Parking eye won cambridge case

A question about : Parking eye won cambridge case

Parking eye won hands down in cambridge today.
To bad you lot

Best answers:

• Really ? I think I'll await an update from real people such as Bargepole, Prankster or KIL before believing a PPC employee.
  EDIT - It's "too" not "to" but given the poor grasp of language on PPC websites I'm not surprised you got it wrong.
• Welcome Perky, if this has been lost it goes to a court of appeal where the decision will be binding on parking eye. The whole scam can be brought to its knees there
• I can confirm tanglefoot is correct, but the full details are not yet known
• OK, fair enough, I've now had confirmation as well. Will be interesting to see why though. Thankfully POPLA is still the best route !
• Yes I know mate, but the court of appeal is where it will be binding upon the parties, and it will depend whether the two parties involved want to take it further
• The suspense is killing how much longer will we have to wait.
• Hmmm .... not going to say where I got it from but apparently the charges WERE ruled as penalties but commercially justifiable. Kind of turns contract law on it's head !
• Could be a strong appeal point
• The 'test cases' heard at Cambridge on 22nd April (3JD05152 PE v Beavis, and 3JD05169 PE v Wardley) had the Judgment handed down today at Southend by HHJ Moloney QC.
  He has decided in favour of the Claimants, on the basis that although the parking charges can be classed as penalties, there is 'commercial necessity' for them, as without them PE would be unable to operate, and their landowner clients would not be able to manage their car parks.
  Permission to appeal this decision was granted by the Judge, on the basis that there were no authorities for commercial justification in cases involving consumers, and he has directed that any appeal is leapfrogged straight to the Court of Appeal.
  The two defendants now have 21 days to decide whether they wish to appeal. A further update will be given when available.
• me wonders if the judge actually "wants" this to go to appeal?
• If someone wants something 'managed' then they should pay for that service.
  If the landowner doesn't want to pay for a managed service, then instal barriers and charge motorists for the precise time they spend at the car park, this way everyone pays for what they use, and penalties don't become an issue.
  If PE are so 'unable to operate' without the penalties, then why are they paying (IIUC) Ј1,000 per week to the landowner at these particular sites?
• As I recall these cases were in Chelmsford where a council penalty notice is Ј70 or Ј50 depending on the gravity of the offence. How much was the PE penalty?
• So because parking eye can't operate without penalties, then they shouldn't operate its that simple, the fact is that private company cannot issue penalties, and if the whole basis of operating is to penalise then that is not a sustainable business model. The public or the county courts are not there to ensure that these companies can exist. This I hope will go further
• I'm confused. The Court of Appeal have already ruled on this a number of times. If it is indeed a commercial necessity then surely:
  https://www.olswang.com/articles/2013...nalty-clauses/
  Or am I missing something?
• TBH I expected this result. A very expensive QC versus lay people and the potential to stifle a multi million pound business was only ever going to end one way.
  We still have POPLA though.