ParkingEye-v-Beavis Appeal: Date Set

Marktheshark

That is why I said "lets see"
The clue is in their somewhere.
keep looking you will find it.

spikyone

lovinituk wrote: »

By whom? A better source than Parking Prankster?

I had no idea his was the only acceptable interpretation of the law.

spikyone

Marktheshark wrote: »

That is why I said "lets see"
The clue is in their somewhere.
keep looking you will find it.

PP says that they are in court for "11 counts under the consumer contract regulations". This is not the same as specifically stating the legislation with which they've failed to comply, and in what way they have failed to comply. It does not, in any way, support the idea that the Aberdeen case is about whether or not motorists can cancel contracts under CC(ICAC).

lovinituk

spikyone wrote: »

I had no idea his was the only acceptable interpretation of the law.

I didn't say it was. I was wondering if you felt your source was more reliable. Otherwise its just a bunch of strangers arguing the toss with no basis in fact... as usual.

Marktheshark

spikyone wrote: »

PP says that they are in court for "11 counts under the consumer contract regulations". This is not the same as specifically stating the legislation with which they've failed to comply, and in what way they have failed to comply. It does not, in any way, support the idea that the Aberdeen case is about whether or not motorists can cancel contracts under CC(ICAC).

If the parking company are successfully prosecuted and the case tested in criminal court.
Then we need to pick apart exactly why, the principle you can not act unlawfully in claiming a civil tort might just be about to get married to some EU legalisation.
When we know the facts, then it will be time to see how this might have a wider effect.

menantoll

Spikeyone,


Who said anything about cancelling contracts? Which is what you appear to be basing your whole argument on.

spikyone

lovinituk wrote: »

I didn't say it was. I was wondering if you felt your source was more reliable. Otherwise its just a bunch of strangers arguing the toss with no basis in fact... as usual.

Which is exactly my point. People are throwing around "Contract Cancellation" like it's some sort of holy grail for stopping PPCs. It isn't - it's unproven and there are many questions about its use that have never been properly answered by you, Bazster, C-m, or anyone else that's recommending it. Isn't it right that those on the other side of the debate (TDA, Guys Dad, salmosalaris, and myself, from recent posts) challenge the weaknesses in the pro-cancellation argument? Maybe someone advocating the idea could try a single-point appeal to POPLA as a starting point...

Marktheshark wrote: »

If the parking company are successfully prosecuted and the case tested in criminal court.
Then we need to pick apart exactly why, the principle you can not act unlawfully in claiming a civil tort might just be about to get married to some EU legalisation.
When we know the facts, then it will be time to see how this might have a wider effect.

Amen. in the meantime though, everyone needs to stop confusing "CEL will be in the dock" with "this relates to CC(ICAC)".

menantoll wrote: »

Who said anything about cancelling contracts? Which is what you appear to be basing your whole argument on.

This was raised (on this thread) by Bazster. Some members have suggested that sending a Cancellation of Contract under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation, and Additional Charges) Regulations can get you off a parking charge, which is unquestionably outside the intent of those regulations. The wording of the regulations is more of a grey area, hence the debate...

lovinituk

spikyone wrote: »

Isn't it right that those on the other side of the debate (TDA, Guys Dad, salmosalaris, and myself, from recent posts) challenge the weaknesses in the pro-cancellation argument?

Of course. But if you are going to pick apart other peoples sources, then perhaps you should have a more reliable source yourself. Or just stick to your opinion without challenging other peoples sources - which is probably the beter option because then its all just down to a difference of opinion that nobody outside of this thread really gives a toss about, until a court of law proves otherwise.

menantoll

spikyone wrote: »

This was raised (on this thread) by Bazster. Some members have suggested that sending a Cancellation of Contract under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation, and Additional Charges) Regulations can get you off a parking charge, which is unquestionably outside the intent of those regulations. The wording of the regulations is more of a grey area, hence the debate...

That isn't exactly what he said though is it?

bazster wrote: »

My personal opinion is that contractual charges are subject to the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, and if a court agreed with this then such charges would be dead in the water. As Coupon Mad keeps saying, these regulations mean that the days of stealth contracts being foisted on consumers are over.

spikyone

lovinituk wrote: »

Of course. But if you are going to pick apart other peoples sources, then perhaps you should have a more reliable source yourself.

So, it's OK for you to provide your unsupported opinion but not OK for others to question it?



How about this, going back to whether cancellation is possible:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310044/bis-13-1368-consumer-contracts-information-cancellation-and-additional-payments-regulations-guidance.pdf



Section H:
----
6. As well as contracts wholly exempted from the regulations, a number of online and off-premises contracts do not attract cancellation rights. These include:
- Services which have been fully performed (i.e. completed).
----