Beavis - Court of Appeal - Consumer's Association

JonnyRotten

bargepole wrote: »

Hossain's original skeleton on behalf of the Appellant: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7o8fuzjejpgmd98/Hossain%20Skeleton%20Final.docx?dl=0


Kirk's skeleton on behalf of the Respondent:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/x7w5fqdhafz51bb/Kirk%27s%20Skeleton%20Argument.pdf?dl=0


Hossain's supplementary skeleton in response to above: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o5ck2g482k9uxfv/Hossain%20supplemental%20skeleton.docx?dl=0

Everyone needs to read these thoroughly. There'll be a test later ...

Thanks a lot bargepole

I note that the Hossain Skeleton Final.docx is only in draft format with changes highlighted, is there another version that is completed, perchance?

Lots in all three documents to absorb. Busy re-reading.

Hope the CoA finds for Beavis, it might make it all much simpler. Of course, even though this might rule on penalty and commercial interest and such, everyone needs to look carefully at their own circumstances.

Beavis was specific with the points that he fought, he did not deny parking in that car-park.

However, across the country it would not be surprising to find that some signage and wording may not meet contract criteria. No one seems to be fighting against ANPR photographs at entry and exit without positional reference, hardly proof of a vehicle within a car-park. PE have to prove that a vehicle was in a given car-park for all of the alleged time!

PE apply the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice as given in the Home Office Surveillance Camera Code of Practice (SSCP), Presented to Parliament Pursuant to Section 30 (1) (a) of POFA, this is not as prescriptive as police rules. So, how can they not have to do the same as police using similar quality ANPR processes as contained in the Home Office National ANPR Standards for Policing: Parts 1 and 2.

And dodgy paperwork, especially contracts between PE and landowners. And tenants already paying for car-parks within their rental. And so forth.

I still love the comments that Deputy District Judge (DDJ) Melville-Shreeve made regarding the ParkingEye Ltd and Mrs Natasha Collins-Danielle case. Everyone is tossing case law around with filleted sound bites to suit one's point of view and that could be said to have some dubious links to the parking issue in question.

Anyway what do any of us know?

a post Easter mad as a March hare JonnyRotten enjoying some sunshine