Beavis v Parking Eye procedural rules/reserved Judgement
Discussion
Deep Joy for responsible motorists in Manchester 
Metrolink Park and Ride passengers hit out at 3am fines for leaving car overnight http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
Metrolink Park and Ride passengers hit out at 3am fines for leaving car overnight http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
speedyguy said:
Deep Joy for responsible motorists in Manchester
Metrolink Park and Ride passengers hit out at 3am fines for leaving car overnight http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
There's a picture that shows no overnight parking, then separately below is says that if you park outside of tram running hours you get charged £100, or £50 if paid quickly.Metrolink Park and Ride passengers hit out at 3am fines for leaving car overnight http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
Any reasonable person wondering: "Can I use this land to park my car on overnight?" gets a simple answer.
This is the classic case of I'll use your land, but I won't even be arsed to read the rules.
Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 27th April 20:50
jm doc said:
So he can't be bothered to lock it because it's too much hassle, then complains when people use it. What other things does he leave unlocked, the shop door, his front door??!!
What a pathetic victim blaming attitude. His Dad should be perfectly entitled to buy and use the car park without having to turn it into Fort flaming Knox just because of some t
ts. You typify everything that's wrong with this country where we end up with restrictions and crap affecting us all just because a few people can't behave decently - deal with the offenders!JustinP1 said:
speedyguy said:
Deep Joy for responsible motorists in Manchester
Metrolink Park and Ride passengers hit out at 3am fines for leaving car overnight http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
There's a picture that shows no overnight parking, then separately below is says that if you park outside of tram running hours you get charged £100, or £50 if paid quickly.Metrolink Park and Ride passengers hit out at 3am fines for leaving car overnight http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
Any reasonable person wondering: "Can I use this land to park my car on overnight?" gets a simple answer.
This is the classic case of I'll use your land, but I won't even be arsed to read the rules.
Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 27th April 20:50
If of course they wonder whether they SHOULD may get a different answer.
Back to the subject.
I used to work in a secure place that had a car park next to a main road. The car park had a sign saying no entry and private etc but was very near to a gents barbers. Every day blokes would park in the car park and if staff members saw them and told them to leave they would be given abuse, told the person would only be there ten minutes or even just ignored.
Some of the drivers were VERY arrogant and refused to even acknowledge the staff member telling them they couldn't park in the car park, and would just turn their back on the staff member and walk out of the car park and go to the barbers.
The car park was marked as private and there were signs saying it was not for public use. On one or two occasions I know that drivers came back to their car to find it very very much damaged. These drivers were reminded that they HAD been told not to park there and had ignored requests to leave. They were further told that they had parked their car in a secure location for young offenders and that where they had parked was NOT covered by the CCTV system. Once that was pointed out they were told to remove their car there and then or the police would be called. None of those drivers ever parked there again.
To this day I don't know who wrecked the cars, but on a scheme where everyone living there is a serious offender it may not take much imagination.
Raynkar said:
Some of the drivers were VERY arrogant and refused to even acknowledge the staff member telling them they couldn't park in the car park, and would just turn their back on the staff member and walk out of the car park and go to the barbers.
The car park was marked as private and there were signs saying it was not for public use. On one or two occasions I know that drivers came back to their car to find it very very much damaged. These drivers were reminded that they HAD been told not to park there and had ignored requests to leave. They were further told that they had parked their car in a secure location for young offenders and that where they had parked was NOT covered by the CCTV system. Once that was pointed out they were told to remove their car there and then or the police would be called. None of those drivers ever parked there again.
To this day I don't know who wrecked the cars, but on a scheme where everyone living there is a serious offender it may not take much imagination.
Funniest thing I've read in days :-)The car park was marked as private and there were signs saying it was not for public use. On one or two occasions I know that drivers came back to their car to find it very very much damaged. These drivers were reminded that they HAD been told not to park there and had ignored requests to leave. They were further told that they had parked their car in a secure location for young offenders and that where they had parked was NOT covered by the CCTV system. Once that was pointed out they were told to remove their car there and then or the police would be called. None of those drivers ever parked there again.
To this day I don't know who wrecked the cars, but on a scheme where everyone living there is a serious offender it may not take much imagination.
