Beavis v Parking Eye procedural rules/reserved Judgement
Discussion
This case;
http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/parkingeye-vs-beav...
I can't see anywhere that a final Judgement has been entered yet but until that happens, what would the usual position be with similar cases? I happen to have a CC summons sitting in front of me for my wife for exactly the same thing and from Parking Eye.
I will be filling out the claim form admitting part of the cost (24 hours parking at Barnet when why wife was admitted to hospital for emergency treatment during the final days of pregnancy) but not the solicitors costs.
Should I mention the above case and request a stay until the final Judgement is delivered or will the case be Judged as things currently stand ie the case will fail under the current common law principles?
Many thanks in advance chaps!
http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/parkingeye-vs-beav...
I can't see anywhere that a final Judgement has been entered yet but until that happens, what would the usual position be with similar cases? I happen to have a CC summons sitting in front of me for my wife for exactly the same thing and from Parking Eye.
I will be filling out the claim form admitting part of the cost (24 hours parking at Barnet when why wife was admitted to hospital for emergency treatment during the final days of pregnancy) but not the solicitors costs.
Should I mention the above case and request a stay until the final Judgement is delivered or will the case be Judged as things currently stand ie the case will fail under the current common law principles?
Many thanks in advance chaps!
Court of Appeal judgment:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/402.h...
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/402.h...
Edited by agtlaw on Thursday 23 April 12:29
Does this not set potentially quite a dangerous precedent, that a charge is effectively valid so long as those issuing the charge can justify it commercially?
I am thinking mobile phone bill for instance, miss a payment, then instead of EE (chosen at random) chasing you, Jo Blogs Collections chases you, who is contracted to EE for this type of thing, but instead of owing EE £32.50 you now owe that and the £150 JBC adds on.
I am thinking mobile phone bill for instance, miss a payment, then instead of EE (chosen at random) chasing you, Jo Blogs Collections chases you, who is contracted to EE for this type of thing, but instead of owing EE £32.50 you now owe that and the £150 JBC adds on.
nikaiyo2 said:
Does this not set potentially quite a dangerous precedent, that a charge is effectively valid so long as those issuing the charge can justify it commercially?
I am thinking mobile phone bill for instance, miss a payment, then instead of EE (chosen at random) chasing you, Jo Blogs Collections chases you, who is contracted to EE for this type of thing, but instead of owing EE £32.50 you now owe that and the £150 JBC adds on.
This already happens if you don't pay for a not really that extended period....I am thinking mobile phone bill for instance, miss a payment, then instead of EE (chosen at random) chasing you, Jo Blogs Collections chases you, who is contracted to EE for this type of thing, but instead of owing EE £32.50 you now owe that and the £150 JBC adds on.
Mr. Beavis; "I am absolutely furious that they have not upheld the law as it stands but have created new law."
Suck it up. It's common law. You relied on old common law precedents where new law was created and now don't like it when it works against you.
Should have paid the original fine (or been more careful about where he parks).
Pepipoo seems awfully quiet today.
Suck it up. It's common law. You relied on old common law precedents where new law was created and now don't like it when it works against you.
Should have paid the original fine (or been more careful about where he parks).
Pepipoo seems awfully quiet today.
allergictocheese said:
Mr. Beavis; "I am absolutely furious that they have not upheld the law as it stands but have created new law."
Suck it up. It's common law. You relied on old common law precedents where new law was created and now don't like it when it works against you.
Should have paid the original fine (or been more careful about where he parks).
Pepipoo seems awfully quiet today.
Agreed. Hopefully this will act as a deterrent to the p155 takersSuck it up. It's common law. You relied on old common law precedents where new law was created and now don't like it when it works against you.
Should have paid the original fine (or been more careful about where he parks).
Pepipoo seems awfully quiet today.
Quote from the parking prankster website
"The charge may actually be a contractual charge, rather than a charge for breach of contract. Their lordships thought this would make no difference but forgot that contractual charges attract VAT. This would therefore destroy ParkingEye's business model and require them to stump up significant backdated cash and penalties to HMRC."
