Tweet
I have received a 'notice of claim' from a private car parking company who work for Trafford General Hospital Greater Manchester. The car park had 3 hours free parking. Unfortunately, extensive waiting times before my medical procedure meant I was 15 minutes late back to my car, and I was 'fined'. My appeals have been dismissed and I am contemplating defending my case in court. I wondered if anyone had any information/advice to help with my potential defence.
I was planning a defence on two grounds.
Firstly, the landmark Supreme Court ruling in 'Parking Eye v Beavis' should not apply. In this case, the defendant was 56 minutes late with no mitigating circumstances. The judges in this appeal made a point, effectively, of saying he had only himself to blame. The case is also materially different as in this case the parking company's purpose was to ensure the free movement of traffic around a shopping centre and to prevent people leaving their car for extended periods thus interfering with shoppers' access to car parking. In my case, the company's objective was to ensure spaces were left available for hospital patients - in other words people like me.
Secondly, I was going to argue the legal principle of 'frustration of contract' applied in that I was prevented from fulfilling my contractual obligations of returning in the set period by being held up through no fault of my own. I could not have realistically foreseen such an extensive delay at the outset given I had a specific appointment time for a medical procedure. I was having an invasive procedure in theatre which I could hardly cut short to move my car.
Can anyone be of help? Has there been a similar case which has tested whether the Beavis ruling applied to people held up by hospital delays? What are the chances of success for running such a defence?
I was planning a defence on two grounds.
Firstly, the landmark Supreme Court ruling in 'Parking Eye v Beavis' should not apply. In this case, the defendant was 56 minutes late with no mitigating circumstances. The judges in this appeal made a point, effectively, of saying he had only himself to blame. The case is also materially different as in this case the parking company's purpose was to ensure the free movement of traffic around a shopping centre and to prevent people leaving their car for extended periods thus interfering with shoppers' access to car parking. In my case, the company's objective was to ensure spaces were left available for hospital patients - in other words people like me.
Secondly, I was going to argue the legal principle of 'frustration of contract' applied in that I was prevented from fulfilling my contractual obligations of returning in the set period by being held up through no fault of my own. I could not have realistically foreseen such an extensive delay at the outset given I had a specific appointment time for a medical procedure. I was having an invasive procedure in theatre which I could hardly cut short to move my car.
Can anyone be of help? Has there been a similar case which has tested whether the Beavis ruling applied to people held up by hospital delays? What are the chances of success for running such a defence?
Comment