Parking eye won cambridge case

arcon5

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Maybe they want a decision, one way or another. If they lose, it's just another tax write off this way. If they win, it's just a tax write off.

Its highly unlikely their decision will be incentivised by tax savings.
Any logical person would prefer to make an extra 2k in profit and pay 400quid more in tax than save 400 in tax and make 2k less profit

atilla

arcon5 wrote: »

Its highly unlikely their decision will be incentivised by tax savings.
Any logical person would prefer to make an extra 2k in profit and pay 400quid more in tax than save 400 in tax and make 2k less profit

A logical person, yes.
But this is PE.
Logic doesn't come into it.

bod1467

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

But we won't lose anyway!

So which PPC are you?

bazster

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

I hate to say it, a one off defendant, who is losing their money, or a brief that does it day in, day out , with PE's money?

An intelligent, determined amateur with a point to make will often beat a low-grade, couldn't-care-less so-called professional in many walks of life. We've often seen just how p*ss-poor PE's so-called briefs are.

nobbysn*ts

bazster wrote: »

An intelligent, determined amateur with a point to make will often beat a low-grade, couldn't-care-less so-called professional in many walks of life. We've often seen just how p*ss-poor PE's so-called briefs are.

Well, we've seen the ones that come back to post on here, after a lot of advice from Kirby and bargepole.

SevenTowers

This thread has totally deviated from the Cambridge Case, so let's get it back to where it should be.

The most important point is that Andy Foster and Bargepole have managed to secure the services of a top QC, Pro-Bono, to fight Parking Eye.

There is no point in us speculating about the outcome, we just need to be patient and wait to see what the Court of Appeal has to say.

Paperbird

If PE's contract with the landowner says they have to follow BPA rules and the BPA rules say they can only claim genuine loss then doesn't that mean that that's the only thing they have the landowners permission to take people to court for.

bazster

Paperbird wrote: »

If PE's contract with the landowner says they have to follow BPA rules and the BPA rules say they can only claim genuine loss then doesn't that mean that that's the only thing they have the landowners permission to take people to court for.

Wow, that's an interesting argument!

esmerobbo

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

I hate to say it, a one off defendant, who is losing their money, or a brief that does it day in, day out , with PE's money?

Some around here will remember PE V Smith and their £4000 Pannone briefs against Smithy and his MSE/Pepipoo assisted defence.

bazster

£4,000 Pannone briefs? Is that some kind of designer undergarment?