"The charge may actually be a contractual charge, rather than a charge for breach of contract. Their lordships thought this would make no difference but forgot that contractual charges attract VAT. This would therefore destroy ParkingEye's business model and require them to stump up significant backdated cash and penalties to HMRC."
agtlaw said:
Permission to appeal to the UKSC has been granted. That doesn't mean that there will be an appeal but the appellant does not have to get permission to appeal from UKSC.
Ask Mr Beavis. He decides. Not the court or the lawyers involved.
What are the ballpark figures for him to appeal to the supreme court? And is he facing having to pay costs to the parking company? Ask Mr Beavis. He decides. Not the court or the lawyers involved.
allergictocheese said:
Mr. Beavis; "I am absolutely furious that they have not upheld the law as it stands but have created new law."
Suck it up. It's common law. You relied on old common law precedents where new law was created and now don't like it when it works against you.
Should have paid the original fine (or been more careful about where he parks).
Pepipoo seems awfully quiet today.
I agree. I also believe that Mr Beavis does not understand the processes or the judgment. Suck it up. It's common law. You relied on old common law precedents where new law was created and now don't like it when it works against you.
Should have paid the original fine (or been more careful about where he parks).
Pepipoo seems awfully quiet today.
It has always been the case that judgments refer to previous similar cases. Those similar cases will not be identical, but it is for the judges to use the previous principles in order to create a fairness in the emergent situation. The commercial justifiability argument has been around for years.
The long and the short of it is that if the appeal was allowed, it gives licence to all and sundry to abuse free parking in towns and cities. It was always my belief that that that was highly unlikely, and if it did it would have to be controlled by statute anyway to give parking providers the same rights.
nikaiyo2 said:
Does this not set potentially quite a dangerous precedent, that a charge is effectively valid so long as those issuing the charge can justify it commercially?
I am thinking mobile phone bill for instance, miss a payment, then instead of EE (chosen at random) chasing you, Jo Blogs Collections chases you, who is contracted to EE for this type of thing, but instead of owing EE £32.50 you now owe that and the £150 JBC adds on.
Shirley, they can't do that until they have got a County Court Judgement against you?I am thinking mobile phone bill for instance, miss a payment, then instead of EE (chosen at random) chasing you, Jo Blogs Collections chases you, who is contracted to EE for this type of thing, but instead of owing EE £32.50 you now owe that and the £150 JBC adds on.
The Mad Monk said:
Shirley, they can't do that until they have got a County Court Judgement against you?
That's the whole point of what PE and others have been doing. Anyway - looks like the appeal is going to happen: https://twitter.com/barrybeavis
"the fight goes on".
Statement from Mr Beavis
"The court dismissed the appeal. I lost and ParkingEye won. They only won because the court changed the law. Penalties are unenforceable. The test for what is a penalty is if the predominant function is to deter. Then it's a penalty. The parking charge of £85 was found to to deter. However, the court found that the £85 was not a penalty as it is not 'extravagant or unconscionable. I have been given permission to appeal. The House of Lords determined that if the predominant function is to deter, it's a penalty. The House of Lords is the higher court. The Court of Appeal doesn't have the authority to change House of Lords rulings - the House of Lords is the higher court. I feel terrible because I have lost and am so so sorry. But the fight goes on." @BarryBeavis
"The court dismissed the appeal. I lost and ParkingEye won. They only won because the court changed the law. Penalties are unenforceable. The test for what is a penalty is if the predominant function is to deter. Then it's a penalty. The parking charge of £85 was found to to deter. However, the court found that the £85 was not a penalty as it is not 'extravagant or unconscionable. I have been given permission to appeal. The House of Lords determined that if the predominant function is to deter, it's a penalty. The House of Lords is the higher court. The Court of Appeal doesn't have the authority to change House of Lords rulings - the House of Lords is the higher court. I feel terrible because I have lost and am so so sorry. But the fight goes on." @BarryBeavis
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff