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

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

Perhjaps, but read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5226710=

posts 1 and 5 do not inspire optimism.

All I can say is, let's wait and see.


OS are engaging with various consumer groups, including a well known appeals company which I mustn't mention on here, to get an overall picture of the private parking landscape.


So far the feedback has been positive.

The_Deep

I doubt if all the consultations in the world will alter the mindset of the staff, who appear to have a distrust of consumers.

Castle

bazster wrote: »

ParkingEye does not make £50M profit, more like £8M. It doesn't even turnover £50M, nowhere near in fact.

ParkingEye's turnover only includes the tickets which are paid; it doesn't include the unpaid tickets.

They are currently making close on 1 million requests to DVLA each year and at £85 each, that's potentially £85 million in turnover.

bazster

Castle wrote: »

ParkingEye's turnover only includes the tickets which are paid; it doesn't include the unpaid tickets.

They are currently making close on 1 million requests to DVLA each year and at £85 each, that's potentially £85 million in turnover.

So what? Since the tickets are alleged to be damages for breach of contract they are not invoices, and therefore there are not millions of unpaid invoices to be included in turnover.

Last I heard they were running at about 600,000 requests p.a. Assuming 60% paid, and an average of say £60 each, gives a turnover of about £22M. But actually their last reported turnover was about £14M, so obviously these assumptions of mine are over-generous.

Even if you did include unpaid tickets in turnover, your £85M against a reported turnover of £14M implies a payment rate of just 16%, which is obvious nonsense.

The_Slithy_Tove

Marktheshark wrote: »

Not forgetting once set in Law, local councils can bring in PE on off street placements and utilise civil law and ANPR.

No they can't. Wycombe tried this and got slapped down by Mr Pickles' department (as it was then). They even had their DVLA access suspended.

Castle

bazster wrote: »

So what? Since the tickets are alleged to be damages for breach of contract they are not invoices, and therefore there are not millions of unpaid invoices to be included in turnover.

Last I heard they were running at about 600,000 requests p.a. Assuming 60% paid, and an average of say £60 each, gives a turnover of about £22M. But actually their last reported turnover was about £14M, so obviously these assumptions of mine are over-generous.

Even if you did include unpaid tickets in turnover, your £85M against a reported turnover of £14M implies a payment rate of just 16%, which is obvious nonsense.

The latest figure I have is 975,352 requests for the year ended 31st December 2014. The £14M turnover refers to the year ended 31 August 2013.

atilla

Capita announced when they bought Parking Eye that PE were forecast to make £8 mill profit for year ended 2014.

By my reckoning, the company accounts are due for publication shortly.

hoohoo

September accourding to duedil

28 may 2014 - filed change of accounting date (to fall in line with capita)
Accounts changed from August 31 to Dec 31.
Due to be published by September

atilla

hoohoo wrote: »

September accourding to duedil

28 may 2014 - filed change of accounting date (to fall in line with capita)
Accounts changed from August 31 to Dec 31.
Due to be published by September

Wasn't far off. :cool:

Northlakes

For the last two nights I have watched the webcast of the CofA proceedings. I must admit to have been a bit distracted by the blonde QC, where every time she seemed a bit stuck, she smiled and flashed her eyelids at their lordships. Feminine advantage they call that!

In the latter stage the one point the PE QC seemed to come unstuck on was not the £85 penalty for an overstay but the same penalty for not parking within a marked bay. One of the law lords picked up on if one car parked outside a marked bay all the other vehicles in the row would then be forced outside a marked bay and cause a multiple breach to the financial advantage of PE.

I don't think the SC has ever had a case before where sole business model of a company depended on a breaches of contract.
The Cornish Wreckers come to mind but that was history.