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

rdr

carandbike wrote: »

No argument, but not everyone is familiar with Chelmsford nor other alternatives nearby be they paid or not. I was just highlighting that a choice of £6 or £85 was there for commuters to park all day if they wished to. As you know and others may not, Riverside isn't exactly a hop skip and a jump from the station as it is often portrayed to be.

5-10 mins if I dawdle to the station same to rest of the city centre, I'd walk that to save £5 a day out of taxed income if I had to commute. My point being that if the choice is £5 in the various carparks or 0 in an unregulated Riverside, I know what I and many others would choose.

Not that current system is right - as I have said many times.

Herzlos

It's beyond me as well.

trisontana wrote: »

Another point regarding Barry Beavis's overstay, was there anywhere on site where he could pay for that extra time he needed?

Of course not, because he's only allowed to visit for 2 hours.

bod1467

Herzlos wrote: »

Why not just leave the barrier down until 8am, when all of the commuters are already on the train?

Apart from other reasons mentioned, that would also involve employing somebody to open and close the gate/barrier ... far more expensive than a few cameras.

bargepole

Full transcript of Thursday's proceedings now available:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/4kcnkumb5xviqge/Transcript_Day3.pdf?dl=0

getmore4less

General comments about any car park not just this one.)

The comuter issue is relatively easy to solve with adjusted timings in most car parks.

You sync the time allowed with the shop opening hours that "most" shoppers will be happy with.

Enter before 9:00am you get 2hr enter after 9:00 you get longer.

You could also have an exit complication to catch the comuters coming home but probably not needed.

The secondary long stayers are normal local workers.

The issue I have with our local parking eye place is the limits still apply when the shops are ALL shut.

bazster

bargepole wrote: »

Full transcript of Thursday's proceedings now available:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/4kcnkumb5xviqge/Transcript_Day3.pdf?dl=0

Bloody hell, Lord Neuberger offered de Waal an open goal right at the start and he never even saw it!

And there is a basic point on the law of contract on the first question, whether an agreement to do something which you are in law, anyway, bound to do because you are getting no more than a licence is in fact an agreement.

Neuberger invited de Waal to re-open the point which Moloney screwed up, whether there was a contract at all or whether the "promise to leave" that Moloney misinterpreted as consideration was in reality just an existing obligation not to trespass upon expiry of the licence.

<kicks wall in frustration>

Shell2015

bazster wrote: »

Bloody hell, Lord Neuberger offered de Waal an open goal right at the start and he never even saw it!

<kicks wall in frustration>

In fairness they agreed to issue new written accounts about this by next Thursday to solidify the position of what it actually is.

So if they have not thought about that already and if you are correct, you might want to point that out to Barry/Waal etc.

Guys_Dad

bazster wrote: »

<kicks wall in frustration>

I think you will find it is spelt Waal :rotfl:

Redx

trisontana wrote: »

Another point regarding Barry Beavis's overstay, was there anywhere on site where he could pay for that extra time he needed?

no m8, he expressly said so to eamonn holmes on tuesday too

bazster

Shell2015 wrote: »

In fairness they agreed to issue new written accounts about this by next Thursday to solidify the position of what it actually is.

So if they have not thought about that already and if you are correct, you might want to point that out to Barry/Waal etc.

I've suggested it, whether they pick it up and run with it is of course up to them!