We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Catoninetails in da house!

167891012»

Comments

  • TDA
    TDA Posts: 268 Forumite
    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.

    If PE win Beavis (in terms that make it applicable to all their car parks) that would be something best kept schtum about, otherwise it would be bye bye early discount on all of PE's now commercially justified penalties...
  • nigelbb
    nigelbb Posts: 3,819 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Half_way wrote: »
    IAs 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.
    Some PPCs have an extreme price escalation clause with not only a 'discount' for payment within 14 days but an even larger 'discount' if paid within 24 hours.
  • Has the cat lost her tongue :)

    Hopefully they will have seen by their trolling all they have done is re invigorate members to keep up the good fight
    I Am Charlie
  • The_Deep
    The_Deep Posts: 16,830 Forumite
    Hopefully he/she will see that we are not all ill-informed zealots.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • Castle wrote: »
    In Makdessi v Cavendish:-"The Court of Appeal found that the clauses were unenforceable penalties. They weren’t genuine pre-estimates of loss, and weren’t commercially justified."

    In the interests of completeness, in PE vs. Beavis, HHJ Moloney concluded that all of the conditions of extravagance, unjustifiability and predominant purpose of deterrence need apply. The £85 charge was definitely for deterrence, but it wasn't extravagant or unjustifiable.

    Unfortunately, his logic in reaching that conclusion seems very odd: namely that PE would go out of business if they didn't have that charging model, therefore their charging model is justified. By the same token, why wouldn't PE charge £300 per ticket, or £500? Again, it seems odd to define that a particular business model has a right to continue, and that the law must uphold any profit model which is not manifestly illegal.

    But no doubt the CoA will be considering this, too. Hence all the questioning about whether PE really would get sacked if they didn't charge £85 a pop.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.1K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.