Tweet
Hello, I'm new.
I dropped a friend off at a Premier Park car park where he'd parked. It was 10 pm. I didn't know the car park was 24/7 or that it had number plate cameras. We talked for 10 minutes, then I drove out, never having left the car. I got a £100 charge for overstaying by two minutes the ten minutes grace period. The charge for an hour's parking was £2. I appealed, and argued I had no contract, but POPLA upheld the charge, citing Beavis. That was after Premier Park's case - inter alia: In darkness hours, each individual sign is not illuminated. But as can be seen in the photographic evidence, the site is on a busy road and has several street lights positioned around it which would have highlighted the signage - and my summary:
I do deny seeing said signage. That was on signs in the car park, not at the entrance. I couldn't read them at night without leaving my car, and didn’t as I had no intention of entering a contract. The entrance sign, including the tiny warning about camera enforcement, does not indicate that charges apply 24 hours. BPA Code Appendix B says “Signs at the entrance to the parking area should clearly show the type of parking; and if, when and how any payment should be made.” The entrance signs say nothing about payment, or when charges apply.
The Beavis judgment is binding on similar cases but this is not a similar case. Beavis overstayed and claimed the penalty was unlawful and/or an unfair term. The judgment related to a business model of charges for overstaying in a retail car park, so turnover created “a legitimate interest in imposing a liability on Mr Beavis in excess of the damages that would have been recoverable at common law”. BPA Code 19.5 says a parking charge should be based on genuine pre-estimate of loss and should not be more than £100. Parking Eye wants to charge £100 but this is not based on a reasonable pre-estimate of loss in this case. They suffered no loss, except perhaps £2 that I (apparently) should have paid, but didn’t even suffer that loss as, had I known about it, I would not have entered the car park. The judgment referred to charges made by councils, but I could have parked all night for free on the main road opposite.
The Beavis judgement says “the appeals procedure provides a degree of protection for any overstayer, who would be able to cite any special circumstances as a reason for avoiding the charge”. I trust the same protection applies here; I went on the land solely to deliver a paying customer of Parking Eye back to his car, and a £100 charge for staying two minutes beyond the grace period in a nearly empty car park at 10 pm is unreasonable, and bears no relation to the business model in Beavis or any genuine pre-estimate of loss.
I was surprised not to win the appeal (despite other experience of trusting "independent" arbitration). I'm now onto the second debt-collection company. Main question: has Beavis been tested to cover circumstances other than the retail car park model?
I dropped a friend off at a Premier Park car park where he'd parked. It was 10 pm. I didn't know the car park was 24/7 or that it had number plate cameras. We talked for 10 minutes, then I drove out, never having left the car. I got a £100 charge for overstaying by two minutes the ten minutes grace period. The charge for an hour's parking was £2. I appealed, and argued I had no contract, but POPLA upheld the charge, citing Beavis. That was after Premier Park's case - inter alia: In darkness hours, each individual sign is not illuminated. But as can be seen in the photographic evidence, the site is on a busy road and has several street lights positioned around it which would have highlighted the signage - and my summary:
I do deny seeing said signage. That was on signs in the car park, not at the entrance. I couldn't read them at night without leaving my car, and didn’t as I had no intention of entering a contract. The entrance sign, including the tiny warning about camera enforcement, does not indicate that charges apply 24 hours. BPA Code Appendix B says “Signs at the entrance to the parking area should clearly show the type of parking; and if, when and how any payment should be made.” The entrance signs say nothing about payment, or when charges apply.
The Beavis judgment is binding on similar cases but this is not a similar case. Beavis overstayed and claimed the penalty was unlawful and/or an unfair term. The judgment related to a business model of charges for overstaying in a retail car park, so turnover created “a legitimate interest in imposing a liability on Mr Beavis in excess of the damages that would have been recoverable at common law”. BPA Code 19.5 says a parking charge should be based on genuine pre-estimate of loss and should not be more than £100. Parking Eye wants to charge £100 but this is not based on a reasonable pre-estimate of loss in this case. They suffered no loss, except perhaps £2 that I (apparently) should have paid, but didn’t even suffer that loss as, had I known about it, I would not have entered the car park. The judgment referred to charges made by councils, but I could have parked all night for free on the main road opposite.
The Beavis judgement says “the appeals procedure provides a degree of protection for any overstayer, who would be able to cite any special circumstances as a reason for avoiding the charge”. I trust the same protection applies here; I went on the land solely to deliver a paying customer of Parking Eye back to his car, and a £100 charge for staying two minutes beyond the grace period in a nearly empty car park at 10 pm is unreasonable, and bears no relation to the business model in Beavis or any genuine pre-estimate of loss.
I was surprised not to win the appeal (despite other experience of trusting "independent" arbitration). I'm now onto the second debt-collection company. Main question: has Beavis been tested to cover circumstances other than the retail car park model?
Comment