Wednesday, 25 March 2015

Beavis result not expected until after Easter

Discreet enquiries to the Royal Courts of Justice indicate that their Lordships will not be handing down the Judgment before Easter. The next term at the RCJ starts on April 14th, so it could be on that date, or at any time afterwards. This gives their Lordships time to scribble something down over the Easter break.

Meanwhile ParkingEye continue to rely heavily on the original Beavis judgment, holding between 5-10 court hearings every day,  while failing to inform judges that the judgment has even been appealed, let alone that the appeal has been held and judgment is pending. This is because judges who do not know the case is under appeal often follow the Beavis ruling and award cases to ParkingEye, while judges who know of the appeal are routinely staying cases.

This contrasts with ParkingEye's behaviour at POPLA, where they have asked for cases to be stayed pending the Beavis ruling.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster



    Chapter 11: Relations with third parties

    This chapter is about ensuring you do not take unfair advantage of those you deal with and that you act in a manner which promotes the proper operation of the legal system.

    This includes your conduct in relation to undertakings; there is no obligation to give or receive an undertaking on behalf of a client but, if you do, you must ensure that you achieve the outcomes listed in this chapter.

    The conduct requirements in this area extend beyond professional and business matters. They apply in any circumstances in which you may use your professional title to advance your personal interests.

    The outcomes in this chapter show how the Principles apply in the context of your relations with third parties.


    You must achieve these outcomes:

    you do not take unfair advantage of third parties in either your professional or personal capacity;

    you perform all undertakings given by you within an agreed timescale or within a reasonable amount of time;

    where you act for a seller of land, you inform all buyers immediately of the seller's intention to deal with more than one buyer;

    you properly administer oaths, affirmations or declarations where you are authorised to do so.

    Indicative behaviours

    Acting in the following way(s) may tend to show that you have achieved these outcomes and therefore complied with the Principles:

    providing sufficient time and information to enable the costs in any matter to be agreed;

    returning documents or money sent subject to an express condition if you are unable to comply with that condition;

    returning documents or money on demand if they are sent on condition that they are held to the sender's order;

    ensuring that you do not communicate with another party when you are aware that the other party has retained a lawyer in a matter, except:

    to request the name and address of the other party's lawyer; or

    the other party's lawyer consents to you communicating with the client; or

    where there are exceptional circumstances;

    maintaining an effective system which records when undertakings have been given and when they have been discharged;

    where an undertaking is given which is dependent upon the happening of a future event and it becomes apparent the future event will not occur, notifying the recipient of this.

    Acting in the following way(s) may tend to show that you have not achieved these outcomes and therefore not complied with the Principles:

    taking unfair advantage of an opposing party's lack of legal knowledge where they have not instructed a lawyer;

    demanding anything for yourself or on behalf of your client, that is not legally recoverable, such as when you are instructed to collect a simple debt, demanding from the debtor the cost of the letter of claim since it cannot be said at that stage that such a cost is legally recoverable;

    using your professional status or qualification to take unfair advantage of another person in order to advance your personal interests;

    taking unfair advantage of a public office held by you, or a member of your family, or a member of your firm or their family.

    In-house practice

    The outcomes in this chapter apply to your in-house practice.

  2. our local court has decided "of it's own initiative" to delay any more cases until the beavis verdict.

  3. And when the result is given this is only for the commercial justification aspect such as when payment is made by the PPC for the right to operate on the car park.
    It should exclude any case law implications for ad-hoc PPC's just creaming the public and who don't pay anything to the landowner.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. You don't know if that will be the case at all yet, you haven't seen the judgment...

      It could have extremely narrow application, or extremely wide application, or it could fall somewhere in between.

    3. This 'payment for the right to operate' is a red herring. Most PPCs pay a commission to the landowner for each paid PCN, and all PE are doing at the Riverside is guaranteeing an amount in advance, rather than calculating it retrospectively.

      We shouldn't try to second guess what the learned Lordships will come up with in the eventual judgment, but from the comments they made at the hearing, I wouldn't be surprised if it addressed wider issues that just the commercial justification of penalties aspect.

    4. Many PPCs still openly brag about kickbacks to landowners on their websites which demonstrated the ridiculousness of ever attempting to pass their demands off as GPEOL in the first place.

  4. Isn't there a group faxing all cts on a daily basis where PE have cases scheduled and explaining things such as GPEOL and Beavis to the court??

  5. I think some of the PPP'ers were doing this and perhaps even the Prankster.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. I lost based on the Beavis case, what are my options?

    1. You have 21 days to appeal. If:
      1) the Beavis judgment is handed down in this period, and;
      2) results in Mr. Beavis's appeal being upheld,
      then you should appeal, with a virtual certainty of success, presuming the issue of penalty charges was raised at your initial hearing.

      If Mr. Beavis loses, then appealing is likely to be futile.

      If the judgment has not been delivered by the appeal deadline, then you have 2 choices:
      1) Pay up, and end the matter, in the knowledge that you cannot then appeal even if Mr. Beavis succeeds in his appeal, or;
      2) Appeal anyway, paying the £155 appeal fee, in the knowledge that the success or otherwise of your appeal will almost certainly depend on that of Mr. Beavis.

      There is a third option, of refusing to pay, but this is a very high risk option, could lead to PE calling in the bailiffs, and will lead to your credit rating being ruined for six years, and hence cannot be recommended.

    2. You should pay anyway, even if you appeal. Mr Beavis paid the judgment amount immediately and then appealed.

      Option 3 is to appeal anyway if Beavis wins, even if after 21 days. This is risky, because the judge could simply rule you were out of time, which means £155. However, they do have discretion to allow appeals after 21 days and you can state PE's failure to inform the court of the appeal is a good reason.

      Not necessarily recommended but I include this for completeness.

  8. Think ill wait for the Beavis judgement, it might start a revolt and a PPI style refund.

    Cheers people

  9. If you appeal, you could ask in your appeal, with reasons, for the enforcement of the judgment to be stayed (a 'stay of execution'), but this would not be automatic and would be at the discretion of the appeal judge.

    If Mr. Beavis succeeds with his appeal, then, in my view, there would be strong grounds not only to appeal, but also to ask that the judgment in your case be stayed, on the grounds that:
    1) the ruling is plainly incorrect, and hence the appeal is virtually certain to succeed;
    2) If Beavis indeed succeeds, there is a risk that, faced with a blizzard of refund claims, PE may 'phoenix' as so many PPCs (mostly clamping firms) have done before them, meaning that there would then be no realistic prospect of recovering the money, such that it would be an injustice.not to stay the judgment, and, if applicable;
    3) paying is detrimental to the defendant's financial circumstances.

    The problem you face is that the application for a stay would almost certainly not be heard by the deadline to pay, and may be rejected in any case, leaving you vulnerable to enforcement action in the meantime.