[MrPogle]

Apologies. I may have used High Court in error. It was actually the Court of Appeal.

[sparkymarky]

In which case the ratio decedendi of the decision will be binding on future cases of identical fact. Correction, the Judge was not a high circuit judge and so this decision is persuasive authority only (but still valid to be cited in subsequent cases).

I've read the transcript. This is to a degree still a test case as it is progressing up the heirarchy of courts as we speak. New grounds are being trodden and just one interpretation from one (mere circuit) judge applied.

As an overview approach, there are two options to pursue such parking issue:
1. As a civil offence of trespass (no go for fines, prohibition from further trespass is the only realistic tortious remedy available).
2. As a breach of contract. The judge, whilst not explicitly stating nor clarifying under which heading he is considering the case, often uses the word 'commercial' and so it is clear that he is approaching this parking issue from the second option, contract law and takes the view that the defendant has committed a breach of contract (hence the detailed discussion of offer/acceptance/consideration). NB. he applies good law in the form of well known citations/precedents when establishing whether the claimant accepted and is thus bound by the contract.

He goes on to attempt to distinguish between whether the charge of £85 is 'predominantly' (important to acknowledge the weight given by that word) a deterrent/fine or not. He concludes it is partly a deterrent but not 'predominately' a deterrent/fine and thus he appears to go on to take the view that, as it is not predominately a deterrent, it may be possible to allow the charge under some emerging head of 'commercial justification'.

Interesting stuff. Personally for me, my thoughts are these. Adjudging this case under contract law as the judge has done here (and ignoring the issues of whether parking eye were an agent or principal/i.e whether they actually had the power to fine - an issue which may yet be overturned in itself) then it seems to me that the judge has omitted one basic consideration in respect of damages under contract law - The (usual) aim of contractual damages is to put parties 'into the position they would have been had the contract been properly performed'. I.e the situation that would exist had the defendant performed their side of the contract and paid for the extra 56 minutes as he was supposed to as his part of the contract. So for me, a small sum should be awarded. As a consequence, the figure of £85 is now disproportionate to effect the aim of damages; parking eye would not have received £85 had the contract been properly formed.
Thus for me, as £85 appears far in excess of what is necessary to put parking eye into the position it should have been, the £85 can only constitute 'predominantly' a deterrent/fine and so should not be found in favour of.

I think this is a fundamental point which the judge has (quite easily) overlooked and gotten carried away fixating upon the issue of new grounds of some sort of commercial justification.

Just my initial reaction rather than long thought out reasoning. Time will tell once the appeal Judgment is handed down.

[sparkymarky]

....and any subsequent appeal on points of law to the supreme court

[dy63]

i ignored the parking eye about 2 months ago and today got a letter from debt recovery plus ltd requesting the money

do i ignore it or just pay it or are they just trying to scare me and theyll eventually go away?

[MrPogle]

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/debt-collectors/

[Jimmy-F46 M-sport]

Originally Posted by cupraraj

i ignored the parking eye about 2 months ago and today got a letter from debt recovery plus ltd requesting the money

do i ignore it or just pay it or are they just trying to scare me and theyll eventually go away?

What happened with this bud? Did you pay it? I just got one through today

[Wobble]

Originally Posted by vexith

Sigh, so apparently i seemed to have parked in a private car park for 45 minutes this one evening and 3 weeks later, i get a letter down my house stating i've been charged 60 quid :|

My fault of course for ignoring the rules but i was only there for 45 minutes and it was between half 8 to 9:15 in the evening. They have their cameras on 24/7 to catch out unsuspecting folks.

My question is, how enforceable are these fines since they ain't directly from the coppers?

I used to work in security and I know for a fact only parking charges you have to pay are council or traffic wardens. Any like the one you have received,ignore everything about it,forget you ever received it.
Only time you have to pay it,is if you acknowledge you've received it ie if you ring to complain.
They send millions out every day and never take anyone to court because it's not worth the hassle or cost.
So do as I have told my friends n family,rip it up n put it in the bin and forget ever seeing it,upto now I know at least 18 members of my family n friends that have taken my advice and they've never heard anything,all the best x

[djgandy]

Originally Posted by Wobble

I used to work in security and I know for a fact only parking charges you have to pay are council or traffic wardens. Any like the one you have received,ignore everything about it,forget you ever received it.
Only time you have to pay it,is if you acknowledge you've received it ie if you ring to complain.
They send millions out every day and never take anyone to court because it's not worth the hassle or cost.
So do as I have told my friends n family,rip it up n put it in the bin and forget ever seeing it,upto now I know at least 18 members of my family n friends that have taken my advice and they've never heard anything,all the best x

Ignore this advice, unless you want the bailiffs around. They will chase you if you don't pay. There are ways out, and its not by ignoring it. See pepipoo forums.

[Dopeslope]

Had one recently, in the past I have completely ignored. With this latest one the advice inwas given from a barrister friend was to appeal using the companys online appeal process- the company failed to acknowledge my appeal thus breaking their own terms, meaning I could now ignore there letters

had a few more letters and then stopped.

there is always a correct way to do things but sometimes that way changes lol

[jammy78]

Unfortanately a test case has ruled in favour of the parking companies (Beavis vs PE).

I used to ignore parking tickets..... well that's untill I got court papers from parking eye! I ended up negotiating the fine down to £60...... they originally wanted £180. I did it as I didn't want to fight it - now with this ruling, you are virtually screwed!

[dy63]

Originally Posted by jimmy-320d

What happened with this bud? Did you pay it? I just got one through today

Ignored everything they sent and havent heard nothing since or no letters

[AWSAWS]

These companies are a joke.
All these parking fiascos are an absolute piss take. Even the council ones who get baliffs involved and a £60 fine becomes £460. It's f'kin extortion! Absolute daylight robbery.

I once got a ticket for about £260 where my car was towed to the pound while I was trying to borrow some money from my parents to pay the £150 they wanted when it was clamped. It's disgusting!

[webwysard]

Any latest on this thread ?

Had 2 letter through post for when I went to see a friend couple of times who was staying in a hotel and just realised that I went to see him again so expecting an other letter in coming days. so all in 3 notices of parking charge !!!

[djgandy]

Originally Posted by webwysard

Any latest on this thread ?

Had 2 letter through post for when I went to see a friend couple of times who was staying in a hotel and just realised that I went to see him again so expecting an other letter in coming days. so all in 3 notices of parking charge !!!

pepipoo forums are you friend