The Supreme Court will give its decision next week in a legal challenge to an £85 overstay fee at a Chelmsford car park.
The court will hand down judgment on Wednesday 4 November in the case, which could have a potentially catastrophic impact on car park management companies, and lead landowners including retail centre owners into hasty renegotiations of car park contracts.
Barry Beavis’s appeal was fast-tracked and heard in July, 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 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, warned at the time of the appeal hearing 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.”
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)
