ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis: Difference between revisions

Truculent Mr Beavis would not pay. In ParklingEye’s terms and conditions the charge would be reduced to £50 if paid within two weeks, and for those wanting to cry-off with some justification, there was an appeals procedure as well. Naughty Mr Beavis ignored all that. He ignored reminder notices, warning letters and eventually found himself before the Designated Civil Judge of East Anglia, arguing “a point of some principle, likely to affect many other similar claims”. We surmise Mr Beavis had a law student friend with some acumen in the idioms of the common law, but less in the tenets of basic common sense. In any case rather than paying £50 and moving on, as even the most sanctimonious pedant would do, Mr Beavis asserted ParkingEye’s charge was an unenforceable [[Penalty clause|penalty]] (or, pleading in the alternative, an [[unfair contract]] under the [[Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999]]) and threw himself at the mercy of the British justice system.

Poor naughty Mr Beavis — though, actually not poor, as transparently he got what was coming to him — lost. “If this car park is unusually attractively located for shoppers and others, the evidence shows that the £85 charge has not been fixed at a particularly high level to reflect that fact. Further, as Mr Kirk QC pointed out on behalf of ParkingEye, it is equally true that the consumer gets the benefit of free parking in that unusually attractively located car park for two hours, and, save in unusual circumstances, it is entirely within his or her control whether the two-hour limit is exceeded. And if the consumer considers that the circumstances are unusual, he or she can invoke the appeals procedure.”