Could pay, won't pay

[Pro Tour Punditry]

My elder daughter has just received a £100 "parking charge" for "overstaying" in a McDonald's carpark.

The McDonald's carpark of the store she was working in at the time.

 

[vernon]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court declares a score draw - 'you have to pay something, Mr Beavis, but £85 is a bit steep'.

Yes but spending a small fortune to save a relatively small amount of money is hardly a wise use of resources.

 

[Pale Rider]

Yes but spending a small fortune to save a relatively small amount of money is hardly a wise use of resources.

No doubt Beavis sees it as a point of principle, which can be an expensive point to attempt to make when it comes to law.

However, he was unrepresented up to and including the Court of Appeal.

The legal fees for his QC at the Supreme Court were paid by public subscription.

So his 'costs' won't amount to anything more than time and trouble for travelling to courts and correspondence.

It also appears the other side agreed in advance to make no claim for their costs against Beavis, whatever the result.

Thus he has effectively - and very sensibly - capped the risk to his pocket.

 

[vernon]

No doubt Beavis sees it as a point of principle, which can be an expensive point to attempt to make when it comes to law.

However, he was unrepresented up to and including the Court of Appeal.

The legal fees for his QC at the Supreme Court were paid by public subscription.

So his 'costs' won't amount to anything more than time and trouble for travelling to courts and correspondence.

It also appears the other side agreed in advance to make no claim for their costs against Beavis, whatever the result.

Thus he has effectively - and very sensibly - capped the risk to his pocket.

So he got others to fund the resolution of his gripe. No matter what you argue, the resolution of an £85 quibble has cost others a lot more than that to score points over a parking company. Yes his capped his personal expenses but I doubt that he'd have pursued the case to the supreme court if he had to self fund the appeal.

 

[Pale Rider]

There's no doubt the resolution of his 'personal gripe' will have wider implications for the enforceability of private tickets, which is currently a mess.

In that respect it's a question that needs answering, whether you support private tickets or not.

It seems to me obvious he wouldn't/couldn't afford to pursue the appeal to the Supreme Court without donations.

But that's irrelevant, the question is still important/unimportant, depending on your view.

 

[subaqua]

It's really hard being a car driver these days. I could go on.......

Yeah, I mean they don't get to ride a bike to work . that really does suck

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Well done. These private parking companies really p""" me off.
Our local hosptial changed parking provider to one which installed entrance cameras with ANPR. Regular visitors such as me, could have been stung for parking fees for prettty much every visit unless, like my wife, you did some digging around and discovered a non publicised concession.
Oh, and there was a problem with the signage, so many "fines" were actually illegal.

Cameras have been turned off, and "fines" refunded iirc now.

 

[Bazzer]

Cameras have been turned off, and "fines" refunded iirc now.

I think they have for the time being; largely I think because of the signage. There was also some publicity about people being "fined", even though they had never been in the hospital grounds.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

I think they have for the time being; largely I think because of the signage. There was also some publicity about people being "fined", even though they had never been in the hospital grounds.

Good to know! I've spent a lot of time and money in there since having surgery there in Jan! Wish I never paid, got "fined", then got it back though

 

[Tail End Charlie]

@Pale Rider I believe the Beavis case went in favour of Parking Eye, does this change your view? My son got one recently from Parking Eye and he's all for ripping it up.

 

[Pale Rider]

@Pale Rider I believe the Beavis case went in favour of Parking Eye, does this change your view? My son got one recently from Parking Eye and he's all for ripping it up.

The judgment has certainly tipped the balance in favour of the parking company.

It goes some way to establishing that a private company can charge a private citizen a 'reasonable sum' - in this case £85 - for over staying in a car park.

Practically, Parking Eye may still struggle to get the money from someone who refuses, or at least, it won't be cost effective for them to go to a county court in each case.

Mention is made on their site of a 50 per cent prompt payment discount.

If your son can put this matter to bed for forty quid, that might be a wise move.

No guarantee Parking Eye will pursue his case, but if they do, the chances are they will get a judgment in their favour.

According to the Supreme Court case press summary, their lordships linked Beavis with another civil dispute over the sale of a business.

I don't pretend to understand that case, but it shows the general notion of penalty clauses can be applied in other areas.

Those in this thread who were so keen for me to pay the ticket should take note - you might find yourself on the wrong end of a penalty when you least expect it.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-press-summary.pdf

 

[Tail End Charlie]

Thanks for that, it's what I told him (except it'll be fifty quid) chiz chiz.