge emphasised it was a CC judgement that is only suasive on other courts.
Secondly as it is held that this is a penalty, and justified on commercial grounds, it makes a nonsense of PE displaying the BPA logo on their signs.
Codes of Practice must be followed by those who display them & it is very clear that BPA code states charges must be based solely on GPeOL .
Charges which are commercially justified penalties are not GPEOL and so code is breached.
PE should, if they are going to rely on this judgement, remove the logo from their signs.
It is interesting that PE did not argue the charge was a penalty, it was the judge who decided it was so.
Anyway, that will get a discussion going
Glad to see you've been reading the comments and pepipoo
Early days yet.
M1Comment
-
Re: A view on the recent win by Parking Eye in Cambridge
Well I have to be ready for next round in court
Comment
Tweet
Comment