ParkingEye-v-Beavis Appeal: Date Set

lovinituk

TDA wrote: »

What I have quite clearly stated is ...

Obviously not that clearly otherwise I would have clearly understood

lovinituk

catoninetails wrote: »

The problem with the many experts on here is most of them don't apply this expertise outside of these forums.

The problem with parking companies is all of them have no expertise whatsoever and resort to trolling on these forums.

rdr

nigelbb wrote: »

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?

I was suggesting keeping 3 hours free parking, but also allowing longer parking but at a rate that prices out enough people to ensure space remains. Any non-payers could be dealt with by GPEOL tickets.

spikyone

Bazster, let's hear your justification. I put a lot of questions to C-m based on reading and my understanding of the CC(ICAC) regs, and her ultimate response was that she "couldn't be arsed".
I do not believe these regs relate, in any way, to parking your car. The reference to "renting a parking space", referred to by another poster, is misleading - it is from the European Directive guidance notes and almost certainly refers to long term rental rather than use of a publically-accessible car park. PPCs are a uniquely British problem, in which the EU have no reason to take an interest.

On top of that, read the impact assessment document here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/2013/219/pdfs/ukia_20130219_en.pdf

Specifically, the section "Problem Under Consideration". This legislation is intended to address the growth in distance selling due to the internet. It is a huge perversion to suggest it applies to PPC 'contracts', and there is still the problem of persuading a judge that car parking is any kind of distance contract (I've argued previously about automated business premises). Then there's the problem that where a service or part thereof has been provided, you have to pay for it pro rata.

I share your dislike of PPCs, but IMO those advocating this approach need to take their anti-PPC blinkers off and read the legislation a bit more objectively. Until it's proven in court, its use is no more than wild speculation.

Marktheshark

Lets see what the Scottish courts decide, they are judging on EU directives so it will show that they directive applies to parking contracts.
It would be Ironic if some EU blurb does actually shoot the PPC platform out of the water.

lovinituk

spikyone wrote: »

I do not believe these regs relate, in any way, to parking your car.

As per my post above, the Aberdeen Sheriff Court appear to disagree with you. Last time I checked, Scotland was still part of the EU.

salmosalaris

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/files/crd_guidance_en.pdf

Read the above EU guidance

The issue pertains to whether parking contracts are distance contracts , express consent and notification of cancellation rights . The UK legislation is less demanding .

It would all come down to a) whether EU guidance trumps UK legislation and b) whether a judge agreed with your interpretation of it .

I just see short shrift for a defendant pleading the contract has been cancelled weeks after it has been performed and concluded .
The only way to find out though is to stick it in front of a judge so that is exactly what those suggesting it should do .

spikyone

lovinituk wrote: »

As per my post above, the Aberdeen Sheriff Court appear to disagree with you. Last time I checked, Scotland was still part of the EU.

So you're linking to a vague post by PP - how do you know this is CC(ICAC) and not CPUTR? The latter seems far more likely...

Marktheshark

[QUOTE=salmosalaris;67822868

It would all come down to a) whether EU guidance trumps UK legislation and .[/QUOTE]

EU Directive is supreme law status and always trumps English Statute Law, getting passed the judiciary is the hard bit.

salmosalaris

Marktheshark wrote: »

EU Directive is supreme law status and always trumps English Statute Law, getting passed the judiciary is the hard bit.

From page one of the EU guidance


"This document is not legally binding and provides only guidance. The authoritative interpretation of EU law remains within the sole remit of the Court of Justice (CJEU). This document is not a formal interpretation of EU law, nor does it provide legal advice on issues of national law."