Beavis v Parking Eye procedural rules/reserved Judgement
Discussion
V8 Fettler said:
Are any of your examples described as liquidated damages?
You can call a clause a penalty.You can call a clause liquidated damages.
Or you can include a clause which isn't named either of the above, but sets out a contractual situation where if party does or doesn't do something the outcome is defined.
What is repeated in case laws for decades is that what it is actually called is irrelevant, what matters is the effect of the clause on the party.
The direction that the law has been going is that unless the clause is unconscionable in the context of it's use then it is not unlawful.
JustinP1 said:
You can call a clause a penalty.
You can call a clause liquidated damages.
Or you can include a clause which isn't named either of the above, but sets out a contractual situation where if party does or doesn't do something the outcome is defined.
What is repeated in case laws for decades is that what it is actually called is irrelevant, what matters is the effect of the clause on the party.
The direction that the law has been going is that unless the clause is unconscionable in the context of it's use then it is not unlawful.
Which could be an unfair contract.You can call a clause liquidated damages.
Or you can include a clause which isn't named either of the above, but sets out a contractual situation where if party does or doesn't do something the outcome is defined.
What is repeated in case laws for decades is that what it is actually called is irrelevant, what matters is the effect of the clause on the party.
The direction that the law has been going is that unless the clause is unconscionable in the context of it's use then it is not unlawful.
Perhaps I should have followed this more closely. Did Parking Eye provide detailed calculations to the court setting out the basis of the loss that they were likely to incur? That's generally the cornerstone for liquidated damages, and the calculation needs to be made prior to commencing the contract.
JustinP1 said:
Phatboy317 said:
I would argue that any business which exists to profit from the misfortune and mistakes of others has no place in civilised society.
Do you use a credit card at all?I'm sure every new credit card owner has the best intentions of paying off their bill at the end of the month, and has the misfortune or mistake of not doing so and gets into the trap of 24% APR.
Do you suggest banning credit cards to protect people from themselves, or force the credit card company to give infinite interest free credit?
I have a two-way agreement with the credit card company - it provides me with a service, which costs them money, for which I pay, and I accept that late payment incurs extra expenses for them and extra charges for myself, so I make sure I pay on time, making other arrangements if necessary.
And you can't begin to compare the few extra quid I incur for being a few days late on my payment with an injurious sum I would have to cough up for being a few minutes late back to my car.
V8 Fettler said:
Which could be an unfair contract.
Perhaps I should have followed this more closely. Did Parking Eye provide detailed calculations to the court setting out the basis of the loss that they were likely to incur? That's generally the cornerstone for liquidated damages, and the calculation needs to be made prior to commencing the contract.
Thats a rather circular argument? I have a parking space which I have to employ someone to enforce. My loss is that of having to deal with people wh opark illegally on my land, and subcontract a service that wouldn't otherwise be needed. Perhaps I should have followed this more closely. Did Parking Eye provide detailed calculations to the court setting out the basis of the loss that they were likely to incur? That's generally the cornerstone for liquidated damages, and the calculation needs to be made prior to commencing the contract.
V8 Fettler said:
JustinP1 said:
You can call a clause a penalty.
You can call a clause liquidated damages.
Or you can include a clause which isn't named either of the above, but sets out a contractual situation where if party does or doesn't do something the outcome is defined.
What is repeated in case laws for decades is that what it is actually called is irrelevant, what matters is the effect of the clause on the party.
The direction that the law has been going is that unless the clause is unconscionable in the context of it's use then it is not unlawful.
Which could be an unfair contract.You can call a clause liquidated damages.
Or you can include a clause which isn't named either of the above, but sets out a contractual situation where if party does or doesn't do something the outcome is defined.
What is repeated in case laws for decades is that what it is actually called is irrelevant, what matters is the effect of the clause on the party.
The direction that the law has been going is that unless the clause is unconscionable in the context of it's use then it is not unlawful.
