ParkingEye-v-Beavis Appeal: Date Set

TDA

DoaM wrote: »

It seems you're the one who hasn't read the EU guidance in respect of the directive that drives these regulations. They specifically mention parking contracts as being an example of the type of contract covered by the directive.

An EU Directive (as opposed to an EU Regulation) leaves the decision on form and methods to make up to the member state, so I'm not really sure how great the relevance of the EU guidance is. The only real relevant issue therefore is what the actual Act states, and the UK government guidance that accompanies it.

The Directive deals with distance contracts, off-premises contracts and on-premises contracts. The latter don't have cancellation rights under the 2013 Act. Having just read the EU guidance all it says is that renting a parking space is subject to the directive. It doesn't appear to say anywhere that it is a distance or off-premises contract - my suggestion is that it is more likely that a parking contract would fall under an on-premises contract in this country based on definitions within the Act as I explained above.

But let's say you're right and a parking contract is indeed a distance or off-premises contract - how do you deal with the fact that our government guidance (y'know, from the same government that enacted the statute) categorically states that where the service has been provided in full, there are no rights of cancellation?

Marktheshark

I did read that in to the Judges Comments as well, they appeared to be somewhat baffled by HHJ Moloney interpretation of principal on a car park they do not own.
Mind you so was the rest of the country.
If a company build a car park, own the land and then bring in a firm to "manage" the car park how can any payment or contract make the management principle if the owners can break the contract and throw them out.
The legal term principal means that there is no higher authority that can intervene or instruct them.
The owners of this car park, a pension firm could just sling PE out at any time, even if PE have a claim for damages they are still out on their backside because the people that are the real principal are the ones in charge as the ruddy well own it.
That decision by HHJ Moloney flew in the face of law itself in my opinion.

It sounds like the judges thought so as well.
There can be only one Principal in any contractual relationship and that is the one who has overall authority.
Paying any sum of money to be allowed to manage anything does not make you it and never will.

To put it in to a less crowded example :
I pay £200 to hire a minibus and manage a bus trip , Bob spills beer on the seat, can I sue bob for damage to the seat because I was paying to hire the minibus ?
If I tried I would be told I suffered no loss as the Bus belongs to someone else, I only hired it and managed the trip, the loss or damage was not mine.
But we had a contract that if he spilt beer he pays me £100 ?
See where we are going.
Exactly the same scenario here.

I will be quite surprised if the Judges even get to commercial justification, they appear to have focused on who lost what ?

DoaM

catoninetails wrote: »

Yea he is a typical MSE parking forum person on here who spends lots of time trying to tell people stuff but half of it is incorrect anyway.

Just joined today, has made 3 posts, 2 of which are jibes at respected forum members and the other much ado about nothing. Hmmmm.

WUM?

edward123

catoninetails wrote: »

Yea he is a typical MSE parking forum person on here who spends lots of time trying to tell people stuff but half of it is incorrect anyway.

This forum's regulars who contributed to the 'newbies' thread/sticky and which has been used hundreds of times, perhaps thousands and has resulted in POPLA forcing the private parking company to cancel their invoices only "half correct"? Perhaps you can tell us all what from the above is "half correct"? Bet yer don't. More likely you are 99.999% incorrect. :rotfl:

bazster

TDA wrote: »

However, let’s say for arguments sake

Which kind've sums up everything you ever post on this forum.

JonnyRotten

I just wonder, 'Do the Retailers renting the Retail Units pay, as part of it, a sum for the provision of car-parking within their yearly or monthly rental cost', already?

Has anyone managed to get this sort of information out of a Landowner or Retail company?

That would be an interesting position, legally. Perhaps more so for those car-parks, such as an NHS hospital, where a charge is being levied by a landowner, or a management company on his behalf, than those where there is no charge?

By the way, the DDJ Melville-Shreeve ruling on 3JD06533 Mrs Natasha Collins-Daniel case is a good solid response to many issues and his comments regarding 'filleting' of Case Law by PE Ltd should be noted.

Still Jonny Rotten
Awaiting Beavis appeal ruling with bated breath, as per the rest of the Nation

TDA

bazster wrote: »

Which kind've sums up everything you ever post on this forum.

My apologies for challenging incorrect advice regarding consumer legislation on a consumer forum...

I note that you still haven't addressed any of the issues raised regarding your analysis of the regulations - perhaps because you have been forced to concede that you are wrong and feel slightly embarrassed about accusing Spikyone of not having understood the statute?

bargepole

JonnyRotten wrote: »

I just wonder, 'Do the Retailers renting the Retail Units pay, as part of it, a sum for the provision of car-parking within their yearly or monthly rental cost', already?

Has anyone managed to get this sort of information out of a Landowner or Retail company? ...

When I went to the Riverside Retail Park to film the piece for BBC Inside Out, I did a quick survey of the retailers on the site. They pay an overall annual rental for the units, and as far as I can tell that sum includes all facilities including car parking, it's not ringfenced separately.


But the survey revealed some interesting figures. There are 12 retailers on the site, and the question was 'Does the presence of Parking Eye and the 2 hour limit have a positive or negative effect on your business?'


2 x No manager available for comment
7 x Answered that it had a negative effect
2 x Answered that it had a positive effect
1 x Neutral who said there were positives and negatives


So not much commercial justification there. One manageress said she has seen customers abandon their trolley mid-shop because the time was nearly up. Another said that she could spend all day trying to get tickets cancelled for genuine customers, but now she just refers them all to the managing agents, Savills.


The problem is set to get worse, as they are fitting out a new unit for Costa, which will mean people spending longer if they take in coffee / lunch as well as shopping.

Marktheshark

TDA wrote: »

My apologies for challenging incorrect advice regarding consumer legislation on a consumer forum...

I note that you still haven't addressed any of the issues raised regarding your analysis of the regulations - perhaps because you have been forced to concede that you are wrong and feel slightly embarrassed about accusing Spikyone of not having understood the statute?

"You coming to bed love ?
"No, someone is Wrong on the internet "
:rotfl:

bazster

TDA wrote: »

My apologies for challenging incorrect advice regarding consumer legislation on a consumer forum...

I note that you still haven't addressed any of the issues raised regarding your analysis of the regulations - perhaps because you have been forced to concede that you are wrong and feel slightly embarrassed about accusing Spikyone of not having understood the statute?

Are you his Dad?