Self-parking cars to be legalised in UK – BBC News
‘The UK government wants to modify its ban on using mobile phones behind the wheel to allow drivers to use automatic parking devices.’
BBC News, 19th December 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The UK government wants to modify its ban on using mobile phones behind the wheel to allow drivers to use automatic parking devices.’
BBC News, 19th December 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Parking is a hot topic! There have been an extraordinary number of cases involving parking disputes over the last few decades, almost certainly because the absence of a right to park can substantially reduce the value of both commercial and residential land.’
Tanfield Chambers, 10th November 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘A priest who denied stealing a dead parishioner’s blue badge so he could park for free said he was telling the “gospel truth.” Father Bill Haymaker, accompanied to Hove Crown Court by his official clerical dog The Venerable Mr Piddles, was found guilty of stealing the badge from woman who had died two months before and then using it in his own car.’
Daily Telegraph, 11th september 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Seventy-five members of staff at a Cardiff hospital have been left “broken” by a court ruling that means they owe thousands of pounds in parking tickets, a campaigner has said.’
BBC News, 17th July 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A licensed taxi driver has been convicted of assaulting two members of a council’s parking team and given a community order requiring him to carry out 60 hours of unpaid work.’
Local Government Lawyer, 20th April 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The likelihood of successfully challenging parking fines varies widely depending on where drivers get a ticket, research has shown.’
BBC News, 5th April 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Cash-hungry councils are “all too often” rejecting out of hand drivers’ challenges to parking fines without even bothering to read them, according to a watchdog report.’
Daily Telegraph, 6th February 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A senior druid has won the right to take a charity to court over “pay-to-pray” parking charges for the Summer Solstice at Stonehenge, claiming it should be free.’
Daily Telegraph, 10th January 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘An artificial-intelligence lawyer chatbot has successfully contested 160,000 parking tickets across London and New York for free, showing that chatbots can actually be useful.’
The Guardian, 28th June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Winterburn and another v Bennett and another [2016] EWCA Civ 482
‘The claimant owners of a fish and chip shop claimed as a result of use over a number of years to have acquired by prescription the right for themselves and others using their premises to park on land comprising part of a car park belonging to the defendants. The defendants’ premises, which were next to the car park, had been used as a club and users of those premises used the car park. The entrance to the car park was adjacent to the claimants’ shop. The claimants had operated the shop from about 1987 or 1988 until 2012. Throughout that time, their suppliers had up to nine times a week pulled off the road into the disputed part of the car park and parked there for long enough to make their deliveries, and their customers had parked on the disputed land while they bought their fish and chips. On the whole that use of part of the car park did not interfere with the s’ operations but over a seven-year period there were 12 to 15 occasions on which the defendants asserted ownership of the disputed land, and, expressly or impliedly, asserted that the claimants and their suppliers and customers had no right to park on it. At all times until 2007 there was a sign attached to the wall of the building on one side of the entranceway to the car park, erected on behalf of the defendants, stating “Private car park. For the use of Club patrons only. By order of the Committee”, and a similar sign in the window of the club premises. The claimants claimed that their right to park, acquired by prescription by “lost modern grant”, had been established by their 20 years’ uninterrupted user “as of right”, namely, without force, without secrecy and without permission. The First-tier Tribunal found that, although the two signs were clearly visible, they were insufficient to prevent the claimants from acquiring the claimed parking rights. The Upper Tribunal allowed the defendants’ appeal, reversing that finding.’
WLR Daily, 25th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Drivers could face fines of up to £70 for parking on the pavement as ministers reportedly look to extend the ban outside of London to the rest of England.’
The Independent, 18th April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘MP Simon Danczuk has been ordered to repay thousands of pounds after admitting an expenses claims “error”.’
BBC News, 18th March 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Student entrepreneur who created donotpay.co.uk has launched automated lawyer to help people challenge unfair fines.’
Daily Telegraph, 13th January 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has provided long awaited clarification of the law on penalty clauses and liquidated damages, upholding the “penalty rule” but further limiting its utility in a commercial setting. In the adjoined appeals of Cavendish Square Holding v Talal El Makdessi and ParkingEye Limited v Beavis the Supreme Court created a new authority for consideration of the penalty rule doctrine, termed by Lordships Neuberger and Sumption to be “an ancient, haphazardly constructed edifice which has not weathered well”.’
RPC Built Environment, 6th January 2016
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘Reports of the decision of the Supreme Court in the joined appeals in Cavendish Square and ParkingEye left me confused because some reckoned the decision represented a narrowing of the application of the penalty doctrine whilst others considered it had expanded the doctrine’s scope. So on a wet weekend afternoon I took hold of a copy of the Judgment – [2015] UKSC 67- and tasked myself to find out. Here is what I found.’
Employment Law Blog, 23rd November 2015
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
‘This week the UK Supreme Court gave a single decision on a pair of wildly different cases. They involved a chip shop owner overstaying in a retail car park and the heavily negotiated sale of a substantial Middle Eastern advertising group. (Cavendish Square v El Makdessi and ParkingEye v Beavis) Why? Because they both concerned the idea of a penalty clause – very roughly, a clause that is unenforceable because it imposes an exorbitant obligation to pay on a party that breaches a contract.’
Technology Law Update, 6th November 2015
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘A local authority has been ordered to pay more than £200,000 after a man died when his car drove into a horizontal swing barrier gate to a car park at a sports ground.’
Local Government Lawyer, 14th September 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Lawyers are in a legal slug-fest in the Supreme Court trying to determine if the English law on penalties has any place in the modern commercial world.’
The Independent, 23rd July 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Never, it seems, should you underestimate the British public’s hatred of parking charges. When Barry Beavis, an Essex chip shop owner, asked the public for money to help take his appeal against an £85 parking ticket to the highest court in the land, he doubted he would get anything.’
The Independent, 3rd May 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A parking charge of £85 imposed once a motorist overstayed a permitted two-hour period of free parking was not extravagant or unconscionable in the circumstances and was enforceable at law.’
WLR Daily, 23rd April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk