ParkingEye-v-Beavis Appeal: Date Set

Northlakes

The list could be endless,
Turning up late for the doctor, dentist, car servicing, hospital appointment etc,etc etc.

Mitigating circumstances like such as illness or death will not be valid excuses!

trubster

I'm still tempted to go along. Would be an interesting day but the traffic and parking anywhere near central London can be a nightmare.

Half_way

If the beavis case is lost, it wont exactly be the end of things.
The car park in which parking eye infest isnt the usual set up.
from what i know parking eye pay the land owner a fee to have in effect a fishing licence, so taking a pessimistic view of things

Parking eye loose, beavis wins: things carry on just as before, as this was/is a car park where the ppc pays for a fishing licence, the only changes to come out of it will be similar set ups (VCS @ john Lennon airport ?)

Parking eye win - again this is only at sites where the ppc pays for what is in effect a fishing licence - however there will be much crowing and they and other ppcs will try and use the judgement at other sites where they dont pay the land owner a penny.
If that does happen then it may take another challenge to a higher court

salmosalaris

Half_way wrote: »

If the beavis case is lost, it wont exactly be the end of things.
The car park in which parking eye infest isnt the usual set up.
from what i know parking eye pay the land owner a fee to have in effect a fishing licence, so taking a pessimistic view of things

Parking eye loose, beavis wins: things carry on just as before, as this was/is a car park where the ppc pays for a fishing licence, the only changes to come out of it will be similar set ups (VCS @ john Lennon airport ?)

Parking eye win - again this is only at sites where the ppc pays for what is in effect a fishing licence - however there will be much crowing and they and other ppcs will try and use the judgement at other sites where they dont pay the land owner a penny.
If that does happen then it may take another challenge to a higher court

IMHO you are wrong . The fact they pay the landowner is utterly irrelevant , in fact it could be argued that if they don't the charge is even more commercially justified .it is of no diifference to a kickback other than they are predicting it .

fermi

https://twitter.com/BarryBeavis/status/570161032322265088

fermi

Mike172

I think for those of us, like myself, that live in a block of flats and want to brush these invoices off with simple forum appeals this will no longer be do-able, whichever way this hearing goes.

The industry is set to change drastically IMO.

DoaM

This is going to be very interesting, whatever the outcome.

We all hope Mr. Beavis wins the appeal, but is there going to be any real change if he does?

PS - if he wins the appeal, is PE's claim against him then struck out? If yes, what about their claim against Mr. Wardley?

Folkiedave

Mr. Wardley withdrew from the appeal.

As I understand it this applies to specific circumstances whereby PE paid £30,000 per year for the right to manage the car park in question. Hence the "commercial justification" argument. If they are not paying for the right to charge then there is no "commercial justification".

I suspect it will go to the Supreme Court whoever wins. And remember - no result for a few weeks is likely.

DoaM

Yes, but .... as far as I am aware, Mr. Beavis has not paid PE's claim from the original hearing, pending the appeal outcome. Or am I wrong?

If he hasn't, and PE lose the appeal, do they consequently also lose the original claim?