Parking eye won cambridge case

da_rule

The_Deep wrote: »

ISimilarly, if someone uses a P&D car park without payment, is that not, in some cases, theft?

Getting theft might be a bit of a push as there is no intention to permanently deprive (unless they intend to never leave). There could maybe (and this really is a MAYBE) be a fraud offence, but again very unlikely.

DCodd

bargepole wrote: »

The full Judgment, as handed down, is here: https://jumpshare.com/v/jKfGOSWc9g6bOsxtZxwL

17 pages.

So are Parking Eye registered for VAT and do the charges from this particular car park show VAT?

I'm wondering because, although these are not car parking charges they are equally (so the judge claims) a deterrent and commercially justified for income purposes. The latter being subject to VAT.

Coupon-mad

And as they were saying they are 'the principal' here not the agent, are they paying Business rates?

pvt

There's some pretty stunning stuff in there, but 7.14.b takes the biscuit:

It essentially argues that PE's business is modelled on applying a contractual penalty, and that because it is the sole source of revenue to a 'profitable business' it is fair.

That wholly presupposes the business in the first place is fair.

It fundamentally says if you run a business and make money from it, you may ignore contract law if to do otherwise would mean you have no viable business.

Rather like making a business from selling shoes by mail order and never delivering any shoes after receiving payment - that would be very profitable - Moloney's perverse argument here says that it's OK to do that because otherwise they wouldn't have a profitable business. Absolutely mental!

The fundamental argument, that has been completely missed by him, is that penalising or fining fellow citizens, which a person has no right whatsoever to do, is not a legitimate business in the first place.

Bantex_2

pvt wrote: »

The fundamental argument, that has been completely missed by him, is that penalising or fining fellow citizens, which a person has no right whatsoever to do, is not a viable business in the first place.

Didn't they make about 4 million net that year?

Sounds pretty viable to me.

bod1467

Bantex wrote: »

Didn't they make about 4 million net that year?

Sounds pretty viable to me.

A perfect example of missing the point.

Bantex_2

bod1467 wrote: »

A perfect example of missing the point.

Not sure how, in finance I believe viable just means profitable and solvent. They appear to be both.

DCodd

Bantex wrote: »

Not sure how, in finance I believe viable just means profitable and solvent. They appear to be both.

It usually includes an examination of the business model itself too.

trubster

Wasn't the commercially viable penalty or whatever it's called what was used to rule that bank charges were above board?

DCodd

trubster wrote: »

Wasn't the commercially viable penalty or whatever it's called what was used to rule that bank charges were above board?

As far as I know, that was not the ruling. The Supreme Court just ruled that the OFT wasn't allowed to investigate the fairness of them en masse so to speak.