Just a heads up - the Court of Appeal found in favour of a parking company and upheld a ticket for £85 issued to someone for over staying their ticket, this could set a precedent and mean the parking companies go after everyone with a bit more determination than before.
… Harry Monk 
don’t say how long he was parked for though so was it just a little over or was it an all day thing etc.
He was less than an hour over the 2 hour free period.
trubster:
… Harry Monk
May have to up his rates 
speedyguy:
trubster:
… Harry MonkMay have to up his rates
Or pay for parking
Interesting development
dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -land.html
Another post on this already but it does make you wonder what the judicial lot were thinking.
Personally I think they thought £85 wasn’t a lot rather than actually looking at the legality as such when they say it’s not extravagant or unconscionable!
Price wise probably not but that wasn’t the issue brought to court was it? It was whether it was proportionate to actual costs incurred, which I very much doubt anyone in court asked for a full breakdown of what this £85 consists of.
Harry better be careful, as that was his defense for never paying at services.
Harry Monk ought to be informed of this ruling as well
m1cks:
speedyguy:
trubster:
… Harry MonkMay have to up his rates
Or pay for parking
if he upped his rates and stopped working too cheaply he might be able to afford to park his truck 
green456:
if he upped his rates and stopped working too cheaply he might be able to afford to park his truck
How do you know what Harry charges? Maybe he charges a fortune and has a serious Russian ■■■■■■ and cocaine habit! 
I suspect though that it’s principles rather than lack of folding that shapes his stance.
trubster:
He was less than an hour over the 2 hour free period.
where does it say that ■■
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-32429649
A chip shop owner has lost his Court of Appeal challenge over what he claimed were “unfair, unlawful and disproportionate” parking charges.
Barry Beavis, 48, was sent a charge letter for £85 by car park operator ParkingEye after he overstayed a two-hour limit in Chelmsford in April 2013.
ParkingEye argued such charges were “a commercially-justified deterrent”.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed the case though Mr Beavis, of Chelmsford, can refer it to the Supreme Court.
The three appeal court judges unanimously dismissed his challenge, saying the amount he was charged “is not extravagant or unconscionable”.
‘Absolutely furious’
After the judgement, Mr Beavis, who is considering taking his case to the Supreme Court - the highest court in the land - said: “I am absolutely furious that they have not upheld the law as it stands but have created new law.”
ParkingEye argued the charges were justified to discourage people from over-staying at a site close to the railway station and law courts.
After Mr Beavis first refused to pay the £85 he received a court summons and was told the charge had increased to £150.
He challenged this last May at Cambridge County Court, where a judge ruled the £85 charge was lawful and did not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.
His challenge at the Court of Appeal was against the county court verdict.
Prof Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said it was “deeply frustrating” the case has gone against Mr Beavis.
The British Parking Association and ParkingEye are yet to comment.
I know the case very well, I have been following it from the start.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -land.html
56 Minutes.
Permission to appeal has been granted, this will be going to the Supreme Court
If he were in sunny Scotland the outcome would have been very different.Go England fight for your independence.
trubster:
I know the case very well, I have been following it from the start.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -land.html
56 Minutes.
Permission to appeal has been granted, this will be going to the Supreme Court
For a £85 fine. How much will it cost him when they do him for wasting the courts time?
scanny77:
trubster:
I know the case very well, I have been following it from the start.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -land.html
56 Minutes.
Permission to appeal has been granted, this will be going to the Supreme Court
For a £85 fine. How much will it cost him when they do him for wasting the courts time?
he might find someone that agrees that it too much really the cost should be the charge + the cost of the letter ie what the banks do £15 invoice charge. I cant see the problem with paying to park as long as its reasonable. I do feel that hospitals should have free parking for patients ie present your appointment letter in a scanner and it allows x free parking. charges have been introduced to stop people park and riding, well that’s what they did in Bristol to start with. Minority stuffed it for everyone
scanny77:
For a £85 fine. How much will it cost him when they do him for wasting the courts time?
Money won’t be an object. Which (The consumer Association), The RAC Foundation and a few other consumer groups are behind Mr Beavis.
Its much more than an £85 Parking CHARGE (A company cannot legally fine you), its about “Commercially Justified Penalties”
If this course goes the same way as today in the Supreme Court, there would be nothing stopping a restaurant charging you £60 because you spilt a drink on a table cloth.
Extreme I know, but you can see where it’s heading.
All this could be avoided very easily if the landowners put barriers and pay machines up, but that costs money. Parasites/Cowboys like Parking Eye fleece the vulnerable and trick them into thinking that they need to pay them, just like a council.
nick2008:
scanny77:
trubster:
I know the case very well, I have been following it from the start.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -land.html
56 Minutes.
Permission to appeal has been granted, this will be going to the Supreme Court
For a £85 fine. How much will it cost him when they do him for wasting the courts time?
he might find someone that agrees that it too much really the cost should be the charge + the cost of the letter ie what the banks do £15 invoice charge. I cant see the problem with paying to park as long as its reasonable. I do feel that hospitals should have free parking for patients ie present your appointment letter in a scanner and it allows x free parking. charges have been introduced to stop people park and riding, well that’s what they did in Bristol to start with. Minority stuffed it for everyone
Hospital’s are another HUGE money makers to the Parking Eye Scammers. The management/hospital books get nice “Bribes” too so they don’t complain.
They get your number plate on entry, you take 10 mins to get into a car park (But the clock started ticking once you got past the reception), pay + display, your appointment is delayed, £85 please
You go in once, you come back an hour later - you havent parked but the system thinks you have, £85 please.
You are elderly and disabled, you leave your blue badge on display instead of showing it to reception to get it registered on the system, £85 Please.
The list goes on and on. The sooner these scumbags are shut down the better.
When you read stuff like this, it shows you these R-Soles are SCUM!