RAC Foundation - Excessive parking fines on private land may be illegal.........
Stegan
Posts: 5,039 Forum Member
✭
According to the RAC Foundation charity, millions of pounds of fines could have been charged illegally. Fines for overstays in car parks on private land could in some cases be unenforceable in court said barrister John De Waal QC in legal opinion. He said the penalties - sometimes up to £100 or more - were much more expensive than compensation for a genuine loss. The foundation wanted to see it's argument tested in court.
Interesting this should come up, because I heard that this was already going to be tested next week in the Court of Appeal. This is in the Beavis v Parking Eye case or The Cambridge Super Case as I understand it is referred to? I roiginally found out about this watching Despatches on Channel 4.
It was originally ruled that because Parking Eye paid a monthly fee of £1000 to the people who owned the land in that case, the judge found that a charge of £85 for an overstay WAS enforceable - hence this appeal next week. Apparently, it only applies if the parking company pay the landowners a fee for operating on their land. The appeal is hoping to get this ruling overturned and will also be supported by the Consumer Association.
Anyway it should be interesting to see what happens. If it goes against Parking Eye - compensation claims galore and parking chaos I imagine. If it goes for Parking Eye, a precedent will be set and all sorts of companies - not just parking related - will basically be entitled to charge whatever they like. Any thoughts on this?
Interesting this should come up, because I heard that this was already going to be tested next week in the Court of Appeal. This is in the Beavis v Parking Eye case or The Cambridge Super Case as I understand it is referred to? I roiginally found out about this watching Despatches on Channel 4.
It was originally ruled that because Parking Eye paid a monthly fee of £1000 to the people who owned the land in that case, the judge found that a charge of £85 for an overstay WAS enforceable - hence this appeal next week. Apparently, it only applies if the parking company pay the landowners a fee for operating on their land. The appeal is hoping to get this ruling overturned and will also be supported by the Consumer Association.
Anyway it should be interesting to see what happens. If it goes against Parking Eye - compensation claims galore and parking chaos I imagine. If it goes for Parking Eye, a precedent will be set and all sorts of companies - not just parking related - will basically be entitled to charge whatever they like. Any thoughts on this?
0
Comments
The County Court can be a bit of a lottery at times. The judge himself admitted that there is no prior authority to justify his decision (based on an argument of commercial justifiability) in respect of a consumer contract.
I find it hard to see how the decision can stand, in light of both domestic and European law, but the courts can surprise sometimes.
Dont pay in the first place - i never have .Just ignore the threatening letters and they soon go away to find someone more compliant.
Bad Idea. Many (Parking Eye in particular) are now taking people to court and a lot are finding CCJs after ignoring them.
If it does go their way it wouldn't exactly open the floodgates for these companies at all as the argument used ('commercial justification') really only applies in certain circumstances, it doesn't even apply in a lot of Parking Eye's car parks.
In fact if PE does win, it may be somewhat beneficial to drivers, as it'd mean these companies would then have to PAY landowners in order to issue charges, which cuts down their profits and may even make their whole business model impossible.
This is especially true when you consider they must also pay fees to get data from the DVLA and pay money when you appeal independently, even if they win. It quickly adds on and soon they're losing money even if you do pay up.
Indeed, in theory, they should make no profit whatsoever and of course that means that there is little point to running the business.
IMO, either way the ruling goes could be good for the motorist although hopefully the COA will go further than the case in hand and issue a much more wide reaching judgement about these charges, one way or another.
oic
A change of tactic .
The word is PRIVATE not anyone can park there land.
Exactly. Many people think that the sign "No Parking Private Land" applies to everyone except them. I have been driving for 51 years driving around 15,000 a year and never had a parking ticket or parked without permission on private land.
The point is that charges for overstaying in private car parks should not be excessive.
Then don't park there.
...not even supermarket customers ?
Strange business model:)
Because on the vast majority of the car parks that these companies "manage", people are invited to park on it?
Hope this helps.
Some have said the reason HHJ Moloney made such a perverse ruling was to almost guarantee an appeal, the outcome of which may make him and his fellow circuit judges lives a bit easier.
You're still missing the point: millions of pounds of fines could have been charged illegally.
I am not talking about customers talking about people who park on land they know is private and has the word private on it then wonder why people get annoyed.
For example my old office had 6 spaces for the people who worked in it and people would just turn up and park there even though it said Private Staff Only.
Why shouldn't they be fined?
Indeed, and I tend to agree. I get the impression that CC judges have become fed up with the glut of cases that coming in front of them as a result of PE's change of tatics.
Because private companies can't levy fines?
well sure
A reasonable deterent seems justified in that case
I don't think anyone is saying they shouldn't be charged if they park without permission on private land. The thread is about excessive charges.
So are you saying anyone can park anywhere they like and there's nothing that can be done?
If they are not excessive where is the deterrent?
But nobody knows how widespread it really is. If anybody actually gets to see the contract during proceedings those sort of details are almost always redacted on the grounds of being commercially sensitive.
Then that begs the question why are PE (and other PPC's) relying so heavily at court on the Beavis case and 'commercial justification' if it only applies in a few cases?
Nope.
I expect that PE and others are being very coy about the specific facts behind the Beavis judgment. They've previously been rebuked for failing to bring the fact that the judgment is being appealed to the attention of one court.
so please clarify if I drove today and parked in a private land space which said "PRIVATE LAND £70.00 fine for illegal parking" or words to that effect and I ignored it what would happen?
If I parked my car in a supermarket and it said "30 minutes only £70.00 fine for overstay" and I ignored what would happen?