NinjaPower said:
He can't fit an electric barrier as there is no electric supply to the piece of land, and a manual padlock barrier would just be a huge pain in the backside for the regular comings and going of his vans to the park, especially as they would have to park blocking the single lane one way street while unlocking the gate to drive in.
Move the gate further in from the road.The Mad Monk said:
NinjaPower said:
He can't fit an electric barrier as there is no electric supply to the piece of land, and a manual padlock barrier would just be a huge pain in the backside for the regular comings and going of his vans to the park, especially as they would have to park blocking the single lane one way street while unlocking the gate to drive in.
Move the gate further in from the road.Or, he calls Parking Eye, and at no cost to him they stop the idiots parking by sending them fines.
Can you see why Parking Eye get used?
They are not the problem, they are simply the imperfect solution to the problem.
JustinP1 said:
So he has to spend thousands of pounds of his own money excavating a concreted in barrier, getting an electric barrier put in, more digging to get electricity to it... etc. etc. Just to physically stop idiots abusing his property.
Or, he calls Parking Eye, and at no cost to him they stop the idiots parking by sending them fines.
Can you see why Parking Eye get used?
They are not the problem, they are simply the imperfect solution to the problem.
Who don't in worst cases provide a cure, viz more toilet paper etc.Or, he calls Parking Eye, and at no cost to him they stop the idiots parking by sending them fines.
Can you see why Parking Eye get used?
They are not the problem, they are simply the imperfect solution to the problem.
FiF said:
JustinP1 said:
So he has to spend thousands of pounds of his own money excavating a concreted in barrier, getting an electric barrier put in, more digging to get electricity to it... etc. etc. Just to physically stop idiots abusing his property.
Or, he calls Parking Eye, and at no cost to him they stop the idiots parking by sending them fines.
Can you see why Parking Eye get used?
They are not the problem, they are simply the imperfect solution to the problem.
Who don't in worst cases provide a cure, viz more toilet paper etc.Or, he calls Parking Eye, and at no cost to him they stop the idiots parking by sending them fines.
Can you see why Parking Eye get used?
They are not the problem, they are simply the imperfect solution to the problem.
I'd suggest though that the 'problem' would drop by 90% or more after Parking Eye put signs up, and start ticketing.
Which, I'd also suggest for the vast majority of landowners means that the 'problem' is no longer a problem.
JustinP1 said:
So he has to spend thousands of pounds of his own money excavating a concreted in barrier, getting an electric barrier put in, more digging to get electricity to it... etc. etc. Just to physically stop idiots abusing his property.
Or, he calls Parking Eye, and at no cost to him they stop the idiots parking by sending them fines.
Can you see why Parking Eye get used?
They are not the problem, they are simply the imperfect solution to the problem.
Well, yes, one of those two methods would work. Or, he calls Parking Eye, and at no cost to him they stop the idiots parking by sending them fines.
Can you see why Parking Eye get used?
They are not the problem, they are simply the imperfect solution to the problem.
The question was, what can he do to stop the unauthorised parking? I was giving one solution. I am not saying it's the right solution, but it is a solution.
I appreciate there are solutions if we tried hard enough or spent the money, but at this stage, it really is a case of "why should we".
If the recent case being discussed means that Charge notices handed out by private parking enforcement are easier to enforce then that is the route we will go down again and see if it works out.
If the recent case being discussed means that Charge notices handed out by private parking enforcement are easier to enforce then that is the route we will go down again and see if it works out.
NinjaPower said:
It is now being taken to the Supreme Court for further appeal? Have I read that correctly?
The hearing is 21st July - joined with another matter:https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2013-0280.h...
Expect judgment to be reserved.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/beavis-v-parkinge...
However:
Cavendish Square Holding BV (Appellant) v Talal El Makdessi
Issue
1. Whether the rule against penalties applies to [/b]commercial contracts between sophisticated parties[/b].
I can see the merit in considering these cases alongside each other, but Beavis is an individual and a consumer. I'm not convinced that he is in the same league as Cavendish and Makdessi. Let's hope the Supreme Court recognises, and takes into account, this crucial difference.
However:
Cavendish Square Holding BV (Appellant) v Talal El Makdessi
Issue
1. Whether the rule against penalties applies to [/b]commercial contracts between sophisticated parties[/b].
I can see the merit in considering these cases alongside each other, but Beavis is an individual and a consumer. I'm not convinced that he is in the same league as Cavendish and Makdessi. Let's hope the Supreme Court recognises, and takes into account, this crucial difference.
Red Devil said:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/beavis-v-parkinge...
However:
Cavendish Square Holding BV (Appellant) v Talal El Makdessi
Issue
1. Whether the rule against penalties applies to [/b]commercial contracts between sophisticated parties[/b].
I can see the merit in considering these cases alongside each other, but Beavis is an individual and a consumer. I'm not convinced that he is in the same league as Cavendish and Makdessi. Let's hope the Supreme Court recognises, and takes into account, this crucial difference.
So, let's see now: We have a bunch of Supreme Court Judges with a zillion years legal experience between them and giganto enormo brains, and a bunch of posh barristers who know the cases backwards and are even being paid to notice stuff about them. So, what yer reckon, eh?However:
Cavendish Square Holding BV (Appellant) v Talal El Makdessi
Issue
1. Whether the rule against penalties applies to [/b]commercial contracts between sophisticated parties[/b].
I can see the merit in considering these cases alongside each other, but Beavis is an individual and a consumer. I'm not convinced that he is in the same league as Cavendish and Makdessi. Let's hope the Supreme Court recognises, and takes into account, this crucial difference.
I really don't understand what the parking evangelists want? If the Supreme Court overturns the decision, leaving land owners unable to effectively use liquidated damages or trespass to enforce control over their car parks, what then?
Do people think it will just stop there and parking tickets will disappear or become £5? Do they expect that every private car park will have to become barrier protected or face being uncontrollable?
Or will the majority Tory Government merely amend or create new law to give private parking companies a legislative footing and an official regulatory body?
Do people think it will just stop there and parking tickets will disappear or become £5? Do they expect that every private car park will have to become barrier protected or face being uncontrollable?
Or will the majority Tory Government merely amend or create new law to give private parking companies a legislative footing and an official regulatory body?
This has come about because there is a huge gaping mindset difference between a landowner wanting to protect his land from nuisance vehicles (legit) and the methods used by parking contractors to raise revenue by subterfuge, illegality, high levels of 'civil enforcement penalties' (and their disproportionate escalations) etc. They reap what they sow - good God there are even TV series about 'Cowboy Clampers' etc.
Maybe, just maybe, its not all simplistically about the bad selfish motorist and so even more reform of this sector is due to create a better balance between being fair to BOTH the landowner AND the motorist?
Maybe, just maybe, its not all simplistically about the bad selfish motorist and so even more reform of this sector is due to create a better balance between being fair to BOTH the landowner AND the motorist?
Ken Figenus said:
This has come about because there is a huge gaping mindset difference between a landowner wanting to protect his land from nuisance vehicles (legit) and the methods used by parking contractors to raise revenue by subterfuge, illegality, high levels of 'civil enforcement penalties' (and their disproportionate escalations) etc. They reap what they sow - good God there are even TV series about 'Cowboy Clampers' etc.
Maybe, just maybe, its not all simplistically about the bad selfish motorist and so even more reform of this sector is due to create a better balance between being fair to BOTH the landowner AND the motorist?
A few years ago I would have absolutely agreed with you.Maybe, just maybe, its not all simplistically about the bad selfish motorist and so even more reform of this sector is due to create a better balance between being fair to BOTH the landowner AND the motorist?
However I now think the parking enforcement people have had to clean up their act considerably, and of course things like clamping etc have been banned.
Parking Eye, frequently cited as being 'the worst', manage our very large office car park, which is mixed use and contains both business users with permits and marked bays, and also 'pay and display' users.
I'm quite good friends with the manager of the office complex who also deals directly with Parking Eye, and I can honestly state that no one gets a ticket in the car park unless they have:
a) failed to pay for their stay before leaving.
b) failed to park in a marked bay (and I don't mean just outside the lines i mean in an area that isn't a parking space)
c) parked in a bay clearly marked as reserved.
There are no other circumstances in which a ticket is issued. Now I don't know about you, but all the above seems perfectly reasonable?
Yet still we get numerous muppets that park all day for free and joke about 'free toilet paper' upon receipt of yet another Parking Eye letter coming through their letter box.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff