Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for your reply...much appreciated. Last payment date was December 2018. She had been paying £50/month from July, and they wanted £150/month, despite my partner losing her PIP (which was eventually reinstated after appeal). She stopped paying anything after they failed to supply a true copy of the original CCA (which she took out in 1981). Her name and address were different in 1981 due to marriage (and subsequent divorce!). Again, no mention of that in the “reconstituted” agreement which they supplied. Once again, many thanks and we both appreciate you putting time in to helping with this, especially due to the increased financial pressures of Covid on many people who also need your help.
    • never get a cca for a debt of that age when was the last payment date?   dx  
    • i have shrunk the uploads earlier as they exceeded in total your upload limit try now in pdf.   BTW: the file a few posts up renamed burlington comms is very damning for them they knew they had done wrong having just read it.   now this subject needs addressing and sorting. where has all your available income been going for the last 12mts...why has this debt not been paid and why did you resort to even taking out an LBL in 1st place..usually its as a result of shear desperation and financial mismanagement as you could not get money elsewhere ...why ?   this debt is a priority ...2nd to everything other that what keeps a roof over your head like mortgage , rent. CTAX. gas/electric.   mobile phone/sky/broadband/credit cards/OD's/catalogue debts or accounts and anything else you payout for needs to be either cancelled or dropped to <£5PCM..they can't do anything to your roof or your car.   spill the beans..why were you in such a whole in 2018 that you ever had to goto these sharks and expose yourself to this grief..          
    • For general info, I have a Life Fitness treadmill which has been in my garage for the past two years.  It cost around £2k so in the same ball park as yours.  It was installed for us by professionals and there was no hint that it is an unsuitable environment - because it isn’t.  The gym I use (when I can) is even less salubrious than most garages, think bare aircraft hangar rather than carpets and smoothie bars.  It is not heated.  It has a range of top end cardio equipment all working just fine.        
    • i'd be sending them an sar get all the details and see if his bank has proof of BT cancelling the DD too. then p'haps we can make a complaint......   £800/12 is about £67pcm - thats an expensive deal if this is for BB only and not phone as well & at what speed - i'd expect >70MPS for that deal...was it.?   the issue here is if it is for phone as well BT won't release the line till the debt is cleared if he wanted & should switch - to say vodafone at <£30PCM for the same deal.
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

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

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2052 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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

Anyone know how this result might affect cases where a PCN has been issued in a free car park because the driver was seen leaving the premises? (i.e. no time limits exceeded)?

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

I'm feeling a lot less smug about my 'appeal' to Euro CP now. What a ridiculous judgment. A black letter day for sure, & let's hope sanity is restored by the Supreme Court.

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...