Jump to content

Court of Appeal judgment in ParkingEye Limited -v- Beavis, POPLA - Statement by the Lead Adjudicator.

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2364 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 3 weeks later...

According to Barry Beavis via twitter;


Judgement to be handed down at 10.30 on Thursday



Link to post
Share on other sites





Appeal Dismissed.


The COA have neatly sidestepped the fundamental question of the appeal, which was whether penalties could be commercially justified.

Instead, they have ruled that PE’s charges should not be treated as penalties, and therefore unenforceable, because the level of charge is not ‘extravagant and unconscionable’ which they say is the true test of whether a clause is a penalty.


They also say that there are social, or public policy, reasons why the charges should be enforced, because if they were not, the spaces in the car park would become unavailable for customers. They also say that PE would suffer a likely loss of contract with the BA Pension Fund if they were unable to perform the contract with them. (The Armageddon scenario).


It is also stated that the contractual arrangements between PE and the landowner are irrelevant for the purposes of this decision, so that blows the ‘fishing licence’ argument out of the water.


They have also said that the signage most likely creates a bare licence rather than a contract, although it was not in their remit to rule on that, but in any event the outcome would have been the same.


Mr Hossain has prepared a submission requesting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, Mr Kirk has made a submission opposing it, and the CA have sent in a statement supporting Mr Hossain’s application. I will update the outcome of the application, when known.







From bargepole on mse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to get to the court myself this morning but failed. I cannot believe that Barry Beavis has lost his case. I am getting a copy of the judgment sent to me in the next half hour.


I just hope that the government amend legislation as soon as possible as the full implications of this could be dreadful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

" because the level of charge is not‘extravagant and unconscionable’ " !!!!

I guess if you earn a judge's salary then the charge might not look extravagant - but for ordinary people on ordinary incomes it is nothing short of extortion.............

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums



This site is run solely on donations


My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A copy of the full judgment is already on Bailii here:






From my reading of judgement:

1. it really only applies where there is no transaction between the parking operator and the driver eg a free parking area. where the driver pays for parking then it doesn't apply?

2. both LJ Moore-Bick and Timothy Lloyd both state that the charge is not really a trespass or a breach of contract but a license to park. as such the charges are not liquidated damages but form charges as part of the contract. Come on HMRC, time to reclaim the VAT from ParkingEye on behalf of the tax payer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should mail a summary with a copy of the judgment to the HMRC and ask them to collect our tax back form these cowboys








The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont see why people are surprised that the judges commented on the loss of earnings by PE et al if they made their decision otherwise. Civil Courts were set up to make decisions on financial matters and from their position it is all about the money as the overbearing principle, not the rights or wrongs of the merits of the 2 sides. For 4 centuries the decisions go with the money so nothing too unusual about this apart from the precedent is very different from previous case law.

However, they may well have misdirected themselves by reaching the conclusions they did so there is hope for Barry Beavis' appeal to the supreme court. The Parking Prankster shows problems with the judgement and its details but the next court is rather tied as to what it may consider. I think the signage being a bare licence is an interesting one, they have veered a long way away from the previously held consensus of either invitation to treat or a unilateral contract. I think that this can lead to abuse by companies claiming rights not expressed in their signage by reference to their web site, post-dated amendments etc and there will be a battle to get away from any of these unfair parts. Look at the trouble people have getting out of mobile phone or energy contracts even when they have passed the end of the contract period. We are all going to be treated as though we have a commercial lawyer advising us of every purchasing decision we ever make if this is pushed to its limits.

I have siad before, I have seen judgements favouring money over the laws of physics

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is stupid.



It means that if I live near Ascot Racecourse I can let someone park on my drive with an appropriate sign displayed, they can then go to the races but if they exceed the two hours by one second I can then charge them £85 as this is 'in line' with local authority parking charges?



No of course I can't as I have NOT LOST £85.



utter nonsense in my view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is worse than that, you can invent new clauses to the parking contract after they have agreed and claim that the original contract was just a licence and the new terms mean you are due the penalty fee even though it wasnt properly explained at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Court of Appeal judgment in ParkingEye Limited -v- Beavis, POPLA - Statement by the Lead Adjudicator.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...