Catoninetails in da house!

ManxRed

But if this is a contract negotiated between two parties with access to legal reps, then this is not strictly the same as a tiny 8ft. high sign aimed at a member of the public?

TDA

ManxRed wrote: »

But if this is a contract negotiated between two parties with access to legal reps, then this is not strictly the same as a tiny 8ft. high sign aimed at a member of the public?

That's a separate point not really related to the whole can a clause be commercially justified if the 'predominant purpose is to deter' issue though isn't it?

Hopefully the CoA will clarify (obiter or otherwise) whether commercial justification could in theory apply to consumer contracts of this nature at all, or whether it is restricted to dealings between commercial entities.

salmosalaris

And I wonder what Europe would have to say as it has quite a lot to say in consumer contracts ?

salmosalaris

ManxRed wrote: »

My worry with the IPC is that it is simply putting in place a model whereby a higher proportion of people pay up without the need for Court Claims. And that their members are simply happy to take the money and run.

Of course, if this turns out to be true then 'ignore' suddenly becomes fashionable again, and maybe they rethink at that point.

But for now, I suspect their 'pay up' ratio is higher than the BPA's due to the added proportion of people who stump up following the independent appeal rejection, the ratio of which is clearly higher than POPLA's.

Should PE win Beavis it will be interesting to see if the IPC revert to breach . If so ignore is a viable option .
If PE lose and IPC retain the contractual sum my approach would be to demand a VAT invoice and then ignore them whether or not they produce it .
Appealing to the present IAS is a waste of time and effort and affords it credibility it does not deserve IMO

Northlakes

I can't see why the appeal judges are taking so long. I looks fairly straightforward case to me. A landowner has rented out the best bits of the his turnpike in order for the tenant to conduct highway robbery!

Simply illegal and immoral would be my judgement and Beavis should win!

Captain_Leaky

"I can't see why the appeal judges are taking so long.". Maybe they are holding an auction to see who presents the bulkiest brown envelope?

Hot_Bring

I see our feline friend has vanished ... what a surprise !

Half_way

salmosalaris wrote: »

And I wonder what Europe would have to say as it has quite a lot to say in consumer contracts ?

Ive often wondered what the European aspect would/could be.
It was breifly touched upon in the RAC foundation report here:
http://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/private-parking-public-concern-press-release

However in his paper for the RAC Foundation John de Waal QC, a barrister at Hardwicke, argues that this is likely to be several times more than compensation for a genuine loss. So it would not be enforceable by the courts.
In his report John de Waal says:
“Payments at the level that operators presently demand as sanctions are unlikely to count as genuine pre-estimate of loss; they should be seen by the Courts as penalties, which means they are unenforceable.”
If the courts agree with Mr de Waal that many of the tickets issued are “extravagant and unconscionable”, drivers are potentially in line to receive tens, if not hundreds, of millions of pounds in refunds.
Mr de Waal also argues that European consumer legislation which requires contracts to be fair means so-called ‘early payment discounts’, which are often used to put pressure on the public to pay up quickly, or face a higher charge, are in fact unlawful because they constitute a ‘price escalation clause’. He also says that when signs are not clear or prominently displayed, the charge can also be challenged on the grounds of unfairness.

If it does end up with Drivers being re-funded then i hope the attention will turn towards the principal for this re-fund as i fear that the agents (PPCs) will cease to exist and phoenix themselves into another company just as the clampits did.
It would be welcoming to see ques at the ASDA customer support desk, Morrisons CS desk, Aldi, Lidl the lot of em, full of angry customers demanding a re fund there and then.

As for the price escalation clause if this is true and most importantly can be tested then this could cause grief to the PPCs as well.

Thats not forgetting the one thing at the top of this whole thing - the DVLA allowing access to keeper data.
If you have a just cause to obtain RK data then it should be permitted, however not via an automated link, it should only be available via a manual submission where the reasons should be fully checked and verifie.
And at the very least any companies that want RK data should be auditied to make sure that the data is safe with them by the ICO, and all employees are fit and proper people who have passed an enhanced CRB check ( or similar ) to weed out anyone with a conviction for fraud, theft, threatening behavior, dishonesty and so on.
I believe there is one PPC employee that was allegedly involved in some cheat with an exam board, if true then this type of thing should fall fall of a dishonesty clause.

Castle

Half_way wrote: »

As for the price escalation clause if this is true and most importantly can be tested then this could cause grief to the PPCs as well.

I would have thought such a clause could only apply to the price of the goods/services, not a damages claim.

trisontana

"An Excel spokesman said: “Although the appeal to POPLA was successful we do not agree with the decision"

Nothing changes in Excel land. Remember the court case they lost and the remarks made by Excel's boss SRS ? He said the judge was a disgrace to the legal profession. They don't like losing do they?