In the recent ParkingEye v Beavis hearing at the Supreme Court, ParkingEye's counsel, Jonathan Kirk, spent a great deal of time trying to persuade the judges that it was parliaments intention when passing the Protection of Freedom's Act 2012, that arbitrary parking charges would be allowed.
As this extract from a letter from transport minister Norman Baker to Andrew Selous MP shows, parliament thought nothing of the sort.
![]()
Mr Baker states:
In ParkingEye's case, the average cost per ticket issued is around £18. It is clear from this letter that parliament have no support for the £85 to £100 ParkingEye charge in their car parks and that parliament expect appeals services to'ensure that parking contracts are applied consistently with this legal framework'.
ParkingEye cannot rewrite history and pretend their charge levels are supported by parliament.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
As this extract from a letter from transport minister Norman Baker to Andrew Selous MP shows, parliament thought nothing of the sort.
Mr Baker states:
charges for breaking a contract are based on a genuine pre-estimate of loss
In ParkingEye's case, the average cost per ticket issued is around £18. It is clear from this letter that parliament have no support for the £85 to £100 ParkingEye charge in their car parks and that parliament expect appeals services to'ensure that parking contracts are applied consistently with this legal framework'.
ParkingEye cannot rewrite history and pretend their charge levels are supported by parliament.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster