So...

ManxRed

Staples are notorious for appointing PPCs on land that they themselves have no legal standing on, so I doubt they care about the legalities of the PPC business model, and the finer points of law in relation to these sorts of things.

jhiker

Is somebody working on updating the 'initial appeal' template in the Newbies forum?

Coupon-mad

Yes, me, but somewhat busy...

bazster

ManxRed wrote: »

Staples are notorious for appointing PPCs on land that they themselves have no legal standing on, so I doubt they care about the legalities of the PPC business model, and the finer points of law in relation to these sorts of things.

Indeed, any company that employs the services of JAS cannot be trusted.

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Good spot! Didn't take long to find it...

hahahahahahahahaha!!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5051991

:T

He seems to have been to the same school of double standards as arthurx1234.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=69470155&postcount=45

Confucius says 'Man who flow stone in grasshouse need good memoly'

bargepole

Half_way wrote: »

...if staples had acted correctly and either had a working machine, or made sure that parking eye wouldn't persecute Barry, this whole saga wouldn't have happened.

Yes it would. They would just have picked a different motorist for their 'test case'.

nigelbb

bargepole wrote: »

Yes it would. They would just have picked a different motorist for their 'test case'.

Before this 'test case' could be chosen by PE it required a motorist to make an appeal against the small claims court verdict. PE must have been very pleased that Barry Beavis did appeal given the circumstances. There are very, very few appeals by motorists against court verdicts & I can't recall one against PE.

The verdict of the Supreme Court could have been very different with a more typical case e.g. short overstay, no fishing licence, principal requesting cancellation etc but PE wouldn't have been so keen to go all the way to the Supreme Court if there was any chance of them losing.

matttye

DCodd wrote: »

mattye, I'm sure you know that your posting history is available to anyone who wants to look. Everyone makes mistakes, don't we, some, people get away with it, others have to seek advice.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Good spot! Didn't take long to find it...

hahahahahahahahaha!!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5051991

:T

bazster wrote: »

:rotfl:

Geez, and to think that I of all people gave advice to someone who read the signage, knew what the terms were and still by his own admission broke them!

Seems that no-one's perfect after all. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, eh, matttye?

Yep I took my chances with a free space knowing full well it might not be long enough and got lucky. I could have quite easily gone and found a paid for car park which would have been given me more time.

Your point?

onomatopoeia99

nigelbb wrote: »

The verdict of the Supreme Court could have been very different with a more typical case e.g. short overstay, no fishing licence, principal requesting cancellation etc but PE wouldn't have been so keen to go all the way to the Supreme Court if there was any chance of them losing.

Not so sure, given that the judgement in Beavis was about the law on penalties and considered together with the Cavendish case based on similar priciples, the court decided it was time to grasp the nettle as Dunlop had become quasi-statutory and over-relied upon.

This is from the judgement by Neuberger:

The penalty rule in England is an ancient, haphazardly constructed edifice which has not weathered well, and which in the opinion of some should simply be demolished, and in the opinion of others should be reconstructed and extended. For many years, the courts have struggled to apply standard tests formulated more than a century ago for relatively simple transactions to altogether more complex situations. The application of the rule is often adventitious. The test for distinguishing penal from other principles is unclear. As early as 1801, in Astley v Weldon (1801) 2 Bos & Pul 346, 350 Lord Eldon confessed himself, not for the first time, “much embarrassed in ascertaining the principle on which [the rule was] founded”. Eighty years later, in Wallis v Smith (1882) 21 Ch D 243, 256, Sir George Jessel MR, not a judge noted for confessing ignorance, observed that “The ground of that doctrine I do not know”. In 1966 Diplock LJ, not a judge given to recognising defeat, declared that he could “make no attempt, where so many others have failed, to rationalise this common law rule”: Robophone Facilities Ltd v Blank [1966] 1 WLR 1428, 1446. The task is no easier today. But unless the rule is to be abolished or substantially extended, its application to any but the clearest cases requires some underlying principle to be identified.


I don't think they'd have decided much different had it been a short overstay, they were looking to ascertain principles to be applied in future to give guidance to other courts.

HO87

We are well aware of the basis of the judgment but we are also well aware of some of the peculiarities of the case that single it from the run of the mill cases dealt with here. That is what is being debated at the moment not the over all judgment.