Will Private Parking Companies start closing down in order to frustrate refund claims?

[BankFodder]

Millions of pounds of parking penalties could have been charged illegally, according to the RAC Foundation.

Penalties for overstays in car parks on private land in England and Wales could in some cases be unenforceable in court, barrister John de Waal QC said in a legal opinion for the charity.

He said the penalties - sometimes up to £100 or more - were much more expensive than compensation for a genuine loss.

The foundation said it wanted to see its argument tested in court.

And it is also calling for the government to ensure that extra parking charges are "reasonable and enforceable

 

... a case coming to the Court of Appeal next week, regarding a motorist who is contesting an £85 penalty charge, could establish a precedent in law if the motorist wins, meaning others could have a case to get money repaid.

http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-31545417

 

If the forthcoming Court of Appeal case goes against the Bounty Hunting industry then people should start getting their claims in fast. If the Bounty Hunters are obliged to start refunding all of their victims, then they won't have enough money to do it.

The result could be that they start closing themselves down pre-emptively.

 

People should consider issuing small claims for refunds without hanging around too long

[BankFodder]

I wonder what they will all do if their business have to close down?

 

Back to bouncing at nightclubs or fitting security alarms, I suppose.

It will be strange to be doing something productive in society after so long.

[silverfox1961]

I wonder what they will all do if their business have to close down?

 

Back to bouncing at nightclubs or fitting security alarms, I suppose.

It will be strange to be doing something productive in society after so long.

 

I think they will close down one business then sell it to themselves to open it under a new name. They will always find other reasons to rob people blind.

[ericsbrother]

Wont stop themtrying, they will just modify their contracts and have another go. It all depends on how lazy the companies who uswe them are.

[armadillo71]

This car park is not the normal PE set up. They are the principal and are trying to get commercial justification the green light , which would mean that they would have to pay every land owner, of every car park, to be able to use commercial justification to [problem] money.

That's if they win.

If they lose then it does not effect the other car parks they infest, as they are all 'breach of contract' model, even though they try to claim commercial justification in their appeal denied letters...

 

As a coincidence I have just received, as RK, a fresh parking charge notice. So I shall be in the system to test the fallout as it were...

[armadillo71]

Mr Beavis sets out his stall in the press.

 

http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Barry-Beavis-challenge-Parking-Eye-fine-Court/story-26057530-detail/story.html

[Tony P]

Second on the Daily Court Listing for Tuesday 24th. Not before 10.30am - Court 72

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists/list-appeal-civil

[DBC]

And here is Parking Prankster's blog on the subject:-

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/parkingeye-v-beavis-whats-it-all-about.html

[armadillo71]

The Prankster's summary of the day in court;

 

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/parkingeye-v-beavis-court-of-appeal.html

[themagician]

just read The Prankster's summary of the day in court,

what a bunch of muppets,and he's paying his brief how much ???.

I suppose in hind site never expected anything more or less.

[reallymadwoman]

If it were possible to claim refunds and if the parking company had gone bust or otherwise disappeared, would it perhaps be possible to claim a refund from the landowner?

[ericsbrother]

Most likely it will under the current interpretation of the contract offered but not if the parking company is accepted to be the principal.

[Coughdrop]

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted on here before, so thought I'd post it. If admin don't approve of the link, please feel free to delete this post.

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/parkingeye-v-beavis-court-of-appeal.html

[blackknight]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?441663-Will-Private-Parking-Companies-start-closing-down-in-order-to-frustrate-refund-claims-(1-Viewing)-nbsp

[armadillo71]

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted on here before, so thought I'd post it. If admin don't approve of the link, please feel free to delete this post.

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/parkingeye-v-beavis-court-of-appeal.html

 

It has...

 

Post #9.

[Seven Towers]

just read The Prankster's summary of the day in court,

what a bunch of muppets,and he's paying his brief how much ???.

I suppose in hind site never expected anything more or less.

 

The Parking Prankster does not have a brief, he was not a party in the case.

 

Mr Beavis does of course have a barrister, one of the leading experts in the country on the law on penalties, Mr. Sa'ad Hossain. Although admittedly he should have been up to speed on typical PPC shenanigans, he did argue the kegal points very professionally

 

And how much was Mr. Hossain paid? Not one penny, he is working "Pro-bono" on this appeal.