Author Topic: Parkingeye v Barry Beavis appeal judgement  (Read 19282 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: Parkingeye v Barry Beavis appeal judgement
« Reply #15 on: 25 April, 2015, 01:59:33 PM »
That's an impressive bit of support in a short amount of time. If anyone cares to create an account on  Indiegogo, I'm sure Barry will appreciate a few kind words in the comments section.

Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

EDW2000

  • Guest
Re: Parkingeye v Barry Beavis appeal judgement
« Reply #16 on: 25 April, 2015, 04:23:32 PM »

Rachel Ledson
39 minutes ago
£20

Offline BGB

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 662
Re: Parkingeye v Barry Beavis appeal judgement
« Reply #17 on: 25 April, 2015, 05:23:59 PM »
and Patrick Trouserfire.

Very good of him to toss a little something into the pot.

Only £600 short.
« Last Edit: 25 April, 2015, 05:51:44 PM by BGB »

EDW2000

  • Guest
Re: Parkingeye v Barry Beavis appeal judgement
« Reply #18 on: 25 April, 2015, 05:54:49 PM »
£6,622GBP

who put a grand in? F**k me a bag of sand :smiley-dance017:

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: Parkingeye v Barry Beavis appeal judgement
« Reply #19 on: 25 April, 2015, 06:39:35 PM »
WOW! Not only a bag of sand, but throwing down anonymously as well. <Notworthy> We are so not worthy.

Also, honourable mentions to, Rachel Ledson :rotfl: , Patrick Trouserfire :rotfl: I so wish I'd thought of that one myself  <Notworthy> , and last but by no means least, Simon Renshaw-Smith. :rotfl:

The big man of the hour though who truly dug deep, Anonymous £1000.

<Notworthy>     <Notworthy>     <Notworthy>     <Notworthy>     <Notworthy>     <Notworthy>     <Notworthy>     <Notworthy>     <Notworthy>     <Notworthy>     <Notworthy>     <Notworthy>
Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Offline Pat Pending

  • Global Moderator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2504
Re: Parkingeye v Barry Beavis appeal judgement
« Reply #20 on: 25 April, 2015, 07:34:08 PM »
Superb!  :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Beer in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up,  totally worn out and screaming "WOO-HOO, what a  ride!!"

Offline scalyback

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 325
Re: Parkingeye v Barry Beavis appeal judgement
« Reply #21 on: 25 April, 2015, 07:41:00 PM »
It is truly uplifting to see that there are many people out there, who are prepared to join in the battle with their support.

Raising the sum in one day can only be a good for all of us.

Long live Barry, and here's mud in your Parking eye!.

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: Parkingeye v Barry Beavis appeal judgement
« Reply #22 on: 25 April, 2015, 08:03:17 PM »
Parking(sh)Eye(sters) have carried on with their usual POPLAganda,

Quote from: Parking(sh)Eye(sters)
On 23rd April 2015 the Court of Appeal handed down Judgment in the matter between ParkingEye and Mr Barry Beavis. In the Judgment the three Judges (Lord Justice Moore-Bick, Lord Justice Patten and Sir Timothy Lloyd) unanimously dismissed Mr Beavis's challenge, making it clear that ParkingEye's Parking Charge was "not extravagant or unconscionable" and that the charge "was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in amount".
 
This Judgment delivers much needed clarity to motorists, landowners and the Parking Industry and is binding upon the Small Claims Court, the High Court and any Independent Appeals Service. A full copy of the Judgment can be found here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/402.html
 
ParkingEye’s advice to motorists remains the same. If you have a genuine appeal of the charge, appeal to ParkingEye as directed on the Parking Charge Notices sent. If not, a 40% reduction of the charge is offered for early payment.
 
For more detail on the first instance hearing heard by HHJ Moloney QC please refer to our previous news story "ParkingEye win Cambridge Test Case".


I remember that "Parking(sh)Eye(sters) win Cambridge Test Case" That's the one where they gratuitously bragged to their victims but forgot to mention that the case was under appeal. So, same again then.

My advice to Parking(sh)Eye(sters) remains the same. Feel free to go and f :o ck yourselves.

