We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Aldi Facebook Page Kicking Off after Parking Eye LBAs
Options
Comments
-
I don't see Aldi etcs argument, 99% of the ones I know of are miles away from factories/cinemas/town centres or anywhere I'd just park for the sake of it.
The only time I got a PE 'invoice' it was for parking from 9pm to 2am, hence no loss on a free carpark when no one else wanted to park there.
Invoice was ignored naturally.Unless specifically stated all posts by me are my own considered opinion.
If you don't like my opinion feel free to respond with your own.0 -
Best not to ignore them now as PE are sending out court papers to people who have done that in the past. Best way now to beat them is to go through the POPLA route. They are losing those hand over fist.What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?0
-
perhaps those of us that are wise to them should display a 'popla aware' sticker in a prominent position to be fair to PE etc so they know there's no point at all at even writing to us :-)Unless specifically stated all posts by me are my own considered opinion.
If you don't like my opinion feel free to respond with your own.0 -
Popla aware sticker! Bring it on ((-:PPCs say its carpark management, BPA say its raising standards..... we all know its just about raking in the revenue. :eek:0
-
If the Aldi campaign has dwindled who is going to start one for the Range (new thread and all)?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
It hasn't dwindled, and going for the range can be done at the same time, as well as b&q as parking lie are there as wellWhen posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
We don't need the following to help you.
Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
:beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:0 -
Someone on the facebook page says that there is a BBC programme comming up, without going back over all posts, any news when?I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.0
-
Essentially we are talking about the test devised in the case of Lordsvale Finance v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752 which develops the argument used in the far older Dunlop case (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v New Garage & Motor Co [1915] AC 79). It boils down to whether the dominant purpose of the application of a charge is to deter a party from a breach of contract. If it is, then it may be struck down as a penalty. Only a slight elaboration of Umkomaas's point and para. 419 is equally as illuminating.It's not as simple as that. See the original ParkingEye vs Somerfield judgement paragraph 420 onwards.My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016).
For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com0 -
My point was that the judge in the Somerfield case didn't consider the initial parking charge as damages for breach of contract and therefore whether it was intended as a deterrent was irrelevant.Essentially we are talking about the test devised in the case of Lordsvale Finance v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752 which develops the argument used in the far older Dunlop case (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v New Garage & Motor Co [1915] AC 79). It boils down to whether the dominant purpose of the application of a charge is to deter a party from a breach of contract. If it is, then it may be struck down as a penalty. Only a slight elaboration of Umkomaas's point and para. 419 is equally as illuminating.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards