Beavis day/week ?
Discussion
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/beavis-v-parkinge...
Watching it this morning on tv.
I don't know (or care) which car park Mr Beavis stayed in but his argument that he had no way to pay to stay longer than 2 hrs didn't seem to be a very convincing argument as to why he shouldn't pay an £85 "parking charge" for staying longer many short stay freecar parks offer the option to pay for longer periods of parking, others may not as the landowner does not want you there for longer.
Hospital car parks and other private car parks offer no free parking just 15 mins grace (not clearly marked) to be on and off site before expecting a parking charge, struggling to see the difference really.
It seems all the argument about is the "reasonable" charge, if that is the case give private landowners the same collection ability as councils or come up with a statutory charge similiar to "statutory vehicle recovery" to allow landowners to "protect" their land/property from pee takers ?
Watching it this morning on tv.
I don't know (or care) which car park Mr Beavis stayed in but his argument that he had no way to pay to stay longer than 2 hrs didn't seem to be a very convincing argument as to why he shouldn't pay an £85 "parking charge" for staying longer many short stay freecar parks offer the option to pay for longer periods of parking, others may not as the landowner does not want you there for longer.
Hospital car parks and other private car parks offer no free parking just 15 mins grace (not clearly marked) to be on and off site before expecting a parking charge, struggling to see the difference really.
It seems all the argument about is the "reasonable" charge, if that is the case give private landowners the same collection ability as councils or come up with a statutory charge similiar to "statutory vehicle recovery" to allow landowners to "protect" their land/property from pee takers ?
My guess is that this will happen.
No-ones taken the civil parking argument this far, and probably won't again, so whatever it in the judgment will shake up the status quo.
What's also interesting is the other case that day which is another 'penalty or not' case in a totally different context. My guess is that these cases will give some certainty to the area.
No-ones taken the civil parking argument this far, and probably won't again, so whatever it in the judgment will shake up the status quo.
What's also interesting is the other case that day which is another 'penalty or not' case in a totally different context. My guess is that these cases will give some certainty to the area.
I agree.
I don't think for one second that the judgment will be reversed, however I do think that it may be clarified.
The bottom line is that there needs to be a place for liquidated damages clauses in contracts, otherwise individuals and companies have little impetus to actually fulfilling their contractual obligations.
In this case, at £85 it is interesting, as IMHO it rides just on the cusp of where a figure might become unconscionable.
I don't think for one second that the judgment will be reversed, however I do think that it may be clarified.
The bottom line is that there needs to be a place for liquidated damages clauses in contracts, otherwise individuals and companies have little impetus to actually fulfilling their contractual obligations.
In this case, at £85 it is interesting, as IMHO it rides just on the cusp of where a figure might become unconscionable.
JustinP1 said:
That would seem sensible for a commercial operation.
They'd just need to fire off a letter referring to Beavis.
Firing letters yes. Going to court, no. It costs them to go to court even if they win. They'd just need to fire off a letter referring to Beavis.
Also if you are partial to bending the truth their are too many easy defences. 'My American friend was driving - here is his name and address in california'. That absolves the RK from liability if my pub lawyer mate is correct.
Are the idiot parking anarchists still running all the useless arguments that they picked up from that stupid website beloved of some on here (although the fans have gone rather quiet just lately), or are they confining themselves to the penalty point? I CBA to watch the hearing to find out. What a load of old toss, arguing about such trifles, clogging up courts with nonsense etc.
V8 Fettler said:
If the judgement is upheld, does it open the floodgates for private parking companies to pursue historical ignorists?
Unlikely, as there are various clauses and requirements that have to be fulfilled in order for the "keeper" to be held liable under POFA. With regards to POPLA, I haven't used GPEOL for a few months now when making appeals, but there are many other ways to deflect parking charges without it.
photosnob said:
Firing letters yes. Going to court, no. It costs them to go to court even if they win.
Also if you are partial to bending the truth their are too many easy defences. 'My American friend was driving - here is his name and address in california'. That absolves the RK from liability if my pub lawyer mate is correct.
They aren't.Also if you are partial to bending the truth their are too many easy defences. 'My American friend was driving - here is his name and address in california'. That absolves the RK from liability if my pub lawyer mate is correct.
S11Steve said:
...With regards to POPLA, I haven't used GPEOL for a few months now when making appeals, but there are many other ways to deflect parking charges without it.
Do please enlighten us. No rush, as I have to nip out and get some popcorn.PS: spend a lot of time parking willy nilly and appealing about the charges, do you? Hobby or vocation?
Breadvan72 said:
S11Steve said:
...With regards to POPLA, I haven't used GPEOL for a few months now when making appeals, but there are many other ways to deflect parking charges without it.
Do please enlighten us. No rush, as I have to nip out and get some popcorn.PS: spend a lot of time parking willy nilly and appealing about the charges, do you? Hobby or vocation?
Breadvan72 said:
Do please enlighten us. No rush, as I have to nip out and get some popcorn.
PS: spend a lot of time parking willy nilly and appealing about the charges, do you? Hobby or vocation?
Vocation actually! I manage a fleet around 6000 vehicles. PS: spend a lot of time parking willy nilly and appealing about the charges, do you? Hobby or vocation?
Although we make representation on all charges initially, a few PPC decide to challenge us or incorrectly reject it. My most common challenge is around keeper liability and the definition of a keeper as defined by POFA. A certain Jonathan Kirk QC led a successful private prosecution in the crown court that focused on the subject, and the distinction between keeper and registered keeper - http://www.36bedfordrow.co.uk/cmsfiles/downloads/R... Parking Eye really do not like me for using their own QCs case law against them.
Quite often there are problems with the Notice to Keeper not being compliant to enforce keeper liability especially with the smaller companies, but I also throw in questions around ANPR accuracy that have got me a few POPLA wins, and I also challenge the landowner authority specifically with retail parks - it's rare that a contract will be produced for a POPLA appeal, and most of them are only with the managing agents rather than the landowner so the charge gets cancelled on those grounds. IPC/IAS are a different sort of beast who make the rules up as they go along, and I'm waiting for one of them to escalate a ticket to court, but so far none of them have.
POPLA doesn't challenge me any more, PATAS is where I'm enjoying results now
How the Earth must quake at your mighty tread! If I understand the TL/DR bit above correctly, you bury them in bulls
t. They can't be arsed to argue ludicrous points such as the landowner nonsense, or work on bulk outcomes so don't bother with a professional ballsacher. Kudos either way, as if it works, who cares about the underlying flakery?
t. They can't be arsed to argue ludicrous points such as the landowner nonsense, or work on bulk outcomes so don't bother with a professional ballsacher. Kudos either way, as if it works, who cares about the underlying flakery?Breadvan72 said:
How the Earth must quake at your mighty tread! If I understand the TL/DR bit above correctly, you bury them in bullst. They can't be arsed to argue ludicrous points such as the landowner nonsense, or work on bulk outcomes so don't bother with a professional ballsacher. Kudos either way, as if it works, who cares about the underlying flakery?
Perhaps S11Steve has a future in the legal profession?t. They can't be arsed to argue ludicrous points such as the landowner nonsense, or work on bulk outcomes so don't bother with a professional ballsacher. Kudos either way, as if it works, who cares about the underlying flakery?You asked for enlightenment, but then "TL;DR"? Ok then.. but as you say - it works. At 1st line appeal, at Popla, and in the county court.
All it takes is few simple letters, making a couple of simple points, with a couple of reference points for them. They are not littered with pseudo-legalese, nor a torrent of incoherence, overly verbose or at all "wingnut". I listened to some advice from an "online lawyer" many months ago on that very point. I've no idea what happened to him.
All it takes is few simple letters, making a couple of simple points, with a couple of reference points for them. They are not littered with pseudo-legalese, nor a torrent of incoherence, overly verbose or at all "wingnut". I listened to some advice from an "online lawyer" many months ago on that very point. I've no idea what happened to him.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff