Parking firms face test case after driver launches landmark legal challenge over claims £85 fine for exceeding two …

  • If he wins, what critics see as a nauseating cash bonanza will end 
  • New systems must then be introduced to manage parking on private land
  • The Daily Mail exposed the antics of ‘parking cowboys’ last year 

Stephen Wright

and
Andrew Levy for the Daily Mail

116

View
comments

The legality of parking tickets issued by enforcement firms is being challenged in a landmark case at the Appeal Court.

In a stand against what he calls ‘bullying’ tactics, Barry Beavis, who owns a fish and chip shop in Billericay, Essex, will say today that an £85 fine for exceeding his two-hour free stay by 56 minutes was disproportionate and should not be enforced.

If he wins, what critics see as a nauseating bonanza will end and new systems will be put in place to manage parking on private land. His action comes after the Daily Mail exposed the antics of ‘parking cowboys’ last year. 

McDonalds in Uxbridge is one of many McDonalds identified by the Mail last summer as installing signs and cameras in  car parks warning customers they can stay a maximum of 90mins or face a £100 fine

McDonalds in Uxbridge is one of many McDonalds identified by the Mail last summer as installing signs and cameras in car parks warning customers they can stay a maximum of 90mins or face a £100 fine

In a hard-hitting campaign, we revealed how the rogue firms are making tens of millions of pounds from fines handed out to motorists who overstay – sometimes for only a few minutes – in car parks at hospitals, railway stations, shopping centres and fast food outlets like McDonald’s.

Cancer sufferers and patients whose treatment has over-run are among those who have been ripped off by the parking squads who issue official-looking £100 tickets.

Mr Beavis, who owns The Happy Haddock fish and chips takeaway in Billericay, Essex, says he’s making his stand against a firm called ParkingEye Ltd on behalf of every motorist in the country.

He has dedicated hundreds of hours and made three court appearances in an attempt to change the law that allows ‘bullying’ parking operators to ‘extort’ money from people.

He said: ‘I’m not an activist, I’m not an armchair lawyer. I was just someone who got a ticket.

‘But as I researched my case I became incredibly angry with the way parking companies operate and bully people because they exploit human weakness – doing what we’re told.

‘There’s lots of strongly worded language saying you must pay, with ANPR photos. It’s all deliberately made to look like parking tickets but they are just speculative invoices.

‘I thought what it would be like if it happened to my mother-in-law – she would have been afraid and frightened and would have paid immediately.’

Mr Beavis received a demand for £85 – discountable to £50 if paid within 14 days – after parking at Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford on April 15, 2013.

The site offers two free hours of parking and he returned 56 minutes late.

He ignored the first three demands from ParkingEye Ltd after researching his rights on the internet but had no option but to fight his case when he received a court summons.

A close-up of the sign: We revealed how the rogue firms are making tens of millions of pounds from fines handed out to motorists who overstay

A close-up of the sign: We revealed how the rogue firms are making tens of millions of pounds from fines handed out to motorists who overstay

Mr Beavis’s case centres on the argument that the ticket was unfair because it was a disproportionate sum for an hour’s parking.

A judge found against him at Cambridge County Court last year, where he was not legally represented. The ruling stated operators like ParkingEye Ltd are entitled to impose charges higher than their outgoings – and more expensive than typical parking charges in the area – to act as a deterrent.

Now A barrister, Sa’ad Hossain QC, has offered to represent Mr Beavis pro bono at the Court of Appeal hearing in London next week .

The 47-year-old added: ‘I’m hoping that parking companies will no longer be allowed to act in the current way.

‘I agree there is a need for parking management. In the place where I overstayed it’s close to the train station and if there was no management system it would be clogged up with commuters. So something is needed but this is not it.’

His wife, Wendy, added the free parking system at Riverside Retail Park was unfair because drivers sometimes spent up to half an hour waiting for a space after driving in.

She added: ‘Barry has put in a hell of a lot of time but he should still pursue it. It’s not just about him – it’s about other people that panic when they get one of those letters.

‘I’m proud of him for standing up to those bullies.’

Mr Beavis’s case has been strengthened by new research by the RAC Foundation which suggests hundreds of thousands of drivers are likely to have been illegally penalised for overstaying their welcome whilst parking on private land – and could be entitled to repayments totalling many tens of millions of pounds.

It says that parking companies are levying huge charges on drivers ‘out of all proportion’ to the losses suffered by landowners as a result of motorists’ actions.

Although the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 banned clamping on private land, drivers who stay longer than the time they have paid for are still likely to receive tickets that demand payments of up to £100, and in some cases significantly more.

In his paper for the RAC Foundation barrister John de Waal QC argues that this is likely to be several times more than compensation for a genuine loss. Mr de Waal, who will NOT be a witness at Mr Beavis’s case, says: ‘Payments at the level that operators presently demand as sanctions are unlikely to count as genuine pre-estimate of loss; they should be seen by the Courts as penalties, which means they are unenforceable.’

If the courts agree with Mr de Waal that many of the tickets issued are ‘extravagant and unconscionable’, drivers are potentially in line to receive tens, if not hundreds, of millions of pounds in refunds.

Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said: ‘We would like to see this legal argument tested in a higher court so that a binding precedent is set. At the same time we would like the government to do what it should have done at the outset and set out what are reasonable charges.’

A ParkingEye spokesperson said: ‘ParkingEye cannot comment on the outcome of a yet unheard case but remains confident in its position.’ 


Comments (116)

Share what you think

The comments below have not been moderated.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Who is this week’s top commenter?
Find out now

Article source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2964475/Parking-firms-face-test-case-driver-launches-landmark-legal-challenge-claims-85-fine-exceeding-two-hour-stay-disproportionate.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Leave a Reply