I take it that you do not want copies of the letter tennis so i have just copied everything else

Appeal & Press releases.pdf

so does their images match yours?

I note that they say the charge is to deter and this makes the contract an unlawful penalty charge designed to deter rather than an actual offer of terms. Thye have dropped themselves in it.

Read up on unlawful penalties, start with Dunlop v Selfridge the Dunlop v New Garage and Motor co and then look for reports on the Parking Prankster's blogspot and web pages where signage designed to deter or deterrent in nature get hits as keywords.

what the signs should say parking £100, first 3 hours free. No confusion.

Their reliance on Beavis is misplaced, that was a particular set of circumstances where PE paid about £10k a month to be there and had methods of collecting money for longer stays and simpler signage

also dont forget they claim she identified herself as driver when the appeal was as keeper and they hadnt applied for keeper details within the required time. Dont let these lies slip through, they are basically suing the wrong entity

I note that they say the charge is to deter and this makes the contract an unlawful penalty charge designed to deter rather than an actual offer of terms. Thye have dropped themselves in it.

Oh i missed that where did it say that please?

edit - oh i see where the signage says "to deter abuse of this car park these terms apply 24 hours a day"

OMG may need help with this as these two cases may as well be in a different language.

Read up on unlawful penalties, start with Dunlop v Selfridge the Dunlop v New Garage and Motor co and then look for reports on the Parking Prankster's blogspot and web pages where signage designed to deter or deterrent in nature get hits as keywords.

Court has 2 tracks

Small claim

Or

Fast track

The case has not been allocated yet!! So cpr does apply

You can point out the unfair term by reference to the sign stating" to deter misuse" as EB mentions is fatal to their claim, along with Beavis not being applicable.

Found this online (Parking Prankster)

In a recent POPLA case Vehicle Control Services Limited quoted extensively from HHJ Moloney's ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley in their evidence pack regarding their charges.

 

However, as this is a small claims verdict, POPLA chose to ignore it. The claim is currently being appealed in the court of appeal, at which point the verdict will become binding on lower courts for similar cases.

 

Firstly, I do not accept the Operator’s submission that the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss. A detailed breakdown of each head of loss will not always be required, but the Operator must provide some explanation as to how it arrives at its final sum. The Operator has not explained in any detail how the sum of £166.01 is arrived at before it is reduced to £100. The explanation provided by the Operator also appears to include general operational costs and costs which could not possibly be incurred as a direct result of the alleged breach. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Operator has shown the charge of £100 is arrived at by a genuine attempt to pre-estimate its loss.

 

Further, I am not minded to accept that the charge in this case is commercially justified. In each case that I have seen from the highercourts, including those presented here by the Operator, it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty,“if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”.

 

This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.

 

In this case, it is clear that the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter vehicles from staying beyond the 90 minute limit. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the charge can be commercially justified.

 

Given that the charge is not commercially justified, nor has it been shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, I accept on this occasion the Appellant’s submission that it is not enforceable.

 

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

I need not decide any other issues.

Is this the same beavis case?

i take that it was over ruled if so

The Beavis case is vastly different to other cases. In that case, Parking Eye paid the landowner to monitor the site so it was decided that they were in the right to charge the amounts on the PCN.

Other cases differ. On most sites, the parking company haven't paid for the same privilege so it can't use Beavis as it is of no relevence but the parking companies don't want you to know this. They prey on the general ignorance of the law.

how do you think the helpers on these forums got to know so much? It is then just a matter of remembering where you saw somehting that is important and understanding as far as possible what it means and how it helps.

So get reading. we cab advice but we cant turn up in court for you and put your case so need to know it and be able to defend the points you make. Judges arent nastly ( well mosy of them arent) and will let you say what you wnat so chucking everything at it in a coherent manner is better than being very precise but missing the main point.

on mcol how to you tell if they have paid the court fee please ???

once the date has passed the next action may be processed so it will say something along those lines.

Now give it a few days to be put up in the file and the ask the courts service if they have paid up and if they haven't you ask that the claim be struck out or stayed for the non payment.

If that is granted then they will have to start all over again

can i do that on mcol?

No ring court

thank you:smile:

ok rang the court last week to see if cel had gone to the next stage and the court could not answer as they had a backlog and advised us to ring again this week.

Rang again today and cel have not moved to the next stage and the case has been stayed.

They will now have to pay £100 to remove stay (and i assume a further £125 for a court hearing).

How long does this remain stayed for before its too late to revive does anyone know?

Thanks all for the help

a stay is a stay.

go enjoy xmas now

It would cost them more than they would gain to continue in all probability now, with no guarantee of winning a well defended claim.

I'd be pretty confident of not hearing anything more, but keep your eyes peeled just in case.

they can theoretically restart a claim within a year of the first filing.

Lets face it, you called their bluff so they are not going to bung another £100 at this when they cnat even win enough to cover their costs should you turn up and agree they are right, let alone fight

So after being told on the 17th Dec that this is now stayed we have today received a directions questionaire dated 19th Dec

well, fill it out and also phone the court to ask what is going on. some courts people are very helpful, others not so. that is why you should do the paperwork and send it back anyway. Put a letter with it saying the claim was stayed so what is going on.

spoke to the court today and they say that an order to lift the stay was issued 19th December so it looks like they paid the fee

what is best to do about the mediation service (apparently they have agreed to it) so do we agree to it?

Personally I would say no, they are hoping to persuade you to pay something anything at all.

read this post

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440009-Guidance-Note-Mediation

is it worth a try

edit oops hadn't read the above post sorry