A Summary of the Beavis Case

bazster

bargepole wrote: »

In terms of the Judgment, their Lordships were correct in saying that the intention of deterrence is insufficient, on its own, to strike down a clause as a penalty.

Really? That sounds like a massive point to concede. As I understand it there is no case law to support this and the authorities are strong on the "deterrent = unenforceable" principle.

If the CoA judges were breaking completely new ground on this then surely it should be central to the next appeal?

The_Deep

I am sorry if I touched a nerve Andrew. However, having just had to bail out my brother in law, (who lives way beyond his means), to the tune of a nice new German motor car, I tend to be a tad unsympathetic to those who accrue large debts on credit cards.

NotBothered

nigelbb wrote: »

When you should be sent a demand for the £10 that you actually owe.

If you forgot to pay a £10 bill before leaving a restaurant you would owe £10 not £100 so why is parking different? The argument about 'commercial justification' of the £100 & turnover of parking spaces doesn't wash if they would have been happy with £10 before the car left the service area.

Do you not get fined for theft anymore then?

bazster

NotBothered wrote: »

Do you not get fined for theft anymore then?

Do you still not understand what theft is then?

Castle

NotBothered wrote: »

Do you not get fined for theft anymore then?

What was stolen at the Motorway service station?

bazster

Castle wrote: »

What was stolen at the Motorway service station?

Or indeed at the hypothetical restaurant.

Guys_Dad

andrewbro wrote: »

With regards to the comment made by The Deep. I am a qualified solicitor and have been practising for over ten years. I am an experienced litigator and have considerable experience of debt recovery so I do have some idea what I am talking about.

I feel that your efforts to use my debts as grounds that I do not know what I am talking about amount to bullying behaviour; however, I do not tolerate such behaviour and have happily reported your post to the moderators. I have also PM'd you to make it clear what my thoughts were on your rather sad little post.

Whereas I would not have made any reference to your debts and, as a result of your post, read back your previous posts on other threads and your financial recovery plan and, secondly, agree that your financial position does not impinge on your parking knowledge, I do feel that to accuse The Deep of bullying is harsh.

I would say that your financial position may be in context and pertinent to your other forum posts perhaps, but has absolutely nothing to do with this parking forum and doesn't need to be in your signature. If it is, then expect comments.

There is a difference between bullying and making a comment on information that you have chosen to bare your soul, so to speak, on a public forum. Your interpretation is stretching the extremities of the definition of bullying.

The_Deep

You do get fined for theft, but the intention must be to permanently deprive someone of their property, thus twocking.

rdr

Originally Posted by bargepole
The Riverside has 12 retail units operating there, with a car park offering 500 spaces. That's an average of 40+ spaces per unit, which seems to me more than adequate for the number of likely customers in a shop at any one time, and the scare stories about the Armageddon which would occur if PE weren't there, are nonsense.

nigelbb wrote: »

The Riverside is far enough from the railway station to deter all but the fittest & most determined of commuters from parking there. However there is no other free car park in Chelmsford own centre & there is a pay car park serving the Leisure Centre directly opposite the Riverside. While there might not be Parking Armageddon if PE were not there this car park is a rare & choice example of a retail car park that does need management to avoid abuse. Doubtless this is the reason why it was chosen by PE as their test case. A far better case from the motorists point of view would have been a short overstay in an out of town shopping mall where the only reason for parking would be to use the shops & facilities provided.

I disagree, Riverside is 5 mins walk fron the station and considerably nearer the City centre than the official long stay car parks. It would fill with all day parkers if there was no control. Ignoring this, unusual for a PPC, fact is not helpful. Parking is difficult in the city centre and there are over 1000 bikes parked at the station, I'm sure many of these people would drive if they could park. The private, all day, pay carpark next door is sold out.

It is, however, true that the 2 hour limit is too short and damages the businesses on the site, it also does not need to be that short to prevent commuter parking. It is also true that the penalty is more than is needed for deterance.

I also think that a well thought out, non-penal system of charges could make more money than the present tripwire system.

The_Deep

Thanks GD but we have sorted it out amicably by pm. I am a grumpy old !!!!!!, brought up to believe that all debt is evil, and, having seen how my low paid brother in law spends money he does not have, do not understand the practice on MSE of what appears to be boasting about debt.