Another parking ticket myth finally slain.

[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.

 

[muon]

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.

Well I can see a contradicting judgement which chooses the bits that helps the ruling and ignores the others.

Doesn't take a QC to see that.

My rebuttal is based on contradictions in the judgement. As such it is clear it hasn't been thought through properly.

You should inform those representing him - John de Waal QC, David Lewis and Ryan Hocking (Instructed by Harcus Sinclair)

I tell you what. I will.

 

[MattU]

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

 

[VincentHanna]

Mr Beavis was apparently "on-site having flyers produced from one of the shops and there was technical issues with the printing and was delayed accordingly."

If I were him, I'd be sending an invoice for £100 straight to that shop - £85 costs and a little extra for profit.

The printers aren't even part of that retail park, they are nearby and I could see why people might park there and walk over but its clearly not connected to that car park.

He was trying it on in my opinion.

 

[Dolph]

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

C. respects the property rights of other people.

 

[Mr-White]

I won my case against Parking Eye, excessive charge was only 1 of the 4 points I raised with POPLA.

MW

 

[[TW]Fox]

C. respects the property rights of other people.

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.

 

[hurfdurf]

Property and land ownership is theft, kill all the bourgeoisie and free parking for everyone.

 

[Danthus]

C. respects the property rights of other people.

People are being "fined" for parking on empty supermarket car parks after they have closed, please do not try and defend this practice.

Fox is right.

I really worry about you.

 

[Pudney]

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.

It stated somewhere in the ruling that ParkingEye had a duty to the landowner to ensure parking is maximised, can't remember where now. Before someone tells me that was the wording on the sign, I know, I just can't remember the specific wording for the duty to the landowner.

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.

Well. For that retail park it kind of is. There's not a lot there to take more than 2 hours unless you're off into town or going to the gym (which you get additional time for).

 

[Pudney]

This ruling is complete BS.

The ruling is made by the Supreme Court, and my understanding of Common Law is that it has set a precedent. It may not be a good one but the ruling is pretty final (I'm assuming it can't go to European Courts). Feel free to correct me though, your knowledge is better than mine in this area of law

 

[muon]

At the very least this sets out that these terms aren't

- acceptable charges for parking in the sense of an exchange in goods or services (see statement 94)
- recoverable damages (see statement 97)
- or acceptable penalties (well they simply aren't allowed).

This means that private parking tickets for non retail spaces are going to have to come with a reason why their charges and their levels are justified.

In the case above the consumer received the ability to park for 2 hours in exchange for this contract and the charge was to ensure high turnover which financially benefited the retail park and it's tenants (see statement 99).

The ruling is made by the Supreme Court, and my understanding of Common Law is that it has set a precedent. It may not be a good one but the ruling is pretty final (I'm assuming it can't go to European Courts). Feel free to correct me though, your knowledge is better than mine in this area of law

I'm not qualified in anyway.

I can just see contradictions in the judgement which makes me doubt it in its entirety.

 

[Pudney]

At the very least this sets out that these terms aren't

- acceptable charges for parking in the sense of an exchange in goods or services (see statement 94)
- recoverable damages (see statement 97)
- or acceptable penalties (well they simply aren't allowed).

This means that private parking tickets for non retail spaces are going to have to come with a reason why their charges and their levels are justified.

In the case above the consumer received the ability to park for 2 hours in exchange for this contract and the charge was to ensure high turnover which financially benefited the retail park and it's tenants (see statement 99).



I'm not qualified in anyway.

I can just see contradictions in the judgement which makes me doubt it in its entirety.

Aah, confused you with someone else.

In which case, the early paragraphs are important as it explains in detail the law. This also explains why the charge isn't penal and is permissible.

 

[muon]

Aah, confused you with someone else.

In which case, the early paragraphs are important as it explains in detail the law. This also explains why the charge isn't penal and is permissible.

I can understand them coming to the conclusion that they aren't there just to punish (although the argument is made by drawing a very thin line between penalty charges and deterrent charges).

However, they are excessive. Their reasonableness argument comes from the Code of Conduct written by the Private Parking industry and Local Authority Penalty Charges.

The judgement that it is not an unfair term comes from the argument is that it is so prevalent (self-fulfilling argument much?) and that so many motorists are willing to park in such managed car parks (which may be true but statutory clauses need to be treated carefully as acknowledged in the judgement).

 

[lordrobs]

But of course when you use a retail park like that you are not deciding to visit ABC Land Securities Ltd's carpark. You are visiting McDonalds, then perhaps Home Bargains, maybe Halfords. None of whom own the carpark...

Exactly. In Norwich there is a fairly ridiculous situation with one of the retail parks. Because it has a stupid layout the place gets gridlocked fairly easily. The best thing would be for people to park and walk between the shops but the car parks have a 2 hour limit on them.

There are three car parks operated by two different companies so I have had to move my car from one to another in the past for the sake of an extra half an hour or so. A task that can take 20 minutes and further jams up the road. Excellent.

 

[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.

 

[The Running Man]

Terrible ruling designed to support a parasitic business practice that serves no benefit to the shop owners or the public.

A reasonable system would be first 2 hours free followed by say £2 an hour thereafter. I'm not sure how forcing people to rush their shopping is commendable or desirable?

 

[[TW]Fox]

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.

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.

 

[atpbx]

I must be one of the few people who can :

A- Park inside the lines.
B- tell the time.

For this ruling to effectively mean nothing to me.
Why are parking fines such an issue for people?
I actually got a ticket while working when I went to see a customer, I literally just bumped the car up on the pavement on a single yellow line to drop some duplicate invoices off, was in there five minutes and got a ticket.
So when I got back in the office I went online, paid the £65 and got on with life.

I have to agree with Dolph in a way, if you don't like the parking conditions, don't shop there.

 

[MrMoonX]

Good old dolph defending the right of capitalistic greed

There is no right for any company to fine or charge anyone these excessive fees, this is a horrible decision which I hope gets challenged later on