Beavis, Piece on MSE |
Beavis, Piece on MSE |
Tue, 24 Feb 2015 - 15:30
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 143 Joined: 11 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,422 |
Usually when I post a topic there is raging debate on it going on in another thread which I have failed to spot. However I put this up for interest noting that the Beavis appeal begins today:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/recl...-in-court-today |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 24 Feb 2015 - 15:30
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 13 Aug 2015 - 13:09
Post
#301
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 8,582 Joined: 9 Feb 2006 Member No.: 4,813 |
A case of reverse charging.
What I mean is that I visited the NEC last weekend as an exhibitor. When the halls are being prepared there are hundreds of vehicles all clamouring to gain access to the rear loading and unloading bays to offload. It can be mayhem and as such it's necessary to properly manage this situation. So how do they do that? Well they do a reverse of the PPC model. You make a payment by credit card or cash at the entry then you have a certain amount of time to get out or you lose the deposit. If you get out in the allotted time you get a full refund. Now, if the PPC's used that model instead of their own it would very quickly close all their car parks, all the shops associated with them and bankrupt themselves. On the basis of whether the man in the London omnibus would consider this arrangement as one which he intended to enter, I feel most drivers would resist the temptation. Doing it the PPC way where the driver isn't really reading, let alone studying and agreeing to the charge for not leaving on time, this would be a complete turnaround of the situation. Not only would the driver be seen to have actually agreed by making the payment, he must also have accepted the terms and conditions. It's just another argument in the extravagant and unconscionable submissions and one the Lords may not even be contemplating but really should. -------------------- The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
|
|
|
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 - 07:42
Post
#302
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 122 Joined: 15 Jul 2015 Member No.: 78,358 |
Has anybody seen the final judgement made by the Supreme Court in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis?
I have had contact from my colleague this morning who has received an email from POPLA in the very early hours of this morning saying that her case is on hold to allow both sides of an appeal to submit further comments in light of the final judgement that has been handed down. The email says that the judgment can be found in the POPLA website but I can't find it at this time. I equally can't find anything on the Supreme Court website. Is it good or bad news for us all? Has anybody seen or heard what the judgement says? |
|
|
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 - 07:43
Post
#303
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Judgement not due for a few more weeks. (The Judges only started back yesterday for starters)
POPLA have dropped one... It appears they are referring to the CoA. This post has been edited by Jlc: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 - 07:46 -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 - 07:55
Post
#304
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 122 Joined: 15 Jul 2015 Member No.: 78,358 |
I've just read the letter sent to my colleague and yes, it would appear to be the case rather than the final decision from the Supreme Court. Sorry, my misunderstanding and in fact the letter is just notifying my colleague as to why they have delayed the adjudication on her case - a bit late seeing this was meant to have been heard over a month ago...
|
|
|
Thu, 29 Oct 2015 - 10:59
Post
#305
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,337 Joined: 4 Jan 2007 Member No.: 9,897 |
bevis results in 4th november https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html
|
|
|
Thu, 29 Oct 2015 - 21:29
Post
#306
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 153 Joined: 15 Mar 2004 From: west yorks Member No.: 992 |
Wednesday 4 November 2015
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/future-judgments.html |
|
|
Thu, 29 Oct 2015 - 22:08
Post
#307
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
I wonder if anyone is going to risk contempt of court?
-------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Thu, 29 Oct 2015 - 23:27
Post
#308
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
Counsel for the parties get the draft judgment at 1030 on the Thursday morning (as do in-house solicitors who would never do anything illegal such as buying a mobile phone and conspiring to make a hoax phone call to get a hearing adjourned so that their barrister of choice can attend), but the parties themselves are not allowed to know the result until 24 hours before it is handed down.
Obviously it would be wrong to suggest that ParkingEye, whose entire business model stands or falls on this judgment (not to mention the fact that they would be clearly guilty of criminal offences under CPUTR if the monies they demanded were not lawfully owed) would attempt to apply any pressure whatsoever on their legal department to spill the beans, or that if they did, their in-house solicitors would put themselves in contempt of court. Or more to the point, they'd have to be pretty damn stupid to get caught. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Fri, 30 Oct 2015 - 08:51
Post
#309
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,333 Joined: 28 Mar 2014 From: Corby Member No.: 69,758 |
|
|
|
Fri, 30 Oct 2015 - 09:37
Post
#310
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 425 Joined: 4 Aug 2014 From: In the beautiful Chilterns Member No.: 72,309 |
Decision due next Wednesday (4th) apparently 0945
-------------------- Speed does not kill. It's more to do with how you stop.
|
|
|
Tue, 3 Nov 2015 - 12:32
Post
#311
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Post #295 covered that!
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 3 Nov 2015 - 13:56
Post
#312
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 8,582 Joined: 9 Feb 2006 Member No.: 4,813 |
I'm probably going to miss it if takes a good length of time.
I'm doing a photo-shoot with an Asda trolley and my number plate for the Northern Echo at lunchtime. -------------------- The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
|
|
|
Tue, 3 Nov 2015 - 14:52
Post
#313
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
So over on MSE there's one claim that Beavis lost and one that he won. Well that clears it up.
-------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Nov 2015 - 15:53
Post
#314
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
LOL, AIUI both parties should now know the result but can't reveal it (contempt) until the formal release tomorrow some time after 9:45.
It is of course quite possible that we get a fudgement leaving the issue no clearer. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 3 Nov 2015 - 15:57
Post
#315
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
I think Lord Neuberger will make it clear. But I don't think either side will be able to claim complete 'victory'.
-------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Nov 2015 - 18:50
Post
#316
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11,094 Joined: 24 Aug 2007 From: Home alone Member No.: 13,324 |
QUOTE I'm doing a photo-shoot with an Asda trolley and my number plate for the Northern Echo at lunchtime. Please start a separate thread. One (nut)case one thread. Look forward to it. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Nov 2015 - 18:56
Post
#317
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,337 Joined: 4 Jan 2007 Member No.: 9,897 |
I grabbed a copy of combined parking solutions website earlier on today , it had the full results of the hearing
is the offence (of disclosing the results) a: down to CPM for publishing the page b: me for loading it on tinipics for you to see PS we ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and its not a 4 letter word |
|
|
Tue, 3 Nov 2015 - 19:24
Post
#318
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
we don't know anything (much less about the whys and wherefores of the veracity of the opinion expressed in a flash in the pan web update by a PPC)
It will be public soon enough. I don't think its a simple heads or tails matter. For one thing the Beavis case was on atypical conditions. It will all be in the words they hand down tomorrow. Odds are it will take some digesting. Personally i am not expecting much - whichever way it goes. This post has been edited by bama: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 - 19:24 -------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Nov 2015 - 20:00
Post
#319
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 127 Joined: 2 Aug 2013 Member No.: 64,115 |
The original post on MSE seemed quite specific on a few things, until it got changed to the smilies. Original still available on Google cache of course
Just wait until tomorrow though is all we can really do. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Nov 2015 - 20:12
Post
#320
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
didn't see it.
what thread ? -------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:31 |