Barry Beavis' advice to Parking(sh)Eye(sters) also remains the same,

Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: Parkingeye v Barry Beavis appeal judgement
« Reply #23 on: 27 April, 2015, 02:42:49 PM »
The fund is still on the up. £7,000+ as of an hour ago. Barry Beavis clearly has as many friends as Parking(sh)Eye(sters) have enemies.

               
Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Offline Overlord

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 208
Re: Parkingeye v Barry Beavis appeal judgement
« Reply #24 on: 01 May, 2015, 09:07:49 PM »
Have a look at my letter kindly printed by the Sutton Guardian re - Barry Beavis.

http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/yoursay/letters/12923806.Letter_to_the_Editor_Law_changer_/
« Last Edit: 01 May, 2015, 09:15:07 PM by Overlord »

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Parkingeye v Barry Beavis appeal judgement
« Reply #25 on: 05 May, 2015, 10:21:17 PM »
Ewan gets quoted. ;D

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chip-shop-owner-raises-6000-in-24-hours-to-take-parking-fine-appeal-to-supreme-court-10221661.html?origin=internalSearch

Chip shop owner raises £6,000 in 24 hours to take parking fine appeal to Supreme Court



Never, it seems, should you underestimate the British public’s hatred of parking charges. When Barry Beavis, an Essex chip shop owner, asked the public for money to help take his appeal against an £85 parking ticket to the highest court in the land, he doubted he would get anything.

Instead it took him only 24 hours to raise the £6,000 requested, and last night members of the public were still donating to help his legal appeal to the Supreme Court.

Mr Beavis, 48, the owner of the Happy Haddock in Billericay, said he had been overwhelmed by the popular support for a battle that began in April 2013 after ParkingEye, one of the country’s largest car park operators, charged him £85 for a 56-minute overstay at a Chelmsford retail park.

Mr Beavis, who challenged the charge on the grounds that it was “unfair, unlawful and disproportionate”, said: “The response has been truly humbling. It has given me the courage to continue. To quote Winston Churchill: ‘Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.’

It’s estimated that incorrectly issued fines are worth around £30m annually It’s estimated that incorrectly issued fines are worth around £30m annually (Getty) “That so many people donated so much money in such a short space of time shows that this is clearly an issue that resonates with an awful lot of people.”

Throughout the case ParkingEye, which operates in more than 900 UK venues and made a net profit of £1m in 2013, has insisted its charges are “fair, reasonable and legally enforceable”. The company, bought by outsourcing company Capita for £57.5m in October 2013, has stressed that it is a “professionally run parking company, with independent and external appeals procedures”.

But anger has been mounting at charges imposed by firms managing car parks on private land on behalf of businesses like shopping centres and supermarkets.

The number of tickets issued by such companies, which often rely on automatic number plate recognition, has increased fivefold since 2007 to about 2.5 million a year, and the cost to motorists is an estimated £100m a year.

The frustration of some drivers was reflected in comments left by those donating to Mr Beavis via his page on the crowdfunding website indiegogo.

“Hurtlocker” wrote: “The practice of scalping the unwary parker is socially reprehensible. This is an attempt to legalise extortion!”

Ewan Hoosami told Mr Beavis: “Barry, you are performing a great public service in sticking it to these filthy weasels. We are all behind you. All of us, ’til the end.”

If victorious, Mr Beavis might set a precedent allowing millions of drivers to claim refunds from parking companies. Before one hearing Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, a transport research charity, said: “Tens of millions of pounds hang on this case.”

75 councils use car-mounted cameras to automatically issue drivers with fines 75 councils use car-mounted cameras to automatically issue drivers with fines (Getty)

But after starting in the small claims court, Mr Beavis lost at Cambridge County Court. The case was then heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in London in February, where three Appeal Court judges ruled against him on 23 April, declaring that the £85 charge was “not extravagant or unconscionable”.

The next day Mr Beavis launched his appeal for funds, asking for £6,000 to cover the cost of submitting a notice of appeal and an outline of his case to the Supreme Court.

He said: “I had no expectations of reaching the £6,000. Instead, the appeal went live on indiegogo on the Friday at 8.39am, and when I looked at the webpage again at 11am on the Saturday morning, the target had been reached. It was amazing.”

Mr Beavis has now received £7,880, which he thinks could prove enough for him to proceed to the Supreme Court. He is hopeful a QC will agree to represent him pro bono.

