Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi : ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
[2015] UKSC 67, [2015] 3 WLR 1373
Supreme Court
ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
Facts:
B parked in privately-owned car park managed by PE.
There were prominent signs displaying the maximum stay and that there was a charge if the car was left for longer.
B left car in car park for almost 1 hour over permitted time. PE charged B £85. B didn’t pay.
Legal Facts / Procedural History:
County Court at Chelmsford
Court of Appeal
Legal Issues:
What was the test for determining when a term was unenforceable and whether the test could be applied universally to commercial contracts and consumer contracts.
Whether the parking overstay charge was an unfair term under UCTA and therefore unenforceable.
Appellant (Beavis) Arguments:
The charge was an unfair term, so unenforceable.
The charge ‘takes advantage of the consumer’s requirement to park in that particular place to shop or visit a particular location’.
A customer who overstayed would have underestimated the risk of overstaying.
Respondent (ParkingEye) Arguments:
The charge of £85 allows them to offer free parking to the public up to a maximum stay.
The charge is in line with other local authority parking.
The consumer gets the benefit of free parking for a set time.
The onus is on the consumer to remove their vehicle before the maximum stay.
Judgement (Neuberger PSC, Mance JSC, Clarke JSC, Sumption JSC, Carnwath JSC, Toulson JSC and Hodge JSC):
Appeal dismissed.
Neuberger, Clarke, Sumption, Carnwath, Toulson and Hodge:
B accepted a contractual licence upon entering the car park based on the terms of the notice. While £85 wouldn’t have been lost by claimant, it is in their interest to make sure the car park is used efficiently. The charge is deterrence and not an unreasonable charge in comparison to other facilities, so it is not a penalty. A reasonable would’ve accepted to park with the charge of £85 if they overstayed. Up to driver to ensure their vehicle is moved before max stay.
Mance:
The £85 charge is given regardless of the length of time overstayed. It was set at that level to be a deterrent from overstaying. If B did not accept the terms on the notice, his parking would be an act of trespass.
Toulson (dissenting):
The charge is simply a penalty for doing something that is prohibited. £85 is unfair as it creates a significant imbalance – it far exceeds the amount that would be recoverable for trespass. ‘By most people’s standards £85 is a substantial sum of money.’ There could be many unforeseen reasons why a customer overstays – penalty clause too rigid. Unreasonable to assume that customers would agree to exorbitant terms.
Comments