Perhaps I should have followed this more closely. Did Parking Eye provide detailed calculations to the court setting out the basis of the loss that they were likely to incur? That's generally the cornerstone for liquidated damages, and the calculation needs to be made prior to commencing the contract.
IIRC Parking Eye did not provide calculations which defined the loss in a single instance. They don't need to based on previous case law.
What the judgment did do is even go back as for as Dunlop 100 years ago is showing that a loss does not have to be utterly direct from an individual breach. The judgment referred to the damage caused by general breaches, and even incremental damage by a number of breaches.
The judgment simply followed a number of other liquidated damaged case laws which have defined the above further into defining what is 'unconscionable' in a LD clause into meaning what is 'unconscionable' in the context of what is commercially justifiable for the business to run.
drivin_me_nuts said:
Just out of curiosity (and it is just that), if one was to doctor the number plate on their car before entering a PRIVATE car park, is that actually illegal?
I don't know but it works. ANPR logs the plate twice. If it sees your plate just the once it hasn't a clue where you are, lol. It can't find the 'doctored' car either. If ever you overstay by mistake a roll of black tape could be incrededibly useful. Don't use the car park again for a few days in case the ANPR clocks your plate the second time and thinks you've been parked there all that time.ANPR, infallible, lol.
PurpleMoonlight said:
98elise said:
What about those of us that get unfair charges?
In my case I bought a weekly rail season ticket, and a weekly car park ticket. I parked in a season ticket bay and got a charge.
The company only class monthly parking tickets as season tickets, even though weekly rail tickets are season tickets. This oddity is only mentioned on a sign in 5mm writing that positioned at 90 degrees to the entrance road.
Bear in mind I paid for a 1 bay and parked in 1 bay. The season tickets bays are never full. In fact there is a whole season ticket car park that never has more then 25% of spaces filled.
Its simply a means of increasing revenue, why let a parking space for £5 per day when you can get £85 for it?
And how is it the parking operators fault that you failed to park in a correct space?In my case I bought a weekly rail season ticket, and a weekly car park ticket. I parked in a season ticket bay and got a charge.
The company only class monthly parking tickets as season tickets, even though weekly rail tickets are season tickets. This oddity is only mentioned on a sign in 5mm writing that positioned at 90 degrees to the entrance road.
Bear in mind I paid for a 1 bay and parked in 1 bay. The season tickets bays are never full. In fact there is a whole season ticket car park that never has more then 25% of spaces filled.
Its simply a means of increasing revenue, why let a parking space for £5 per day when you can get £85 for it?
I assume you think this sort of sharp practice is fair?
The real kicker is that its a state subsidised monopoly. If there was an alternative rail operator next door, then I would now be using them. They can continue to operate like this because there is no choice but to use them.
98elise said:
I havent said that. I've said their aim is to get people to part there so thay can charge £85 for a space instead of £5. They should only ne able to cover what they have lost, and that was nothing.
I assume you think this sort of sharp practice is fair?
The real kicker is that its a state subsidised monopoly. If there was an alternative rail operator next door, then I would now be using them. They can continue to operate like this because there is no choice but to use them.
You can chose to park wherever you want - it's just going to be further from the train station. I assume you think this sort of sharp practice is fair?
The real kicker is that its a state subsidised monopoly. If there was an alternative rail operator next door, then I would now be using them. They can continue to operate like this because there is no choice but to use them.
I agree you got treated badly. There business model collapses if we all play ball - so they will have to find a way to make us trip up. But thats life. I was sent to prison for misreading the date on a court document once. Long time ago. I got the 24th rather than the 23rd. It was a badly scrawled note and I made a mistake. Some people are killed and tortured unfairly - so it's all relative.
sugerbear said:
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."
This may be deliberate"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 judge referenced a claim that parking eye didn't even make, for seemingly no reason then pointed out the outcome would have been the same
He's effectively pinned the 2 concepts of charging £85 as a penalty for breach of contract, and a charge for parking beyond a free period, as being the same, probably because the judge is aware of the 2 methods of collection, and wanted to eliminate any doubt this rule ought to apply equally to any of these cases too.
But if it there are different tax implications for the 2 methods, he may also have been aware of that too, and was happy to be potentially opening the door to hmrc taking a big chunk of these parking company's profits.
Chrisgr31 said:
photosnob said:
And ultimately the best way to get rid of parking idiots now will be to not park breaking the rules. There income will disappear and so will they... Unless people are stupid.
Speed cameras are still here so I think we can assume people are stupid! 
julian64 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Which could be an unfair contract.
Perhaps I should have followed this more closely. Did Parking Eye provide detailed calculations to the court setting out the basis of the loss that they were likely to incur? That's generally the cornerstone for liquidated damages, and the calculation needs to be made prior to commencing the contract.
Thats a rather circular argument? I have a parking space which I have to employ someone to enforce. My loss is that of having to deal with people wh opark illegally on my land, and subcontract a service that wouldn't otherwise be needed. Perhaps I should have followed this more closely. Did Parking Eye provide detailed calculations to the court setting out the basis of the loss that they were likely to incur? That's generally the cornerstone for liquidated damages, and the calculation needs to be made prior to commencing the contract.
Davidonly said:
Chrisgr31 said:
photosnob said:
And ultimately the best way to get rid of parking idiots now will be to not park breaking the rules. There income will disappear and so will they... Unless people are stupid.
Speed cameras are still here so I think we can assume people are stupid! Reality is people will continue to break the rules and therefore parking companies will be around for ever.
JustinP1 said:
V8 Fettler said:
JustinP1 said:
You can call a clause a penalty.
You can call a clause liquidated damages.
Or you can include a clause which isn't named either of the above, but sets out a contractual situation where if party does or doesn't do something the outcome is defined.
What is repeated in case laws for decades is that what it is actually called is irrelevant, what matters is the effect of the clause on the party.
The direction that the law has been going is that unless the clause is unconscionable in the context of it's use then it is not unlawful.
Which could be an unfair contract.You can call a clause liquidated damages.
Or you can include a clause which isn't named either of the above, but sets out a contractual situation where if party does or doesn't do something the outcome is defined.
What is repeated in case laws for decades is that what it is actually called is irrelevant, what matters is the effect of the clause on the party.
The direction that the law has been going is that unless the clause is unconscionable in the context of it's use then it is not unlawful.
Perhaps I should have followed this more closely. Did Parking Eye provide detailed calculations to the court setting out the basis of the loss that they were likely to incur? That's generally the cornerstone for liquidated damages, and the calculation needs to be made prior to commencing the contract.
IIRC Parking Eye did not provide calculations which defined the loss in a single instance. They don't need to based on previous case law.
What the judgment did do is even go back as for as Dunlop 100 years ago is showing that a loss does not have to be utterly direct from an individual breach. The judgment referred to the damage caused by general breaches, and even incremental damage by a number of breaches.
The judgment simply followed a number of other liquidated damaged case laws which have defined the above further into defining what is 'unconscionable' in a LD clause into meaning what is 'unconscionable' in the context of what is commercially justifiable for the business to run.
Surprised to see that "commercially justifiable" has reared its head where the two parties are so unequally matched in expertise and resource.
A view on the importance of preparing supporting calculations for liquidated damages: https://consultations.rics.org/consult.ti/delay/vi...
JustinP1 said:
Phatboy317 said:
I would argue that any business which exists to profit from the misfortune and mistakes of others has no place in civilised society.
Do you use a credit card at all?I'm sure every new credit card owner has the best intentions of paying off their bill at the end of the month, and has the misfortune or mistake of not doing so and gets into the trap of 24% APR.
Do you suggest banning credit cards to protect people from themselves, or force the credit card company to give infinite interest free credit?
)Do the parking enforcers offer similar user-friendly solutions??
Chrisgr31 said:
photosnob said:
And ultimately the best way to get rid of parking idiots now will be to not park breaking the rules. There income will disappear and so will they... Unless people are stupid.
Speed cameras are still here so I think we can assume people are stupid! It still troubles me slightly that illiterate drivers are going to be unfairly discriminated against here . If someone has a disability which impairs their ability to read and write (dyslexia) then surely the parking companies have to make provisions for them, or they are in breach of the disability discrimination act...
It's another route to attack them with. I am registered dyslexic because when I did my degree I was told you get a free laptop if you can blag it. I had to pretend to read slowly and not be able to spell words. So could I challenge w charge on the basis of my disability? I think it's reasonable that they have talking signs for people like myself .
. If someone has a disability which impairs their ability to read and write (dyslexia) then surely the parking companies have to make provisions for them, or they are in breach of the disability discrimination act... It's another route to attack them with. I am registered dyslexic because when I did my degree I was told you get a free laptop if you can blag it. I had to pretend to read slowly and not be able to spell words. So could I challenge w charge on the basis of my disability? I think it's reasonable that they have talking signs for people like myself
.DoubleSix said:
Except that the credit card companies provide the holders with a useful mechanism to avoid falling into said 'trap' if life gets in the way of manually making the payment - you can just instruct them to take the full balance at the end of each month by DD, thus avoiding punitive charges. (I haven't paid a penny of interest for many years this way )
Do the parking enforcers offer similar user-friendly solutions??
Well, in our car park they have big red signs saying things like "Private Parking - XYZ staff only" and yet this appears to be unclear to a large percentage of f )Do the parking enforcers offer similar user-friendly solutions??
kwitsI'm quite pleased the decision has gone this way.
Given the circumstances, It think it was the only outcome possible.
Our work car park is 200+ spaces and is managed by a ParkingEye ANPR camera system which is programmed to ignore all the cars from our office as we have permits.
Yet despite there being warning signs pretty much everywhere, we have been plagued by utter fkwitts who park in there day after day without a permit or more annoyingly, parking in the spaces clearly marked as RESERVED for our staff and visitors, knowing full well that ParkingEye can't do anything.
I have even seen people I know putting photos of their most recent ParkingEye Charge letters on Facebook and saying things like "ha ha! Look at this! Parking Eye have just sent me some more free toilet paper!" which they received after abusing our car park without paying for probably the 100th time.
As has been pointed out already in this thread, the muppets who abuse car parks on a regular basis just because they can, have ruined it for everyone.
Given the circumstances, It think it was the only outcome possible.
Our work car park is 200+ spaces and is managed by a ParkingEye ANPR camera system which is programmed to ignore all the cars from our office as we have permits.
Yet despite there being warning signs pretty much everywhere, we have been plagued by utter f
kwitts who park in there day after day without a permit or more annoyingly, parking in the spaces clearly marked as RESERVED for our staff and visitors, knowing full well that ParkingEye can't do anything.I have even seen people I know putting photos of their most recent ParkingEye Charge letters on Facebook and saying things like "ha ha! Look at this! Parking Eye have just sent me some more free toilet paper!" which they received after abusing our car park without paying for probably the 100th time.
As has been pointed out already in this thread, the muppets who abuse car parks on a regular basis just because they can, have ruined it for everyone.
Countdown said:
DoubleSix said:
Except that the credit card companies provide the holders with a useful mechanism to avoid falling into said 'trap' if life gets in the way of manually making the payment - you can just instruct them to take the full balance at the end of each month by DD, thus avoiding punitive charges. (I haven't paid a penny of interest for many years this way )
Do the parking enforcers offer similar user-friendly solutions??
Well, in our car park they have big red signs saying things like "Private Parking - XYZ staff only" and yet this appears to be unclear to a large percentage of f )Do the parking enforcers offer similar user-friendly solutions??
kwitsWhere is the provision for these events made?
(Also I was just highlighting a crap analogy)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff