Landmark £85 parking ticket battle - Supreme Court
Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:09 pm
For those of you who park in Costco/ shops on a match day, and have been issued a parking fine. You might be interested in this:
"A Motorist who challenged ‘unfair’ fines imposed by a car park takes his case to the Supreme Court today after crowdfunding the money to pay to file his court papers.
Barry Beavis, who took action after he was given an £85 parking ticket, said that although his lawyers worked on the case pro bono, he needed £6,000 to meet the other costs of taking it to the Supreme Court.
‘I had already secured John de Waal QC pro bono but I needed to crowdfund to get enough money for the case and filing fees which are quite expensive in the Supreme Court,’ he said.
Within 48 hours he had surpassed his target, and raised £8,500.
Beavis challenged car park operator ParkingEye after he was given a ticket for overstaying a two-hour parking limit by almost an hour. The appeal has been taken to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal dismissed his challenge in April. It is being heard before seven judges.
Henry Hickman, a partner at London firm Harcus Sinclair, which is acting for Beavis said: ‘It is a vindication of the English civil justice system that a case involving an individual who has been issued a disproportionate parking penalty charge by a private parking company is being heard by the highest court in the land.’
A ruling in favour of Beavis would open the way to challenges to penalty charges and prevent private parking operators basing their business models on fines collected from overstayers. A ruling in favour of ParkingEye could enable parking operators to charge even higher fees.
The case hinges on whether the fine charged by the parking company is classed as a penalty, which would make it unlawful as penalties need to bear a relation to the actual loss incurred. In this case the parking company does not incur any loss if someone overstays in the car park in Chelmsford, Essex.
Beavis told the Gazette the case is no longer about his £85 fee, which he has already paid. ‘I’m appealing against the industry, in particular the type of parking company that operates this business model.’
"A Motorist who challenged ‘unfair’ fines imposed by a car park takes his case to the Supreme Court today after crowdfunding the money to pay to file his court papers.
Barry Beavis, who took action after he was given an £85 parking ticket, said that although his lawyers worked on the case pro bono, he needed £6,000 to meet the other costs of taking it to the Supreme Court.
‘I had already secured John de Waal QC pro bono but I needed to crowdfund to get enough money for the case and filing fees which are quite expensive in the Supreme Court,’ he said.
Within 48 hours he had surpassed his target, and raised £8,500.
Beavis challenged car park operator ParkingEye after he was given a ticket for overstaying a two-hour parking limit by almost an hour. The appeal has been taken to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal dismissed his challenge in April. It is being heard before seven judges.
Henry Hickman, a partner at London firm Harcus Sinclair, which is acting for Beavis said: ‘It is a vindication of the English civil justice system that a case involving an individual who has been issued a disproportionate parking penalty charge by a private parking company is being heard by the highest court in the land.’
A ruling in favour of Beavis would open the way to challenges to penalty charges and prevent private parking operators basing their business models on fines collected from overstayers. A ruling in favour of ParkingEye could enable parking operators to charge even higher fees.
The case hinges on whether the fine charged by the parking company is classed as a penalty, which would make it unlawful as penalties need to bear a relation to the actual loss incurred. In this case the parking company does not incur any loss if someone overstays in the car park in Chelmsford, Essex.
Beavis told the Gazette the case is no longer about his £85 fee, which he has already paid. ‘I’m appealing against the industry, in particular the type of parking company that operates this business model.’
Re: Landmark £85 parking ticket battle - Supreme Court
Fri Jul 24, 2015 7:15 am
Good Luck to him.
Personally I think he will be successful. The common theme is that if you are negligent or cause some breach then you should place the other person in the same position that they would have been in.
So, for example, if you pay £5 to park in a car park. The Car Park is full and you stay 2 hours rather than 1 then you should pay an extra £5 not an extra £85
Personally I think he will be successful. The common theme is that if you are negligent or cause some breach then you should place the other person in the same position that they would have been in.
So, for example, if you pay £5 to park in a car park. The Car Park is full and you stay 2 hours rather than 1 then you should pay an extra £5 not an extra £85
Re: Landmark £85 parking ticket battle - Supreme Court
Fri Jul 24, 2015 8:50 am
"The case hinges on whether the fine charged by the parking company is classed as a penalty, which would make it unlawful as penalties need to bear a relation to the actual loss incurred. In this case the parking company does not incur any loss if someone overstays in the car park"
So if its a free car park like costco etc the company does not incur any loss if you overstay and therefore cannot implement any penalties
So if its a free car park like costco etc the company does not incur any loss if you overstay and therefore cannot implement any penalties
Re: Landmark £85 parking ticket battle - Supreme Court
Fri Jul 24, 2015 10:18 am
DOCKER DAVIES wrote:"The case hinges on whether the fine charged by the parking company is classed as a penalty, which would make it unlawful as penalties need to bear a relation to the actual loss incurred. In this case the parking company does not incur any loss if someone overstays in the car park"
So if its a free car park like costco etc the company does not incur any loss if you overstay and therefore cannot implement any penalties
This is how I read it!
The worst of the bunch are motorway services! These people largely rely on 'scaring' motorists into paying and it is bordering on criminal; particularly after, say, a large family have used their facilities and paid well over the top prices for what amounts to pretty average food and (often) very poor service from disinterested staffs!
Re: Landmark £85 parking ticket battle - Supreme Court
Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:29 pm
DOCKER DAVIES wrote:"The case hinges on whether the fine charged by the parking company is classed as a penalty, which would make it unlawful as penalties need to bear a relation to the actual loss incurred. In this case the parking company does not incur any loss if someone overstays in the car park"
So if its a free car park like costco etc the company does not incur any loss if you overstay and therefore cannot implement any penalties
Agreed - Especially if it can also be proven that there was plenty of availability for other cars to park