Aldi/ParkingEye PCN

cyberbird

4consumerrights wrote: »

You seem to think that advice offered has been hostile - yet it is you that has been keen to pick holes in the NEWBIE thread written by one the most dedicated and experienced posters on this site.

The thread has been updated regularly since it was first introduced to keep up with the latest information available to tackle parking problems.

If I suggest there is a better way, whether I'm right or wrong, that doesn't excuse a hostile response and questioning of my motives. It is only some posters who are hostile. People like Coupon-mad and Guys Dad have been very helpful. There are probably one or two others also.

Advice by all the regular posters is based on the current advice and trends available and changed to suit.

It is those changes that make the procedure better that I am interested in and will be commenting on in future if anything looks like it's worth recommending. I personally think the 100% claim should be dropped. Whilst we are seeing the odd failure with the GPEOL argument I think it would be prudent to be straightforward so newbies know that there is now a small risk of failure.

I fail also to see how your nitpicking with some POPLA decisions has anything to do with any paid appeal service.

I don't think you should simply dismiss these cases. They are interesting because of Amy's (I forget her surname) acceptance of a PEOL which adds up to the "fine" and which doesn't include any obvious items that shouldn't be in the list. Something which I thought the Chief assessor was angling it in the sample case he posted on the POPLA website. Perhaps the other case, where rebuttal was denied, is of less interest but unless assessor's have gone beyond their remit in other cases I've read they don't need a rebuttal to allow the appeal on a clearly defective GPEOL basis, so perhaps we can conclude the GPEOL calculation in that case was acceptable?

I referred to the paid appeal service above because I couldn't understand the hostility I was detecting from some posters, yourself in particular. I was thinking there may be some hidden motive.

It seems strange that you come onto the forum and admit that you have carefully read all the small print on the signs and that this now binds to to the terms...

Actually this is my biggest criticism of the whole thing but it's something I have found very little information on. It does not sit well with me that you are deemed to agree with a contract on a sign. If I said somewhere that I am bound by what is said on the sign then I am basing that on what I have seen. The ParkingEye v Beavis decision comes to mind. If you want me to be more specific, you will have to point me to where I say it.

Coupon-mad

Actually this is my biggest criticism of the whole thing but it's something I have found very little information on. It does not sit well with me that you are deemed to agree with a contract on a sign.

The new Consumer Rights Directive from the EU agrees. As I have started to include in some IAS appeals (when we bother) and have included in the first appeal template now in the Newbies thread, there is new Consumer Contracts legislation this year (and more coming in which will allow ADR to be available for a year...).

The current useful Regs, in my view, are these:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/2/made

Which says any 'distance' contract (not made face to face) with a service provision due to start immediately, must have certain information (which PPCs do not provide) AND 'express consent' from the consumer. Looking at a sign is merely implied consent. The IAS Adjudicator the other day who called this approach 'novel' before turning the appeal down, was rattled IMHO. And agreed with me that a contract formed remotely by sign is a distance contract (he then tried to wriggle out of it and said some old drivel that was laughable, and that there's no case law yet!).

cyberbird

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The new Consumer Rights Directive from the EU agrees. As I have started to include in some IAS appeals (when we bother) and have included in the first appeal template now in the Newbies thread, there is new Consumer Contracts legislation this year (and more coming in which will allow ADR to be available for a year...).

The current useful Regs, in my view, are these:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/2/made

Which says any 'distance' contract (not made face to face) with a service provision due to start immediately, must have certain information (which PPCs do not provide) AND 'express consent' from the consumer. Looking at a sign is merely implied consent. The IAS Adjudicator the other day who called this approach 'novel' before turning the appeal down, was rattled IMHO. And agreed with me that a contract formed remotely by sign is a distance contract (he then tried to wriggle out of it and said some old drivel that was laughable, and that there's no case law yet!).

Excellent!

This gives some hope even if the PE v Beavis appeal is rejected and the GPEOL argument can no longer be relied on.

Beavis and his representatives are hopefully aware of this. HHJ Maloney's "Commercial Justification" is simply perverse (IMHO) when one of the parties hasn't been able to negotiate the contract, however arguments still need to be well made which doesn't appear to have been the case in the CC.

Coupon-mad

Edit - post removed.