PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Beavis, Piece on MSE
jlsmith
post Tue, 24 Feb 2015 - 15:30
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 130
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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
24 Pages V  « < 15 16 17 18 19 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (320 - 339)
Advertisement
post Tue, 24 Feb 2015 - 15:30
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
c2k
post Tue, 3 Nov 2015 - 20:23
Post #321


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 127
Joined: 2 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,115



It was a thread that appeared on there that was titled something like "Barry Beavis has lost his.....". The original poster mentioned things like totally unanimous, no dissenting judgement,

Usual hyperbole really but similar tone to the posts that appeared before the original judgement and appeal.

Google search for "Beavis moneysavingexpert" , select last 24 hours and then look at the cached entry
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dp7
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 09:58
Post #322


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 750
Joined: 1 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,435



Appeal dismissed on both grounds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Monster 900
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 10:11
Post #323


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,384
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
From: Wales
Member No.: 8,984



Oh well, that's my £20 wasted.

On the Pranksters blogspot now.


--------------------
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Links :- 1. NIP Wizard, 2. Speeding - Likely penalty calculator, 3. How to deal with PPC tickets.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
thevaliant
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 10:30
Post #324


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 126
Joined: 30 Apr 2013
Member No.: 61,506



I see there was one dissenting Judge (Toulson) on the grounds that as an individual Barry Beavis wouldn't have agreed to those terms using UCTA.

Interesting, though wholly irrelevant unfortunately.

I agree elsewhere. £85 to a Judge is 'lunch without the wine'.

£85 to me, mean I, my wife and my daughter don't eat for an entire week......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JagDriver
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 10:32
Post #325


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,157
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Member No.: 20,605



QUOTE
I think Lord Neuberger will make it clear

Indeed he did. We now need to only use car parks that are NOT maintained by the avaricious PPCs. It's even more important now to ensure that ALL appeals win at POPLA and that PE (in particular) soon get tarred with the vexatious litigant label.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 10:33
Post #326


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,143
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



I wouldn't say wasted. Clarity was required either way - Dunedin's longstanding doctrine has been rewritten. Watch out for some creative implementations of this.

Some more analysis required...


--------------------
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

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dp7
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 10:43
Post #327


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 750
Joined: 1 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,435



QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 10:33) *
Watch out for some creative implementations of this.


All manner of companies charging penalties to make a profit because "it's commercially justified, My Lord".

It's a significant undermining of consumer protection law. I find the logic that the amount can be considered reasonable because many people use the car park very odd. Given the vast swathes of parking estate that the PPC industry controls, you're hardly given much choice.

This post has been edited by dp7: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 10:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
desktop_demon
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 10:50
Post #328


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 3,236
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
From: South of the border.
Member No.: 21,303



We lose on penalties, again ... sad.gif
But at least m'Lord Toulson gave a helpful interpretation of events.


--------------------
When your life finally flashes in front of you - let's hope there's something worth watching.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hotel Oscar 87
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 11:24
Post #329


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 3,737
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
From: Way, way off-shore
Member No.: 7,833



http://www.which.co.uk/news/2015/11/privat...-ruling-421168/

The first four paragraphs are the most concerning ones.


--------------------
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a tu.rd by the clean end.” - R.J. Wiedemann, Lt. Col. USMC Ret.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 11:27
Post #330


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



So the UK and European consumer protection legislation doesn't apply in the very situation that it's most needed.

The nonsense that consumers must be in general agreement because so many use the car parks
Most of them have never read the signs

The Consumer Association is not happy because it means that any company can impose penalty charges or introduce business models based on default charges

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2015/11/privat...-ruling-421168/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
M267
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 11:38
Post #331


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,935



QUOTE (Hotel Oscar 87 @ Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 11:24) *
http://www.which.co.uk/news/2015/11/privat...-ruling-421168/

The first four paragraphs are the most concerning ones.

Which referring to "Fines" in every paragraph !!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dp7
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 11:40
Post #332


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 750
Joined: 1 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,435



Lord Toulson's judgment is very good; gets to the key points in a succint fashion. It's just a shame it is in dissent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Lionhear...
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 11:59
Post #333


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 1 Sep 2013
Member No.: 64,878



SO, where to go from here?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
typefish
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 12:20
Post #334


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,199
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
From: Corby
Member No.: 69,758



Crossposting from the Watercooler thread:

QUOTE (The Slithy Tove @ Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 11:56) *
read John de Waal QC's analysis of the judgement


Reading that, does ParkingEye solely make money from contract breaches?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hotel Oscar 87
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 12:26
Post #335


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 3,737
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
From: Way, way off-shore
Member No.: 7,833



That is the common PPC model.


--------------------
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a tu.rd by the clean end.” - R.J. Wiedemann, Lt. Col. USMC Ret.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 12:28
Post #336


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



QUOTE
Reading that, does ParkingEye solely make money from contract breaches?


That has always been my understanding, they never charge for the management of parking but live off the penalties, there may be the odd car park they gain the parking fees but none that I know of. In fact do PE not pay for the right to manage the car park where Beavis parked, this seems to have not formed any aprt of the Lords ruling.

This post has been edited by kommando: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 12:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 12:34
Post #337


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,143
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Richard Lionheart @ Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 11:59) *
SO, where to go from here?

Don't overstay and pay them if you do?

QUOTE (kommando @ Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 12:28) *
QUOTE
Reading that, does ParkingEye solely make money from contract breaches?


That has always been my understanding, they never charge for the management of parking but live off the penalties, there may be the odd car park they gain the parking fees but none that I know of.

Actually, they may even pay a 'fishing fee' to the landowner to operate. (As they do at the Beavis car park I believe)


--------------------
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

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Boggymarsh0220
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 12:40
Post #338


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,358



So if £85 is deemed to be a suitable charge for a breach of some wafty civil contract, can we perhaps see local authorities increasing the penalties they impose for contraventions of on/off street parking and the police increasing the sum for fixed penalty notices? It seems to me that this judgment has just laid open the way for this to happen if a civil breach, which is at the lower end of the legal spectrum, is allowed to incur such a sum. Maybe some will now see it a cheaper option to park on double yellow lines than in a private car park?

This post has been edited by Boggymarsh0220: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 12:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Salmosalaris
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 12:44
Post #339


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,327
Joined: 10 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,283



Cheaper still to abide by the t&c wink.gif


--------------------
Note, I am not legally qualified and not offering legal advice .Liability for application of anything I say lies with the reader
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Boggymarsh0220
post Wed, 4 Nov 2015 - 12:50
Post #340


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,358



Absolutely, but when they don't play the game properly... You know what I mean.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

24 Pages V  « < 15 16 17 18 19 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 23rd March 2019 - 17:49
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.