Beavis - how can we go further?

Marktheshark

It has revealed that they are willing to pay a £1000 a week to work the car park.
Now if you have them infesting your car park, say you are a supermarket like Morrisons or Aldi, you might want to know where your grand a week is....

RICKY_LIAR

Mmmmm...missed the point me thinks Mark.

The_Deep

RICKY_LIAR wrote: »

.....and have look at our hero on Deudil.....I wonder how many other people have been left ever 'so short' when our perpetual appealer decided to 'cease' trading......

This is meaningless to me. Who is "our hero", what is Deudil?

bazster

RICKY_LIAR wrote: »

Again, although valiant in your response, mr beavis lost - again.....
Headline Hitting RAC Foundation paper on unlawfulness? Sorry, I missed that when reported in the Times.....and I must have been out when the BBC and Newsnight aired Mr De Waal's bone cruising and devastating...er...opinion.

Out? More likely dozing, being how dozy you seem to be. Dunno about the Times, I don't read Murdoch shoite, but here are several reports to help you catch up:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31545417
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rac-millions-of-drivers-may-have-been-illegally-charged-for-parking-10060902.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/11424093/Thousands-of-illegal-private-parking-fines-may-be-refunded.html

Sadly the BBC TV and radio pieces have probably dropped off of the iPlayer by now.

Cornucopia

RICKY_LIAR wrote: »

... how WILL this action harm the likes of Parking eye?

THIS action i.e. the Supreme Court case will be the last chance within British courts for Judges to recognise that not only is there precedent against the notion of consumers being fined or penalised by companies, but that it is a good thing, too. Why do you think the Consumers' Association is represented?

Before this long overdue case, the regulars and appeals companies (pretending to be regular contributors on here) pinned their hopes on the appeal courts decision. Sadly, they were wrong and Beavis lost.

I don't think you understand how the Law works. It's generally speaking much less about absolute right and wrong, but about making the more credible case that is consistent with other principles.

We all know just how much is suspect about the PPC regime, but the Appeal Court has a process, part of which has the effect of narrowing the field of interest to particular points of Law. In this case, the PPC won on those particular points of Law. However, anyone else could take on the PPCs on any other point of Law and potentially win. That is how it works.

Not once have any of these regulars have the decency to accept responsibility for the poor and misguided advice - that has cost others people money.

I'm pretty sure that advice has been couched in the terms that it remains the appellant's responsibility to be clear about what they are doing.

bazster

RICKY_LIAR wrote: »

Not once have any of these regulars have the decency to accept responsibility for the poor and misguided advice - that has cost others people money.

Ah, you are on again about your own stupid decision to pay money to a conman which no-one on this forum ever advised you to do!

bazster

The_Deep wrote: »

This is meaningless to me. Who is "our hero", what is Deudil?

Duedil (sadly the aptly-named Mr. Liar can't spell) is a business information service, and Mr. Pants-on-Fire is presumably referring to the various dissolved companies of which Barry Beavis has previously been a director.

Unfortunately Mr. Liar is jumping to conclusions because he doesn't actually understand the information he is reading.

ColliesCarer

RICKY_LIAR wrote: »

Mmmmm...missed the point me thinks Mark.

Has he?

Well contract renewal time for PE will tell.

Their web site claims they manage 900 + parking facilities in the UK (reducing by the day btw) many of which will be free for limited time car parks whose owners may very well want one of those £1000/week cakes Riverside owners are getting.

So lets say only 50% fall into that category

450 x 1000 x 52

You do the maths

Castle

ColliesCarer wrote: »

Their web site claims they manage 900 + parking facilities in the UK (reducing by the day btw) many of which will be free for limited time car parks whose owners may very well want one of those £1000/week cakes Riverside owners are getting.

Maybe the price of "cakes" will have to go up to say £5,000 per week since their charges are apparently "legal". At £85 a go, you would only need 9 PCN's per day to break even, so PE can easily afford it!

ColliesCarer

Castle wrote: »

Maybe the price of "cakes" will have to go up to say £5,000 per week since their charges are apparently "legal". At £85 a go, you would only need 9 PCN's per day to break even, so PE can easily afford it!

Think you must be assuming the £85 is both paid and is all profit.

And it can't be that can it because PE are constantly claiming that not only are their charges commercially justified but are nevertheless based on a genuine pre-estimate of loss