Car park managers face anxious wait for Supreme Court ruling
The Supreme Court has heard a legal challenge to an £85 overstay fee at a Chelmsford car park, with a decision not likely until late this year.
But a lawyer has warned that, if the appeal is successful, it could have a “potentially catastrophic impact” on car park management companies, and could lead landowners including retail centre owners into hasty renegotiations of car park contracts.
Barry Beavis’s appeal was fast-tracked and heard less than three months after his challenge was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected Beavis’ claim that the fixed charge for staying longer than two hours at the Riverside retail park was unenforceable both at common law, because it was a penalty, and also under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
The Supreme Court has heard a legal challenge to an £85 overstay fee at a Chelmsford car park, with a decision not likely until late this year.
But a lawyer has warned that, if the appeal is successful, it could have a “potentially catastrophic impact” on car park management companies, and could lead landowners including retail centre owners into hasty renegotiations of car park contracts.
Barry Beavis’s appeal was fast-tracked and heard less than three months after his challenge was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected Beavis’ claim that the fixed charge for staying longer than two hours at the Riverside retail park was unenforceable both at common law, because it was a penalty, and also under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
The Supreme Court will ultimately rule on whether a charge of £85 for exceeding a maximum car parking period is an unenforceable penalty, and whether that fee is unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
Adam Colenso, Partner at Wedlake Bell LLP, said that there would be “substantial consequences” if the Supreme Court finds in favour of Beavis, including a “potentially catastrophic impact on the businesses of car park management companies”.
He added: “Retail centre owners may find themselves being asked to renegotiate car parking contracts or face chaos as car owners park for longer periods of time, meaning that fewer cars are able to park at their centres on any day.”
“This would eventually impact on the average shopper at retail centres who may end up either paying for parking which was previously free or not being able to park when they want to.”
“Should Mr Beavis’s appeal be dismissed then things will probably continue on as they are, albeit campaigners will, no doubt, keep a close eye on the level of fines being imposed, whether they are significantly out of kilter with those applied by local authorities and whether the parking regulations are clearly brought to the attention of drivers proposing to park.”
Beavis drove into a car park managed by Parkingeye at the Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford. Prominent signs stipulated that the maximum stay was two hours, after which a parking charge of £85 would be payable (reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days). He stayed nearly three hours and was charged £85, which he refused to pay.
Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge) 23 July 2015
