Law firms nail their colours to the mast - Supreme Court is not likely to overturn the Beavis result

Several law firms have today released an identical piece of churnalism where an unnamed person or persons have analysed the Beavis case and deemed that it is not likely that the Supreme Court will find for Mr Beavis.

http://www.biscoes-law.co.uk/site/library/legalnews/85_parking_charge_not_a_penalty.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.tgbaynes.com/site/library/legalnews/85_parking_charge_not_a_penalty.html?utm_source=http://www.tgbaynes.com/cms/rssnews/ln_commercialclient&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.wheelerslaw.co.uk/site/library/legalnews/85_parking_charge_not_a_penalty.html

Biscoes, Tgbaynes and Wheelers are among the law firms releasing the piece.


Here is the text of the piece, which is identical on all sites.

Many thousands of drivers who have been subject to a parking charge of 100 times or more the normal hourly rate will be displeased to read that a plucky appeal against a massive 'charge' for overstaying in a free car park has failed.
The motorist who brought the case was charged £85 for overstaying in a car park and brought a small claims court action against the company that levied the charge.
The motorist's claim was based on the argument that the charge was so disproportionate as to be properly regarded as a penalty. Penalty clauses are not enforceable in British law.
However, the Court of Appeal ruled that the charge had been set at a level to deter overstaying and it was not 'grossly disproportionate'. These factors meant it could not be regarded as a penalty.
This decision will come as a disappointment to the thousands of motorists who have been subject to charges on this sort of scale – often as a result of short overstays or ignorance that parking charges were payable.
Unless the case is successfully appealed to the Supreme Court (which seems unlikely), the likelihood that such a charge can be successfully resisted is clearly diminished.

Each site then goes on to say the piece is for information only and is not legal advice

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.

No doubt the 7 Supreme Court judges involved can now rest happy knowing that their decision has already been taken for them.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster