PE v Beavis discussion

[martin2006]

In a landmark case, Parking Eye won an appeal in the High Court with regard to parking charges, this has since been adopted as a standard reference in parking cases and also is beginning to be used in other "Unfair" charges cases.

 

I have started this thread for discussion purposes so all thoughts are welcomed.

 

It is my opinion, much the same as OFT v Abbey National and Others 2009 is irrelevant to credit card claims as it was clearly relevant to bank charges, that PE v Beavis is equally irrelevant to credit card claims as it is for a parking charge.

 

This is just a start to what i am hoping will be a meaningful discussion involving as many ideas and thoughts of caggers as possible.

 

Lets go, air your views

[renegadeimp]

i thought it could only be used in the same situation that the case was. Or has PE tried to take it one step further as usual and think they have full reign to do whatever they please when the judgement clearly said different.

[unclebulgaria67]

I anticipated this months ago. In a thread about something different to parking charges, i argued that the principles in Beavis would be used by Lawyers in totally unrelated cases. Several people then challenged saying Judges would rule that Beavis was totally irrelevant, as it was specific to private parking charges.

 

It is a long time since i did A level law and law as part of business courses, but from what i can remember it has always been the case that case precedents are studied very closely by Lawyers with a view to using the principles in as many different situations as possible. Of course they would prefer cases that are more specific or much closer to the particular issue they are looking at, but as this is not always possible they will look at how Judges have come to decisions in other cases. If they can find Judges outlining principles which they think are helpful, then they will try to use them. Of course if it went to court, it would be up to a Judge to decide relevance.

[Andyorch]

Here is a previous thread for newcomers not aware of the significance of this case. (Also contains the original judgment)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?444660-Beavis-result.&highlight=PE+Beavis

 

Andy

[silverfox1961]

As I am a regular on the parking forums, I see this time and again where the situation under discussion has nothing to do with Beavis as Parking Eye paid the landowner £1k a week to manage the parking on that particular site. Many other contracts are likely to involve some profit sharing which has nothing to do with the Beavis case.

 

Many times I have seen in letters sent by parking companies spout Beavis as being the be all of parking enforcement. This is blatantly not true. Every case, including Parking Eye rests on it's merits. You only have to check here and online how many cases get thrown out due to other factors and Beavis doesn't even raise it's ugly head.