ParkingEye-v-Beavis Appeal: Date Set

bazster

spikyone wrote: »

Bazster, let's hear your justification.

I must have missed something here. Who are you again?

TDA

spikyone wrote: »

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.

Don't hold your breath, neither of them have given a response because they don't have a good answer. The guidance clearly states you cannot cancel where the service has been provided in full and even if it was silent on the issue no judge is going to rule that you can cancel a contract when you have received the entire benefit of it for free already. Bazster is just embarrassing himself at this point.

Also the regulations mentioned by PP in the Scottish Case are extremely likely to be CPUTR.

bazster

Awww, how sweet, they're all cosy with each other now!

spikyone

bazster wrote: »

I must have missed something here. Who are you again?

Why is that any of your business? You're offering deeply flawed advice, that is completely untested in court, as if it's gospel. You're very quick to throw the insults around but completely unable - as far as I can tell - to support any assertion that CC(ICAC) applies to the 'contract' that's supposedly formed when using the car park outside your local supermarket.


We're on the same side - you're just barking up the wrong tree trying to use this legislation.

lovinituk

spikyone wrote: »

to support any assertion that CC(ICAC) applies to the 'contract' that's supposedly formed when using the car park outside your local supermarket.

Could it be that the CCR requires the 'seller' to provide certain information at the beginning of the 'contract' otherwise a 'contract' cannot be formed? The layman version from the Which website describes it as such...

Information you should expect
The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, as they are referred to in full, require traders to give you certain information.
The specific information varies depending on whether the sale is made at a distance or face-to-face or in store.
At a distance or face-to-face off-premises The following key information has to be given:
• a description of the goods or service, including how long any commitment will last on the part of the consumer
• the total price of the goods or service, or the manner in which the price will be calculated if this can’t be determined
• cost of delivery and details of who pays for the cost of returning items if you have a right to cancel and change your mind
• details of any right to cancel - the trader also needs to provide, or make available, a standard cancellation form to make cancelling easy (although you aren’t under any obligation to use it)
• information about the seller, including their geographical address and phone number

I'm pretty sure they don't provide all that information and are the parking company even defined as the 'seller' or is that in fact the landowner, in which case the required information is definitely not given at the beginning of the 'contract'.

Guys_Dad

This argument has been round before.

Sheer common sense says that you can't cancel a contract once you have received and accepted the service - subject, of course, to the supplier fulfilling their side of the contract.

If anyone disagrees, then take the PPC to Judge Rinder or similar and see how far that gets you !!!!!!!!!!!

lovinituk

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Sheer common sense says that you can't cancel a contract once you have received and accepted the service - subject, of course, to the supplier fulfilling their side of the contract.

This is what I am suggesting above. If the supplier does not fulfil their duties under CCR which includes providing all the required info at the beginning of the contract, then they forfeit their rights under the regs. Does this then mean the customer CAN then cancel despite the service being used? Suppliers tough luck for not providing the required info in the first place?

Marktheshark

It has been round before, everything has, this time it is getting tested in the Scottish courts.
Like it or lump it, lets see what they say.

spikyone

lovinituk wrote: »

Could it be that the CCR requires the 'seller' to provide certain information at the beginning of the 'contract' otherwise a 'contract' cannot be formed? The layman version from the Which website describes it as such...

The CC(ICAC) regs can require what they want.

Firstly, that doesn't mean that the regs are applicable. There's reasonable arguments that this is not actually a distance contract, and that parking your car could be defined as a day-to-day transaction.

Even if the regs do apply, cancellation is not retrospective. The contract still existed at a previous point in time - it just ceases to exist from the point at which you serve cancellation. Any charges that were due under the contract remain due. Any losses caused by breach during the time of contract are still recoverable.


@Marktheshark, do you have any evidence - other than a vague PP blog - that it is CC(ICAC) that is being used in court? CPUTR is far more likely.

lovinituk

spikyone wrote: »

There's reasonable arguments that this is not actually a distance contract, and that parking your car could be defined as a day-to-day transaction.

By whom? A better source than Parking Prankster?