“I have to carry on,” he said, “because there has been an injustice, and it needs to be righted. A lot of people feel incredibly hard done by. Parking management needs to happen – people can’t just dump their car in a retail park and take the train to London. But what the parking companies are doing is just plain wrong. Someone needs to stand up to them.

“That so many people donated so much money in such a short space of time shows that this is clearly an issue that resonates with an awful lot of people.”

Throughout the case ParkingEye, which operates in more than 900 UK venues and made a net profit of £1m in 2013, has insisted its charges are “fair, reasonable and legally enforceable”. The company, bought by outsourcing company Capita for £57.5m in October 2013, has stressed that it is a “professionally run parking company, with independent and external appeals procedures”.

But anger has been mounting at charges imposed by firms managing car parks on private land on behalf of businesses like shopping centres and supermarkets.

The number of tickets issued by such companies, which often rely on automatic number plate recognition, has increased fivefold since 2007 to about 2.5 million a year, and the cost to motorists is an estimated £100m a year.

The frustration of some drivers was reflected in comments left by those donating to Mr Beavis via his page on the crowdfunding website indiegogo.

“Hurtlocker” wrote: “The practice of scalping the unwary parker is socially reprehensible. This is an attempt to legalise extortion!”

Ewan Hoosami told Mr Beavis: “Barry, you are performing a great public service in sticking it to these filthy weasels. We are all behind you. All of us, ’til the end.”

If victorious, Mr Beavis might set a precedent allowing millions of drivers to claim refunds from parking companies. Before one hearing Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, a transport research charity, said: “Tens of millions of pounds hang on this case.”

But after starting in the small claims court, Mr Beavis lost at Cambridge County Court. The case was then heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in London in February, where three Appeal Court judges ruled against him on 23 April, declaring that the £85 charge was “not extravagant or unconscionable”.

The next day Mr Beavis launched his appeal for funds, asking for £6,000 to cover the cost of submitting a notice of appeal and an outline of his case to the Supreme Court.

He said: “I had no expectations of reaching the £6,000. Instead, the appeal went live on indiegogo on the Friday at 8.39am, and when I looked at the webpage again at 11am on the Saturday morning, the target had been reached. It was amazing.”

Mr Beavis has now received £7,880, which he thinks could prove enough for him to proceed to the Supreme Court. He is hopeful a QC will agree to represent him pro bono.

“I have to carry on,” he said, “because there has been an injustice, and it needs to be righted. A lot of people feel incredibly hard done by. Parking management needs to happen – people can’t just dump their car in a retail park and take the train to London. But what the parking companies are doing is just plain wrong. Someone needs to stand up to them.”
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: Parkingeye v Barry Beavis appeal judgement
« Reply #26 on: 05 May, 2015, 11:15:54 PM »
That's my shabby 15 minutes over with then.

Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
Re: Parkingeye v Barry Beavis appeal judgement
« Reply #27 on: 07 May, 2015, 01:57:48 PM »
Barry Beavis has confirmed in a tweet that his case with ParkingEye is definitely going to the Supreme Court. Representing him will be the barrister who authored a report for the RAC Foundation.

Here is the tweet:

Barry Beavis ?@BarryBeavis

Very grateful to @johndewaalqc and @hardwickelaw for agreeing to take the case against #ParkingEye to @UKSupremeCourt


https://twitter.com/BarryBeavis/status/596287109209677824

Here is a link to the report:

http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/RACF_Private_Parking_Public_Concern_John_de_Waal_Jo_Abbott_February_2015.pdf

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Parkingeye v Barry Beavis appeal judgement
« Reply #28 on: 03 June, 2015, 04:48:44 PM »
It's on.  <Yes!>


Barry Beavis has lodged his appeal at the Supreme Court.  :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline DBC

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 21
Re: Parkingeye v Barry Beavis appeal judgement
« Reply #29 on: 08 June, 2015, 04:28:17 PM »
This just in on PPP:-

Barry Beavis retweeted
John de Waal QC ?@johndewaalqc 15m15 minutes ago

ParkingEye v Beavis appeal to Supreme Court now listed for 21 July this year with other case on penalties @BarryBeavis


The other case it's lumped in with is " El Makdessi v CSH BV"

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player