ParkingEye v Beavis at the Supreme Court: What’s Happening This Week

The_Slithy_Tove

ColliesCarer wrote: »

Why isn't de Waal raising the fact that if the charge was consideration it would be revenue and subject to Vat?

He is now.

carandbike

Ridiculous hypothesis... if everyone charges an excessive amount, lets call it £1000, then that is not a penalty, because it's the norm?

The_Slithy_Tove

Their lordships seem to be arguing that the costs of running the car park need to be recovered, but are also firmly caveating around the fact that PE pay the landowner (and a rather rash presumption that the payment goes to physically maintain the car park, whereas in most cases, no such payment is made).

atilla

With the questioning de Waal is getting it seems it's for parking eye to lose.

bazster

carandbike wrote: »

Ridiculous hypothesis... if everyone charges an excessive amount, lets call it £1000, then that is not a penalty, because it's the norm?

He's harking back to the principle by which damages for trespass are calculated, whilst forgetting that this is not a trespass case.

bazster

atilla wrote: »

With the questioning de Waal is getting it seems it's for parking eye to lose.

They may dismantle Captain Kirk too when his turn comes.

atilla

Looks like he's not going to mention that Parking Eye reduced the time limit to 2 hours without anyone noticing.

bazster

atilla wrote: »

Looks like he's not going to mention that Parking Eye reduced the time limit to 2 hours without anyone noticing.

My understanding is that this is an urban myth and there is no evidence for it.

atilla

bazster wrote: »

My understanding is that this is an urban myth and there is no evidence for it.

I personally have no knowledge, simply alluding to comments made on here/pepipoo

atilla

Now, this CA chap seems to have got command of the floor.