Car Parking Charges

[fiction-factory]

This may be of interest
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/landmark-85-parking-charge-case-goes-supreme-court-064939041.html#NM9IoaT
Apologies if it's already been mentioned on here today

[bednobs]

i am baffled by that story. Did he win or lose? I can't work it out and ive read it twice

[Captain2]

He's losing 2-0 and will more than likely lose 3-0 after the Supreme Court hearing

[Baldric]

He lost the Court of Appeal case.
The Supreme Court case is yet to happen.

[EDDIE51]

He lost at the appeal court so it is now going to the Supreme court.
He must be a millionaire to fund that!

[SirOracle]

As they say " He must have more money than sense "

[jno]

it does seem a lot of money (it doesn't say how long he overstayed though that probably makes no difference). But it's sort of i line with speeding fines and driving in bus lanes, isn't it?

[EDDIE51]

Speeding is dangerous and driving in a bus lane causes delay to busses. Overstaying in a car park causes none of those .
Be interesting to see how this goes, either way it will set a precedent .

[jno]

I agree, Eddie, but I don't know about a precedent - so many factors are involved (length of overstay, pressure for places to park) that I don't think the court will produce anything like a guide to how much is extortionate and how much is fair. So it could all happen again and again with different results. The judges so far have obviously thought £85 is a mere bagatelle; I would have thought £30 or so would be easily enough to constitute a deterrent. It's not as if the company has to tow the car away or anything, they just splash tickets around, it doesn't cost them anything.

Good luck to him, say I.

[Buenchico]

I hope he loses both the case and (through having to pay the court costs) his home and business as well. The man's a fool and clearly has no understanding about what a contract is.

[jno]

courts do deem contracts unconscionable from time to time, I believe. Do you think the terms are set out in legible fashion for drivers to read when they arrive? I wonder.

[THECORBYLOON]

He went over the two-hour limit by fifty-six minutes.

[jno]

ah, almost a 50% overstay, TCL? My sympathy for him abates.

[Buenchico]

£85 seems ridiculously cheap to me. (I would suggest an absolute minimum of £200).

The courts have ruled that when stores take civil action against shoplifters they can not only be awarded compensation for the cost of the goods that were stolen but also be awarded additional compensation to go towards the cost of security measures that wouldn't be needed if people stuck by the rules (such as the costs of CCTV and employing security staff).

It would seem to follow that where car park owners/operators take civil action in respect of car parking fees, the costs of putting up notices, installing cameras and paying patrol staff should also be included.

[THECORBYLOON]

Chris, if a contract were always enforceable there would be no need for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, not that I am saying it would apply in this case.

[jno]

maybe, Chris, but perhaps their invoices could be itemised and evaluated by judges. I bet this one wasn't.

[fiction-factory]

I agree with Buenchico that this guy failed to fulfill his part of the contract so should have to pay a fee. I disagree, however, that it should be anything like £200. I think something like £30 would be more acceptable and would make it more likely that parking companies could actively pursue claims against those that flout the contract terms and simply refuse to pay up at present.

[Buenchico]

It could have been worse for him. He could have incorrectly parked his car at a railway station. Under the railway bylaws, that's a criminal offence and carries a maximum penalty of £1000. (I used to point that out to our customers as I charged them a measly £50, plus the relevant parking costs, to remove the wheel-clamps from their cars).