Tweet
Hi there, I would really appreciate some advice regarding MET parking fines and an apparent impeding court action
I work in a hospital and for most of the year everyone parked in the Virgin active gym, which had a 4 hour max stay, with no consequence. Virgin obviously got annoyed with the full parking lot and asked MET parking services to start fining people. So I then got six fines through the post (there was no notice left on my car), all on consecutive days, before my parents rang me (the address the fines were going to) and I stopped parking there.
I have been ignoring the fines, and it has now got to the stage where the debt recovery agency are threatening to recommend to the creditor that they take it to court. Here are my questions:
1. At what stage do you know it has become an official court summons, not just a threat?
2. what is the latest stage you are able to pay just the fines and not incur any extra solicitors fees?
3. I have read up about the whole Beavis case, summarised below. From what I gather the parking company won because the judge ruled that the fine was warranted as a deterrent and was not 'extravagant and unconscionable'. I would argue that because they did not leave a notice on my car I had no idea I was being fined, and therefor it did not act as a deterrent but rather a punitive penalty, and that £900 is certainly extravagant and unconscionable. Do you think, if I did take it to court, there would be any merit in this argument?
Thanks so much for your help in advance
Callum
"The court of appeal unambiguously clarified the common law's position on both the nature and enforcability of parking charges. It is now clear thay a parking charge having the predominant purpose or intention to deter is 'not' sufficient in itself to invalidate [the charge]' The Principle test that should be used is whether the sum charge is 'extravagant and unconscionable'. In the case it was found that the parking charge was not extravagant and unconscionable and thus fully enforcable under the rules about contractual penalties. The Court made reference to indirect losses that parking contraventions can cause to operators, the need for large charges to deter breaches, the benefit to the community that such deterrence can create and the intention of Parliament for such charges to be enforceable. This ruling now represents the most authorative judgement in the area of parking law and must be strictly adheared to, Following the ruling in Beavis, it is without doubt that your parking charge is wholly valid and fully enforcable"
I work in a hospital and for most of the year everyone parked in the Virgin active gym, which had a 4 hour max stay, with no consequence. Virgin obviously got annoyed with the full parking lot and asked MET parking services to start fining people. So I then got six fines through the post (there was no notice left on my car), all on consecutive days, before my parents rang me (the address the fines were going to) and I stopped parking there.
I have been ignoring the fines, and it has now got to the stage where the debt recovery agency are threatening to recommend to the creditor that they take it to court. Here are my questions:
1. At what stage do you know it has become an official court summons, not just a threat?
2. what is the latest stage you are able to pay just the fines and not incur any extra solicitors fees?
3. I have read up about the whole Beavis case, summarised below. From what I gather the parking company won because the judge ruled that the fine was warranted as a deterrent and was not 'extravagant and unconscionable'. I would argue that because they did not leave a notice on my car I had no idea I was being fined, and therefor it did not act as a deterrent but rather a punitive penalty, and that £900 is certainly extravagant and unconscionable. Do you think, if I did take it to court, there would be any merit in this argument?
Thanks so much for your help in advance
Callum
"The court of appeal unambiguously clarified the common law's position on both the nature and enforcability of parking charges. It is now clear thay a parking charge having the predominant purpose or intention to deter is 'not' sufficient in itself to invalidate [the charge]' The Principle test that should be used is whether the sum charge is 'extravagant and unconscionable'. In the case it was found that the parking charge was not extravagant and unconscionable and thus fully enforcable under the rules about contractual penalties. The Court made reference to indirect losses that parking contraventions can cause to operators, the need for large charges to deter breaches, the benefit to the community that such deterrence can create and the intention of Parliament for such charges to be enforceable. This ruling now represents the most authorative judgement in the area of parking law and must be strictly adheared to, Following the ruling in Beavis, it is without doubt that your parking charge is wholly valid and fully enforcable"
Attached Files
Comment