Response to media coverage.

Statement on recent media activity relating to private parking.

Over the last few days there has been a great deal of media interest and hype in relation to private parking and the related charges, this started with a channel 4 programme followed by a report by the RAC Foundation which contained a barristers opinion to the charges levied by some companies and will ultimately culminate in the court of appeal case between parking eye -v- Beavis.

Firstly we would like to mention that whilst this made the headlines and a “good story” for 24hrs it was unfortunately void of many important facts, as these things often do.

The report from the RAC Foundation, and to clarify this is not the RAC but a separate charity, contained an opinion from a barrister they had engaged and as you would expect it is true to say he would work in the interests of his client and produce a report containing an opinion that they wanted to hear.

The legal world is full of differing opinions and each and every day the courts are full of qualified legal counsel who argue that their point of view is correct, after all if you want 4 different legal opinions just ask 3 solicitors or barristers. (It is also fair to say that the barrister only commented on the “breach of contract” issue which is different to the way we issue charges – see below)

The case of Parking Eye -v- Beavis has been the subject of much media hype recently and we suspect it will be referred to for sometime to come and we feel it necessary to stress that the outcome of that case will will have absolutely no bearing on any charges issued by Combined Parking Solutions.

Parking Eye issue charges based upon a breach of their contractual terms for parking, in this particular case Mr Beavis parked in a carpark on a retail park which had a free parking period of 2hr and if those terms were “breached” (ie. by overstaying) then Parking Eye would issue a “charge” in relation to that breach.

Mr Beavis overstayed by approx 50minutes.

The original judge found this charge to be penal in nature but decided that although penalties are unenforceable generally in contract law in this case it was not extravagant and it was commercially justified for a number of reasons.

The argument before the appeal court is to decide if this commercial justification is allowable.

Charges issued by Combined Parking Solutions are not issued for a breach of any contractual terms, in fact if you read our signs we explicitly allow parking for a set charge, in the vast majority of our sites the option is simple that a driver obtains and clearly displays a valid permit or a set charge is issued.

As the charge is for a contractually agreed sum we do not have to show any losses to the landowner (otherwise known as a genuine pre-estimation of loss GPEOL), which currently if a charge is issue for a “breach of contract” is usually required.

If a driver parks and the signage is visible then they are bound by the terms and conditions, it is not for the court to question a contractually agreed sum agreed for a service (this was confirmed recently by the Supreme Court, which is actually a higher court than the court of appeal)

Therefore whatever the court of appeal decide in the Beavis case, as our charges are not issued using the same legal model as Parking Eye then the outcome will have absolutely no relevance to our charges or the way we enforce them via the courts.


Combined Parking Solutions yet again shows that their charges are 100% enforceable – contact us today if you require assistance in resolving your car park issues with a system that is proven to be 100% effective, legally enforceable and free to implement.

For more information and details on how Combined Parking Solutions can resolve your parking issues then call now on 0871 288 4606 or you can email us..