ParkingEye-v-Beavis Appeal: Date Set

nigelbb

TDA wrote: »

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.

Except day-to-day transactions like buying loaf of bread or a newspaper or a bus ticket don't have swingeing penalty clauses should the consumer infringe the T&Cs imposed on them by the contract.

TDA

menantoll wrote: »

£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?

The fact that you've not got much value for your money doesn't change the fact that the nature of paying to park is that of a day to day transaction.

Not exactly going to be hard for PPCs to intruduce a facility for payment at point of use is it.

Nigelbb you are assuming we are still discussing a breach model. We are talking about the ppcs having changed their signs to comply with a contractual charge model. The doctrine of penalties only applies to breach

salmosalaris

Although I am speculating as much as anyone else one would imagine PP is referring to CPUTR (2008 )which created criminal offences for traders breaking them and it has absolutely nothing to do with the EU directive

spikyone

menantoll wrote: »

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.

You're right, he suggested that it was the end for stealth charges, which it isn't because that's CPUTR and not CC(ICAC). Which led on to the discussion about cancelling contracts per the advice of C-m or others.

menantoll wrote: »

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.

Additional Charges is definitely not relevant (this applies to pre-selected "optional extras" like travel insurance when booking a flight), and the Information part is also no use (unless you believe that leaving your car in a car park is not an express request for the provision of parking). And it still doesn't address the problem of why regs intended to cover distance selling (mainly online) are relevant to PPC-world.

menantoll wrote: »

Also surely to be considered a day to day transaction then a means of paying at point of use would be needed?

This would be required for any genuine contractual charge.

salmosalaris wrote: »

Although I am speculating as much as anyone else one would imagine PP is referring to CPUTR (2008 )which created criminal offences for traders breaking them and it has absolutely nothing to do with the EU directive

Agreed. I'd be as happy as everyone else if the EU Directive on which the CC(ICAC) regs are based could be used to kill off PPCs forever - I just don't believe it can.

menantoll

TDA wrote: »

Not exactly going to be hard for PPCs to intruduce a facility for payment at point of use is it.

Along with an accurate system that tells a person if they are due to pay based on how long they have been parked?

I don't believe relying on the motorist to work out how long he's been in the carpark (anpr on exit, not parked) and then sending him a bill, if he doesn't pay immediately, could ever be classed as a day to day transaction.

menantoll

spikyone wrote: »

You're right, he suggested that it was the end for stealth charges, which it isn't because that's CPUTR and not CC(ICAC). Which led me to shouting about cancelling contracts per the advice of C-m or others.

FTFY, you was the first one to start going on about cancelling contracts in this thread.

spikyone wrote: »

and the Information part is also no use (unless you believe that leaving your car in a car park is not an express request for the provision of parking).

If, when I leave my car to park, the information is not correct enough for me to make an informed decision on the contract I am entering then I think it's extremely relevant.

spikyone wrote: »

And it still doesn't address the problem of why regs intended to cover distance selling (mainly online) are relevant to PPC-world.

Why is on-site mentioned in the regs if they are only intended to cover distance selling? What am I missing? (genuine question)




I say again. I'm no expert these are just my thoughts as an ex-lurker.

Marktheshark

Scotland put the last scam to death of clamping, looks like parking charges notices are next in-sights.
One thing about the Scots, they have a pair under them kilts.

salmosalaris

Why is it necessary to have the ability to pay at the time other than to strengthen the argument that it is a disguised penalty ?
Why wouldn't this suffice ?

"If you wish to stay longer than 2 hours in any 24 hr period you will be issued with an invoice to the address of the registered keeper of the vehicle detailing payment options . The charge for this will be £100 or £60 if you decide to pay within 28 days of the invoice . Payment is accepted by cash , cheque , credit/debit card or BACS

Folkiedave

salmosalaris wrote: »

Why is it necessary to have the ability to pay at the time other than to strengthen the argument that it is a disguised penalty ?
Why wouldn't this suffice ?

"If you wish to stay longer than 2 hours in any 24 hr period you will be issued with an invoice to the address of the registered keeper of the vehicle detailing payment options . The charge for this will be £100 or £60 if you decide to pay within 28 days of the invoice . Payment is accepted by cash , cheque , credit/debit card or BACS

Essentially the IAS model.

enfield_freddy

salmosalaris wrote: »

Why is it necessary to have the ability to pay at the time other than to strengthen the argument that it is a disguised penalty ?
Why wouldn't this suffice ?

"If you wish to stay longer than 2 hours in any 24 hr period you will be issued with an invoice to the address of the registered keeper of the vehicle detailing payment options . The charge for this will be £100 or £60 if you decide to pay within 28 days of the invoice . Payment is accepted by cash , cheque , credit/debit card or BACS

but that would make it a paying car park , with the implications of business rates , etc etc


and most of the supermarkets were granted planning permission , if they provided free parking on site rather than the street.


aldi preston , planning permission granted in 1999 , 3 hrs ,, parking eye 2015 = 1hr and 20 mins , but the council will not act!