Cambridge Super-Case

Stroma

In relation to their accounts, if you look at it it's not a true reflection as they have written things off, and have costs relating to their sale like severance money and so on, the company has legally done this obviously but there is millions there that have been used for that.

Hot_Bring

I was interested to see this part :

"Essentially this management information is used to 'portion control' shoppers and force them to speed through the shop as fast as possible for fear of overstaying. ParkingEye can of course also use this information, and some of their contracts allow them to decrease the time allowed so that they can increase the number of overstays if they are not making enough money from a site."

It might go some way to explaining the number of planning permission requests Aldi have put in to reduce the parking limit at the Portslade store. Are Aldi contracted to apply if Parking Eye ask them to ? Given the documents for the last application stated that a very small number of drivers went over 90 minutes and virtually nobody stayed more than the current limit of 120 minutes one might assume Parking Eye are making a loss at this car park and are desperate to catch more people by lowering the time limit.

HO87

Were it that any PPC was so magnanimous. It is very difficult to avoid drawing the conclusion that the term "portion control" is just a euphemism for roll 'em over and empty out their pockets.

As has been said already, but it very neatly sums things up and is well worth repeating, paying £1,000 a week for the "right" (from whichever parallel, or not so parallel universe that comes from) to issue PCN's is simply a fishing licence. And in the case of PE a licence to print money. They are certainly not going to pay out that sort of money from some altruistic sense of public duty to protect a landowner's interests.

ampersand

Hot_Bring wrote: »

'...It might go some way to explaining the number of planning permission requests Aldi have put in to reduce the parking limit at the Portslade store....'

Awaiting fuller reply re:similar for Ely Aldi.

nigelbb

HO87 wrote: »

As has been said already, but it very neatly sums things up and is well worth repeating, paying £1,000 a week for the "right" (from whichever parallel, or not so parallel universe that comes from) to issue PCN's is simply a fishing licence. And in the case of PE a licence to print money. They are certainly not going to pay out that sort of money from some altruistic sense of public duty to protect a landowner's interests.

That's their completely irrational business model in a nutshell. It only works if everyone accepts their perversion of contract law which is based on a lie. As was argued in this particular case it's a free car park & there was no contract for parking. It could only be a licence if anything and not a contract. The contract with the landowner gave no right to grant parking and explicitly stated there was no Landlord and Tenant relationship.

Fergie76

The turnover for the period was £14.3 million, and the net profit 1.0 million, giving a percentage profit of 7.1%. Mr Cooke stated that all costs were incurred in relation to parking enforcement. There was only one copy of the accounts so HHJ Moloney took a look and then passed it back to Mr Cooke. HHJ Moloney asked whether Mr Cooke would like to take another look and perhaps change his statement. Mr Cooke repeated his assertion that all costs were incurred in relation to parking enforcement.

If the Judge is subtly or not so subtly telling you to change your statement, it is usually a good idea to follow that advice.

Mr Kirk argued that the fees were roughly equivalent to council penalty fees and that other car parks charged the same. He also stated that the body that regulates ParkingEye, the British Parking Association, set a £100 limit on parking charges in their code of practice and that amounts above this limit had to be justified.

Does the QC not get the fact that Council Charges are PENALTIES? So by aligning their charges with Councils, then PPC's must be a penalties to?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Interesting point there about the judge asking him if he wanted to change his statement.....

Hot_Bring

Fergie76 wrote: »

Does the QC not get the fact that Council Charges are PENALTIES? So by aligning their charges with Councils, then PPC's must be a penalties to?

To be fair ( my god, did I just say that ? ), the BPA CoP says that the charges should reflect the LA penalty charges in their level.

Strangely a penalty in Brighton and Hove ( one of the most ticketed places in the UK ) is £35 at the discount level and £70 at the higher level. So Parking Eye ARE NOT conforming to BPA rules.

HO87

The BPA aka Patrick Troy and his old mucker Nick "The NoToMob Assaulted Me" Lester (still no retraction even though his knuckles have been rapped) are pretty London-centric so the price is probably a compromise between the provinces and the Smoke.

As an aside, Nick Lester has sat on the BPA council since 1994. Why?

nigelbb

Hot_Bring wrote: »

To be fair ( my god, did I just say that ? ), the BPA CoP says that the charges should reflect the LA penalty charges in their level.

Strangely a penalty in Brighton and Hove ( one of the most ticketed places in the UK ) is £35 at the discount level and £70 at the higher level. So Parking Eye ARE NOT conforming to BPA rules.

Here in Norwich the figures are £70 for a serious offence & £35 for a lesser offence with discount for early payment. These are the levels of penalty charges everywhere outside the Great Wen & far below what the BPA Ltd think is reasonable.