We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
ParkingEye-v-Beavis Appeal: Date Set
Comments
-
So its ok for you to expect everyone to take your unsupported opinion as gospel while you pull apart other peoples sources? Works both ways doesn't it!So, it's OK for you to provide your unsupported opinion but not OK for others to question it?
This is obviously far more important to you than it is to me
0 -
So its ok for you to expect everyone to take your unsupported opinion as gospel while you pull apart other peoples sources? Works both ways doesn't it!
This is obviously far more important to you than it is to me
Since when was Parking Prankster a more reliable source than the governments own guidance on the legislation...0 -
That isn't exactly what he said though is it?
Holy heck, do I need to quote him word-for-word? Your first post - ever - was to ask "who said anything about cancelling contracts". The answer is Bazster. That's what has sparked this debate; Bazster (and others) believe cancelling a contract can get you of a parking charge, I (and others) believe this is a mis-use of regulations intended for something entirely different. Look back through the thread - I offered an opinion and Bazster told me I couldn't read, simply because it's different to his opinion...So its ok for you to expect everyone to take your unsupported opinion as gospel while you pull apart other peoples sources? Works both ways doesn't it!
What sources do you have? I've quoted government guidance and the impact assessment on the CC(ICAC) regs. And I'm not the one who'd have to persuade a judge that my interpretation is correct...0 -
Actually - and I plead guilty as well - this has f**k all to do with the Beavis case IMO. (Which was the purpose of the thread in the first place)0
-
Holy heck, do I need to quote him word-for-word?
You don't need to because if you look carefully at my post. I already did.
Been lurking for about 2 years now. Well done on being the one that compels me to actually sign up and post what I thought was a helpful hint to you.Your first post - ever - was to ask "who said anything about cancelling contracts".The answer is Bazster.
No he didn't. He quoted The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 but he didn't say anything about cancelling a contract.That's what has sparked this debate; Bazster (and others) believe cancelling a contract can get you of a parking charge, I (and others) believe this is a mis-use of regulations intended for something entirely different. Look back through the thread - I offered an opinion and Bazster told me I couldn't read, simply because it's different to his opinion...
Now I'm no expert but maybe the regulations are not ONLY about cancelling? It's only one of the 3 words in the brackets for a start.0 -
I can see some would be disappointed if some obscure EU regulation sticks the sword in the dragon as opposed to the fruitless battle that has been fought for near on ten years.
Personally, I shall wait and see what blows in on the wind from this Scottish criminal court case based on the EU Blurb.
My mind is open, if some European crusader waltzes up and sleighs this dragon whilst we lick wounds then it let it be so.
Drink to its death, that I can do.
I do Contracts, all day every day.0 -
You don't need to because if you look carefully at my post. I already did.
Been lurking for about 2 years now. Well done on being the one that compels me to actually sign up and post what I thought was a helpful hint to you.
No he didn't. He quoted The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 but he didn't say anything about cancelling a contract.
Now I'm no expert but maybe the regulations are not ONLY about cancelling? It's only one of the 3 words in the brackets for a start.
The applicable additional information requirements in Sch 1 would be easily incorporated into new contractual charge based signage should the companies go down that route.
Seems pretty clear from the definition of business premises in the act that a car park would fall under that definition and, consequently, would be an on-premises contract.
Given the nature of paying to park it is further entirely possible that the information requirements wouldn't apply in the first place because it would be classed as a day-to-day transaction.0 -
£100 for 5 mins parking (being 5 mins over free period) is a day to day transaction?
Also surely to be considered a day to day transaction then a means of paying at point of use would be needed?0 -
I would say the experts are the procurator fiscal, they appear to believe they are breaking the EU legislation.
We shall see if the Scottish Judges agree.
Either way, it is an important twist to the tale.I do Contracts, all day every day.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards