Barry Beavis to challenge Parking Eye fine at Court of Appeal in case that could change British law
A CHIP SHOP owner will take on one of the UK’s largest parking enforcement firms next week at the Court of Appeal in London in a case that could see millions of parking fines repaid.
Barry Beavis, who lives in Crocus Way, Springfield, is challenging an earlier county court decision that ruled a parking ticket issued in the city by enforcer Parking Eye must stand.
The 48-year-old received the ticket on April 15, 2013 when he parked at Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford.
He told the Chronicle: “It started when I overstayed in a free car park for 56 minutes.
“I didn’t know I had overstayed until a speculative invoice arrived through the post.
“I call it that because they are not tickets, they are invoices dressed up as tickets.”
Mr Beavis says he sought advice online on how to deal with the £85 fine.
He was advised it was not enforceable under civil law and to ignore it.
Mr Beavis says he was told the charge was outside the law because private parking companies have no legal standing to bring a claim if they are not landowner.
By law, private companies such as Parking Eye are not allowed to issue fines but can charge motorists who overstay the allowed time in a car park, as a breach of contact claim.
These charges are only meant to cover the loss suffered by the company and should not be a penalty.
Mr Beavis continued: “The charges made by the private parking company are a penalty.
“They are to deter people from overstaying.
“Any first year law student will tell you that penalties are unenforceable.
“There are many district judges around the UK that have decided exactly this in similar cases.”
Based on certain clauses in the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice and case law examples, Mr Beavis ignored the parking charge.
He said: “The thing that has angered me so much about the private parking companies is the way they bully people into paying their 'fines'.
“They dress up their invoices deliberately to resemble real tickets, which they are not.
“They'll send letters from debt collection agencies and are quite happy to issue court papers - all to get people to pay charges that are outside the law.”
Eventually, Mr Beavis says he was sent a court summons to appear at Chelmsford Magistrates Court and informed the fine had been increased to £150.
Due to the complexity of the case, it was adjourned and transferred to Cambridge County Court, where Mr Beavis appeared on May 19, 2014.
Having heard similar cases, Judge Moloney decided to combine Mr Beavis’ case with another and use it as a test case.
He eventually ruled that the parking fee was enforceable, saying: “I conclude that in these two cases Parking Eye was entitled to and did contract with the motorists as principal, not as agent for the landowner, and is lawfully entitled to sue them for the charges in its own name and keep the proceeds for itself.”
Judge Moloney did, however, agree the £85 fine was not an accurate pre-estimate of any losses.
He said: “The £85 charge is in no sense a pre-estimate of any loss actually sustained by Parking Eye as a result of over-staying, especially given that Parking Eye does not charge a fee for the first two hours and is not therefore losing anything if newcomers are prevented from occupying the space.
“It is well established at common law that a contractual provision for payment of a specified sum in the event of breach will be unenforceable and void if it is in the nature of a penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.”
This was the first time a consumer had been at the wrong end of a commercial justification case.
Mr Beavis explained: “I was in a difficult position. I had lost the test case because the judge had found commercial justification.
“Now I have to carry on because the ramification for all consumers everywhere is so great.”
Mr Beavis appealed his case and will appear on Monday at the Court of Appeal in London.
He said: “I am hoping that the judges will find in favour of common sense and parking companies will be forced to operate with moral conviction.”
A Parking Eye spokeswoman said: “Parking Eye cannot comment on the outcome of a yet unheard case but remains confident in its position.”
http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Barry-Beavis-challenge-Parking-Eye-fine-Court/story-26057530-detail/story.html
