Beavis v Parking Eye procedural rules/reserved Judgement
Discussion
photosnob said:
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?
Can'r answer the first bit, but I understand Parking Eye agreed beforehand not to pursue him for costs at this level - and his QC (bless him - really) was doing it for free.The Mad Monk said:
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.
If the contract offered to you is if you don't pay your bill and you ignore communication that you would be charged £100 for the third party to find you to pay your bill - and you agree to that when you sign up for the contract - then no court is necessary.
In short, you've agreed to that charge.
JustinP1 said:
The Mad Monk said:
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.
If the contract offered to you is if you don't pay your bill and you ignore communication that you would be charged £100 for the third party to find you to pay your bill - and you agree to that when you sign up for the contract - then no court is necessary.
In short, you've agreed to that charge.
V8 Fettler said:
JustinP1 said:
The Mad Monk said:
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.
If the contract offered to you is if you don't pay your bill and you ignore communication that you would be charged £100 for the third party to find you to pay your bill - and you agree to that when you sign up for the contract - then no court is necessary.
In short, you've agreed to that charge.
If you stop paying your phone bill, you ignore calls from the phone company and you don't respond to letters, it is both reasonable and commercially justifiable for them to employ a third party to trace you and recover a simple debt, and charge you for that action.
What would be unfair is if that charge was for example, £1000.
This is an unusual example where Parking Eye pay the landholder £50,000 p.a. for the privilege of 'enforcing' parking at this location; these are not routine circumstances in any way, as most Private Parking Companies don't pay the landholder anything (never mind a set fee before they even start, and often not any proportion of their income arising from from 'enforcing' parking there) 
.
So will this ruling apply to the usual circumstances where the PPC rocks up for free and keeps the money from 'enforcing' parking? Time will tell...
.So will this ruling apply to the usual circumstances where the PPC rocks up for free and keeps the money from 'enforcing' parking? Time will tell...
aw51 121565 said:
This is an unusual example where Parking Eye pay the landholder £50,000 p.a. for the privilege of 'enforcing' parking at this location; these are not routine circumstances in any way, as most Private Parking Companies don't pay the landholder anything (never mind a set fee before they even start, and often not any proportion of their income arising from from 'enforcing' parking there) .
So will this ruling apply to the usual circumstances where the PPC rocks up for free and keeps the money from 'enforcing' parking? Time will tell...
Playing that situation out, PE will aggressively use the judgment (in not appealed of course). .So will this ruling apply to the usual circumstances where the PPC rocks up for free and keeps the money from 'enforcing' parking? Time will tell...
Such a future case is likely to be heard in the first instance by a Deputy District Judge, and Parking Eye will roll up with a copy of what will be a recent Court of Appeal judgment.
It's an interesting point you bring up, but the odds of the DDJ in that instance finding that point significant enough to go against such a clear judgment are very slim IMHO.
kiethton said:
And more to the question..
Will companies now go back and issue proceedings for tickets acquired since the law changed on the back of this ruling? Even if the letters have long since stopped?
(says the guy sitting on 30 or so of the things....)
Nothing's certain, but I would guess that any cases that were in progress would have been halted pending the CoA judgment.Will companies now go back and issue proceedings for tickets acquired since the law changed on the back of this ruling? Even if the letters have long since stopped?
(says the guy sitting on 30 or so of the things....)
It would then follow that there would be no point in issuing additional proceedings pending it too.
PurpleMoonlight said:
I'm pleased he lost.
Some hope for those of us with car parks and have to endure the selfish arrogant twunts on a daily basis.
Except now the selfish arrogant twunts will be the parking companies, even more so, this backhanded judgement have give them carte blanche to do what the fSome hope for those of us with car parks and have to endure the selfish arrogant twunts on a daily basis.
k they want. Dont forget most of the PPCs are ex knuckle dragging clampers who hardly played fair at the best of times. Just watch the number of court cases spiral from now on, the papers will be full of little old grannies holding up a ticket for being 30 seconds late back to their Micra.Sod the private car parks, from now on when I go shopping I'm parking in a residential street without any restrictions.
stuart313 said:
Except now the selfish arrogant twunts will be the parking companies, even more so, this backhanded judgement have give them carte blanche to do what the fk they want. Dont forget most of the PPCs are ex knuckle dragging clampers who hardly played fair at the best of times. Just watch the number of court cases spiral from now on, the papers will be full of little old grannies holding up a ticket for being 30 seconds late back to their Micra.
There are millions of drivers that use car parks managed by PPC's on a daily basis without any issue because they abide by the parking restrictions. I have no sympathy for those that don't.k they want. Dont forget most of the PPCs are ex knuckle dragging clampers who hardly played fair at the best of times. Just watch the number of court cases spiral from now on, the papers will be full of little old grannies holding up a ticket for being 30 seconds late back to their Micra.PurpleMoonlight said:
stuart313 said:
Except now the selfish arrogant twunts will be the parking companies, even more so, this backhanded judgement have give them carte blanche to do what the fk they want. Dont forget most of the PPCs are ex knuckle dragging clampers who hardly played fair at the best of times. Just watch the number of court cases spiral from now on, the papers will be full of little old grannies holding up a ticket for being 30 seconds late back to their Micra.
There are millions of drivers that use car parks managed by PPC's on a daily basis without any issue because they abide by the parking restrictions. I have no sympathy for those that don't.k they want. Dont forget most of the PPCs are ex knuckle dragging clampers who hardly played fair at the best of times. Just watch the number of court cases spiral from now on, the papers will be full of little old grannies holding up a ticket for being 30 seconds late back to their Micra.I thought the decision on the bank charges the other year was outrageous but this decision is just disgusting, we need elected judges and police chiefs in this country pronto. Having said that though the millions of no hopers in this country will just vote for the judges that will keep them out of prison on benefit fraud charges.
PurpleMoonlight said:
There are millions of drivers that use car parks managed by PPC's on a daily basis without any issue because they abide by the parking restrictions. I have no sympathy for those that don't.
But what about my wife? She had no choice. There is no where else to Park at Barnet Hospital. Her primary concern was trying to save the life of our unborn daughter. Paying the £100 fee was low down on her priorities. She paid for a couple of hours but things ran over. Parking Eye was not interested.stuart313 said:
I thought the decision on the bank charges the other year was outrageous but this decision is just disgusting, we need elected judges and police chiefs in this country pronto.
Be careful what you wish for. That will do one of two things. You will get truly politicised office holders with overtly Conservative/Labour/UKIP/SNP/whatever affiliation and support or you could end up with a police chief like Joe Arpaio.TVR1 said:
But what about my wife? She had no choice. There is no where else to Park at Barnet Hospital. Her primary concern was trying to save the life of our unborn daughter. Paying the £100 fee was low down on her priorities. She paid for a couple of hours but things ran over. parking Eye CAPITA a major provider of government outsourcing contracts was not interested.
Let's be honest about Parking eye's owners 
stuart313 said:
CAPITA, the same firm that take frightened young mums to court for non payment of the TV licence, the same firm that get G4S to take a quick look at your TV when they read your gas meter. The most filthiest of companies going. Cant wait for the next TV wker at my door, arseoles.
Out of interest, are frightened young mums exempt from paying for TV licenses?ker at my door, arseoles.ETA Why would G4S carry out work for Capita when they're (effectively) competitors?
Edited by Countdown on Thursday 23 April 20:30
Countdown said:
stuart313 said:
CAPITA, the same firm that take frightened young mums to court for non payment of the TV licence, the same firm that get G4S to take a quick look at your TV when they read your gas meter. The most filthiest of companies going. Cant wait for the next TV wker at my door, arseoles.
Out of interest, are frightened young mums exempt from paying for TV licenses?ker at my door, arseoles.I too am going to quote choice sections of Beavis v Parking Eye whilst holding my child aloft next time I see a TV licence van.
Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 23 April 20:18
TVR1 said:
But what about my wife? She had no choice. There is no where else to Park at Barnet Hospital. Her primary concern was trying to save the life of our unborn daughter. Paying the £100 fee was low down on her priorities. She paid for a couple of hours but things ran over. Parking Eye was not interested.
To be fair on barnet hospital, you can pay to extend your time up to midnight on the day you leave and the signs are extremely clear!Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff