Another parking ticket myth finally slain.

[Dolph]

So the supreme court has agreed with both the crown and the appeal court in the case of parking eye vs beavis

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-34721126

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html

In summary, this was the test case as to whether parking charges such as overstaying had to relate to actual losses to be reasonable and proportionate, and the judgement very clearly concludes they do not.

Given the general attitude towards parking in this forum, I doubt this will go down well, but for believers in property rights it is good to see that people don't just have the right to park wherever they want provided they don't believe it is a problem.

 

[Dolph]

Fined £85 for over staying an hour? where did they get that number from which ParkingEye says is "fair and reasonable".

Is each parking space worth £85 an hour?, let's see them put that on a pay and display and see how many people park there then. No one, because £85 is obviously an outrageous price to pay for parking and is equally an outrageous fine.

You could always read the linked ruling to understand it? That's why I bothered to source it.

 

[Dolph]

I listened to the video and what I picked out is that the £85 is compensation for the businesses that potentially lost business because a customer may not have had some where to park because he overstayed.

Possibly there is something more I missed so I'll say no more until I know if that's the case.

They also had an angle about overstaying is a breach of contract. I bet 99% of motorists out there don't consider parking a "contract" or don't realize that parking enters you into a "contract".

The actual judgement (2nd link), while rather wordy, does cover all your concerns.

 

[Dolph]

So is anyone able to provide a quick summary as the BBC article doesn't say much.

Did the ruling or Parkingeye explain why £85 for 1 hour wasn't unreasonable?

The ruling did. The charge wasn't unreasonable because it was similar in magnitude to the statutory penalties for illegal parking, served a useful purpose (protecting the rights of the land owner and other parking users) and allowed parkingeye to cover the costs of the service and make a profit.

 

[Dolph]

How do your legal qualifications compare to the 6 judges who supported the ruling (one of the 7 did not)?

This ruling is clear, your disagreement with it seems to be based more on what you think it should be rather than any sort of clear rebuttal of the reasoning set out.

 

[Dolph]

So does Dolph a. own a car park or b. work for a car park?

C. respects the property rights of other people.

 

[Dolph]

Except in many cases it's not simply about protecting property rights, it's about earning an additional revenue stream by increasing the opportunity to hand out tickets. Because it makes no odds to the landowner whether somebody parks for free in a retail park for 3 hours instead of 2 hours however you are far more likely to catch people out with 2 hours than a 4 hour restriction.

If it was purely about property rights the time limit would be set at the point which ensures legitimate customers are never caught out but all-day commuters are always caught out.

This isn't 2 hours.

You are right, it isn't about 2 hours, it is about the landowners right to set rules on how others use their property and enforce them.

 

[Dolph]

Presumably you are just going to parrot the term 'property rights' throughout this entire thread so any chance of an interesting discussion has probably gone.

However would you have the same view if a branch of McDonalds setup ANPR cameras to automatically fine anyone who stayed in the carpark for more than 7 minutes?

If not, that rather suggests perhaps there is a threshold of reasonableness.

There is indeed a reasonableness test within the judgement, whether the above example is reasonable would depend on additional factors rather than just the time.

 

[Dolph]

What of you go shopping and then go for something to eat but there is s delay in the restaurant?

Then the restaurant should cover the ticket for you?

 

[Dolph]

Hahahahaha, good one.

Lol

I find your lack of negotiating ability disturbing....

 

[Dolph]

Well, not if the parking terms are regulated by contractors. Halfords stores in Kent are good example - 30 minute limit, 4 hour no return, often not enough to get bike serviced. Clients shout at salesmen and staff but store staff can't help because someone higher up the plc signed off maintenance to TPS henchmen for several years and they just run it like Chicago mafia (to the detriment of the store). 2 hours is almost unheard of now, except for big out of town centres.

But this judgement doesn't mean that any and all restrictions are reasonable.

 

[Dolph]

So...

That question on how it's a myth if it's needed case law to prove it?

It's a myth because it never stood a chance of being upheld. Forcing a case to the supreme court doesn't really change that. At every stage the judgement was clear.

 

[Dolph]

Only the council/police can force the keeper to pay up or hand over the driver's details though.

They could drag it through a civil court i suppose, but without KNOWING who the driver was it's just speculation.

That's not how it works since clamping was banned in 2012. The legislation specifically allows the parking company to invoice the keeper in some situations.

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/