Planning appeals following the Beavis Case

salmosalaris

TDA wrote: »

The payment of £1,000 a week that PE make to the landowner did not appear to factor into the judges reasoning regarding the charges being commercially justified in any way. It was only discussed briefly regarding the principal v agent debate, the judge gave other reasons for his belief that the charges were commercially justified none of which were to do with the £1,000 payments. Read the judgment. I'm not sure how many more times this can be said...

Whilst broadly agreeing with you HHJ did state it was desirable for PE to make a profit when determining whether a charge was commercially justified . In that case there is a perversity in paying 1k a week, calculating how much you need to recoup that, then how much to make a profit on top before determining the charge .
Exploitation of the situation rather than genuine control ?
I realise that this is very little diifference in this situation to a kick back in advance but at least a kick back follows an actual breach , it's not a prediction of breaches you are meant to be preventing

TDA

salmosalaris wrote: »

Whilst broadly agreeing with you HHJ did state it was desirable for PE to make a profit when determining whether a charge was commercially justified . In that case there is a perversity in paying 1k a week, calculating how much you need to recoup that, then how much to make a profit on top before determining the charge .
Exploitation of the situation rather than genuine control ?
I realise that this is very little direness in this situation to a kick back in advance but at least a kick back follows an actual breach , it's not a prediction of breaches you are meant to be preventing

I completely agree that the concept of paying £1,000 to a landowner to fish for motorists is perverse, but in this case surely it only strengthens PE's argument?

Paying £52,000 serves to lower their profitability and if the profit margins look more reasonable (20% instead of say 40% - I've no idea how much PE actually make annually on this site) the argument that a charge if £85, rather than £60 or £40 is commercially justified holds more weight.

Though as you state the level of profit was only one of a number of factors considered by HHJ Moloney when assessing whether the charge was commercially justifiable.

Marktheshark

The Charge is commercially viable.
One payment appears to grant parking for life.
If you break the terms you agree to pay £xxxx
Now over several years that looks like a good offer to me.
Pay once, park everyday, you have accepted the contracted charge if you choose the commercial offer of the £85 option, it makes no mention of how long, how many times you can return, near me it just says if you stay over 3 hours or return within 4 hours in 24 the charge is £85 .
No mention of how long you can stay or visit if you take them up on the £85 commercial contract offer

Now £85 for a lifetimes contract parking looks a blooming good offer to me.
They can have one, they can have the other, but they can not have both.
I dont think they have thought this through.
Lifetime parking Town centre £85 anyone ?
I'm In !
Every cloud has a silver line .

Fergie76

Mike172 wrote: »

I hope the regulars will pull something off because without their help I know Ill be screwed.

Speaking of regulars, what's happened to Coupon-Mad?

TDA

Marktheshark wrote: »

The Charge is commercially viable.
One payment appears to grant parking for life.
If you break the terms you agree to pay £xxxx
Now over several years that looks like a good offer to me.
Pay once, park everyday, you have accepted the contracted charge if you choose the commercial offer of the £85 option, it makes no mention of how long, how many times you can return, near me it just says if you stay over 3 hours or return within 4 hours in 24 the charge is £85 .
No mention of how long you can stay or visit if you take them up on the £85 commercial contract offer

Now £85 for a lifetimes contract parking looks a blooming good offer to me.
They can have one, they can have the other, but they can not have both.
I dont think they have thought this through.
Lifetime parking Town centre £85 anyone ?
I'm In !
Every cloud has a silver line .

Not really sure how you are constructing the contract in this manner?

Sure, it would give you lifetime parking if you don't ever want to remove your vehicle from the car park. But every time you return you agree to a new contract.

Fergie76 wrote:

Speaking of regulars, what's happened to Coupon-Mad?

Was wondering the same earlier today.

Castle

TDA wrote: »

Not really sure how you are constructing the contract in this manner?

Sure, it would give you lifetime parking if you don't ever want to remove your vehicle from the car park. But every time you return you agree to a new contract.

Maybe the local travelling community would take up the £85 "lifetime parking offer"!

Mike172

Fergie76 wrote: »

Speaking of regulars, what's happened to Coupon-Mad?

What I was thinking recently, and why I wrote the thread actually.

Browntoa

not been online here since the 19th ??

Herzlos

If only there was a way to just pay the £85

Mike172

If CM has done a runner then were all screwed!