MSE News: Parking campaigner fails to challenge 'excessive' charge at Supreme Court

PEScum

enfield_freddy wrote: »

kerchang , its started , reduce the time increase the rake in ]

That site throws up all sorts of spam when accessed from my phone!

Marktheshark

Counter claiming the parking charge against the actual landowner so they are dragged in to court and only get £90 towards their solicitors bill is a new idea.

They will soon get fed up with getting dragged in to court over parking matters.
Time to start playing the dirty game me thinks.

esmerobbo

One issue is, as with Barry Beavis what happens if you need more then two hours, or whatever the limit is.

It would be interesting to see how many invoices are raised at that site at Christmas and bank holidays. Seeing the method of time measurement is from entry to exit and not actually shopping.

Castle

esmerobbo wrote: »

One issue is, as with Barry Beavis what happens if you need more then two hours, or whatever the limit is.

It would be interesting to see how many invoices are raised at that site at Christmas and bank holidays. Seeing the method of time measurement is from entry to exit and not actually shopping.

If there's no possibility of staying longer by paying (like Motorway service stations for example) then you'll have to leave. If I was buying a large item and my two hours were nearly up I would ask for a discount on the item to cover my parking charge.

Driving around looking for a parking space and time spent leaving the car park is not parking, (there is case law for this). However this won't stop the PPC from issuing tickets, which is why I have bought a Dashcam.

Marktheshark

The wider implications for every scammer in the country are enormous.
Offer someone a phone contract that looks a bargain and build in a penalty that they lose their house ?
It's now legal, the Judges decided that laws protecting customers from contracts written in what is essentially a different language, many of which can be dozens of pages of text long, well those laws were repealed.
A contract is a contract and you accept it and lose your house for lets say using 1mb too much data on a phone contract from dodgy mobiles are us and its tough.

This is one case we need the EU to step in and make England obey the EU law on contracts.
We now have a two tier system, English law which says ripping people off with "fines" is ok and EU law which says NO !

However, what have they won here, the opportunity to act like clampers and fill their boots ?
The stupid that use car parks infested by this firm, will never learn.
They go back, again and again.
But now shooting the turkeys is legal in law, the situation will change, every point has a tipping point and like all greedy scam artiste's they will overcook this goose.

What they have won, is the death of the PPC industry, the public will see to that when they inevitably over egg the cake .

The_Deep

What they have one, is the death of the PPC industry, the public will see to that .

I very much doubt it Mark, do not underestimate the stupidity of the average British consumer,.

The UK is a country where tee shirts, produced in South Asian sweatshops for kess than a pound, retailn in the High Street for up to £30, where a re[placement timer for your cooker costs more than a cheap vacuum cleaner, where Brighthouse flourish, where Sellyourgoldforapittance shops pay less than a tenth of spot.

This is Ripoff Britain, with the highest rail fares in the world, where a night in a humble B&B costs more than a four star hotel in Spain, where a bottle of wine in a restaurant has a 700% mark up.

People will always use free car parks, people will always buy overpriced Chinese tat, people will always feed FOBTs, people will always do daft things.
Where the pleasures of the common man, booze and baccy, carry several hundred percent tax.

Castle

Marktheshark wrote: »

What they have won, is the death of the PPC industry, the public will see to that when they inevitably over egg the cake .

Well hopefully the 98% or so of the people who don't appeal their tickets, will now wake up and do so. Could the industry deal with 3 million or more appeals each year.

nigelbb

Marktheshark wrote: »

The wider implications for every scammer in the country are enormous.
Offer someone a phone contract that looks a bargain and build in a penalty that they lose their house ?
It's now legal, the Judges decided that laws protecting customers from contracts written in what is essentially a different language, many of which can be dozens of pages of text long, well those laws were repealed.
A contract is a contract and you accept it and lose your house for lets say using 1mb too much data on a phone contract from dodgy mobiles are us and its tough.

This sort of unfair contract which tricks the consumer to their disadvantage is exactly what consumer protection laws are meant to forbid.

Half_way

As mentioned above, it's going to be interesting to see who stays on the commercially justified penalty route first, my guess is the hospitality industry such as budget hotel chains, transport such as vehicle hire, as well as the telecoms industry.

nigelbb

Half_way wrote: »

As mentioned above, it's going to be interesting to see who stays on the commercially justified penalty route first, my guess is the hospitality industry such as budget hotel chains, transport such as vehicle hire, as well as the telecoms industry.

Only the car park 'industry' has a parallel system of statutory penalties that really are fines. Half the reason that people pay up without appealing is because they feel guilty because they feel they have done something wrong & that the penalty is justified.

I cannot think of any other example where private penalties could ride on the coat tails of real enforceable statutory penalties. Consumers will just see them all as unfair & they should in any case be banned under existing consumer legislation.