ParkingEye-v-Beavis Appeal: Date Set

TDA

bazster wrote: »

Are you his Dad?

Yes.

Do you have a cogent argument for why the cancellation rights would apply when the guidance clearly states that they do not where the service has been fully provided?

JonnyRotten

bargepole

Very interesting.

I wonder what the legal challenge will be regarding the potentially fraudulent taking of parking charges for car-parks already being charged for then?

I intend to include this point within our pending case should PE persuade the court how it works for them to proceed against us, post the Beavis appeal outcome.

JR

rdr

bargepole wrote: »

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.

Riverside is not your average retail park carpark, because it is the nearest big car park for both the town centre and the busy, commuter station.

If there was a total free for all, I imagine it would end up permanently full, mostly with non-shoppers.

You are right that 2 hours is not enough for a significant proportion of shoppers who stay on the park, let alone those who combine it with a trip into the city.

It is a large car park, which is rarely anywhere near full in the week, in term time, but nearly full at the weekend, with a large proportion of these people shopping in the town centre rather than on the retail park.

I think with some imagination, appopiate technology and easyjet/ryan air style pricing it could be very profitable without £80 charges or penalties. For example, first 100 all day parkers £20, (i think they would sell), next 50 --£30, next 50 -- £40. So raise some money from the empty weekday spaces, the rest of the spaces free for up to 3 hours then ramping up to reach the prevailing all day rate.

lovinituk

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.

And which parking scam company do you work for :rotfl:

nigelbb

rdr wrote: »

Riverside is not your average retail park carpark, because it is the nearest big car park for both the town centre and the busy, commuter station.

If there was a total free for all, I imagine it would end up permanently full, mostly with non-shoppers.

You are right that 2 hours is not enough for a significant proportion of shoppers who stay on the park, let alone those who combine it with a trip into the city.

It is a large car park, which is rarely anywhere near full in the week, in term time, but nearly full at the weekend, with a large proportion of these people shopping in the town centre rather than on the retail park.

I think with some imagination, appopiate technology and easyjet/ryan air style pricing it could be very profitable without £80 charges or penalties. For example, first 100 all day parkers £20, (i think they would sell), next 50 --£30, next 50 -- £40. So raise some money from the empty weekday spaces, the rest of the spaces free for up to 3 hours then ramping up to reach the prevailing all day rate.

The problem is that the retailers want to lure customers in with the promise of free parking so that they visit their stores rather than others in the town centre. The simple answer is to use the system that Tesco a few hundred yards away uses with a voucher at the check out & an exit barrier. Of course there will be more window shoppers at Matalan than Tesco so there will need to be an alternate system for those who don't buy anything so a charge for the parking (perhaps a little less tun the pay car park across the road) with a refund voucher with a purchase?

lovinituk

TDA wrote: »

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?

CEL are being prosecuted in Scotland on 11 counts under the consumer contract regulations, so I guess parking does fall under the CCR!

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/civil-enforcement-ltd-in-criminal-case.html

TDA

lovinituk wrote: »

CEL are being prosecuted in Scotland on 11 counts under the consumer contract regulations, so I guess parking does fall under the CCR!

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/civil-enforcement-ltd-in-criminal-case.html

Please point me to where I have said that the regulations do not apply to parking?

What I have quite clearly stated is that the cancellation rights do not apply to parking a) because under the regulations parking is most likely an on-premises contract where there are no cancellation rights and b) even if it were a distance/off-premises contract, cancellation rights don't apply where the service has been fully performed.

In any event I highly doubt the regulations we are discussing are those which CEL are being prosecuted under, given that nothing in the act constitutes a prosecutable offence. Far more likely the charges will be under the CPUTR 2008.

Best stick to commenting on those issues you have a proper grasp on.

Marktheshark

lovinituk wrote: »

CEL are being prosecuted in Scotland on 11 counts under the consumer contract regulations, so I guess parking does fall under the CCR!

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/civil-enforcement-ltd-in-criminal-case.html

The law is applied differently in Scotland, unlike England your wealth does not mean exemption from laws that are punished on the poor.

trisontana

The troll is back. What PPC do you work for?

bazster

TDA wrote: »

Do you have a cogent argument for why the cancellation rights would apply when the guidance clearly states that they do not where the service has been fully provided?

Yes..........