We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
The Beavis case
beamerguy
Posts: 17,587 Forumite
Why do these stupid PPC's keep referring to the Beavis case ?
The Supreme Court very clearly stated that £85 was reasonable, although everybody disagrees.
That's £85 not £86 or £100 or more.
The court did not take into account that the Private Parking Industry uses low life debt collectors who attempt to double the amount and even more.
By threatening people that if they do not pay, the Beavis case will win for the PPC.
These are empty threats designed to scare people and extort money from you.
In reality, this IS BLACKMAIL
"Blackmail refers to a situation that arises when a person threatens another person with some form of punishment if they do not offer some form of concessions ... IN OTHER WORDS YOUR MONEY ?"
The term originates from the words "black" and "mail", which referred to the dark or threatening nature of the letters (mail) that were received detailing the threat.
Section 21 of Theft Act 1968 criminalises blackmail. It is a more serious offence than it is regarded to be by many people. The punishment for blackmail upon conviction can be as high as 14 years in prison
As it is now highly unlikely that anyone would now query the charge as being unfair, all thanks to the Supreme Court, there are still ways to beat the vermin PPC's.
As the private parking industry is now in turmoil what with the BPA scandal and that other lot ... the Red Cow boys who probably pop into the Red Cow pub at the end of the lane, to make decisions over a pint.
If you receive a letter from the PPC or the bully boy debt collectors quoting the Beavis case which has no bearing to your claim, they must be asked why they are attempting to blackmail you and on what grounds.
Just as they are attempting to extort money from you use the Beavis case, remind them of the law regarding blackmail
Section 21 of Theft Act 1968 criminalises blackmail. It is a more serious offence than it is regarded to be by many people. The punishment for blackmail upon conviction can be as high as 14 years in prison
Dark or Threatening nature of the letters (mail) that were received detailing the threat:eek::eek::(
The Supreme Court very clearly stated that £85 was reasonable, although everybody disagrees.
That's £85 not £86 or £100 or more.
The court did not take into account that the Private Parking Industry uses low life debt collectors who attempt to double the amount and even more.
By threatening people that if they do not pay, the Beavis case will win for the PPC.
These are empty threats designed to scare people and extort money from you.
In reality, this IS BLACKMAIL
"Blackmail refers to a situation that arises when a person threatens another person with some form of punishment if they do not offer some form of concessions ... IN OTHER WORDS YOUR MONEY ?"
The term originates from the words "black" and "mail", which referred to the dark or threatening nature of the letters (mail) that were received detailing the threat.
Section 21 of Theft Act 1968 criminalises blackmail. It is a more serious offence than it is regarded to be by many people. The punishment for blackmail upon conviction can be as high as 14 years in prison
As it is now highly unlikely that anyone would now query the charge as being unfair, all thanks to the Supreme Court, there are still ways to beat the vermin PPC's.
As the private parking industry is now in turmoil what with the BPA scandal and that other lot ... the Red Cow boys who probably pop into the Red Cow pub at the end of the lane, to make decisions over a pint.
If you receive a letter from the PPC or the bully boy debt collectors quoting the Beavis case which has no bearing to your claim, they must be asked why they are attempting to blackmail you and on what grounds.
Just as they are attempting to extort money from you use the Beavis case, remind them of the law regarding blackmail
Section 21 of Theft Act 1968 criminalises blackmail. It is a more serious offence than it is regarded to be by many people. The punishment for blackmail upon conviction can be as high as 14 years in prison
Dark or Threatening nature of the letters (mail) that were received detailing the threat:eek::eek::(
0
Comments
-
not quite correct , they are QUOTING the bevis case , which in most cases is not applicable , QUOTING is not blackmail
they might as well add a line saying the pope eats fish on Fridays , that has about the same bearing as the bevis case in most instances.
we all know they are using it as a SCARE tactic , not BLACKMAIL , so I think your actions are unfoundedSave a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
pappa_golf wrote: »not quite correct , they are QUOTING the bevis case , which in most cases is not applicable , QUOTING is not blackmail
they might as well add a line saying the pope eats fish on Fridays , that has about the same bearing as the bevis case in most instances.
we all know they are using it as a SCARE tactic , not BLACKMAIL , so I think your actions are unfounded
Dark or Threatening nature of the letters (mail) that were received detailing the threat .... THEY ARE USING THE beavis case as a threat which scares people into paying:eek::eek:0 -
the ones I have seen posted are QUOTING the bevis case in an attempt to hoodwink people , but at no stage blackmailing them
the bevis result was badly published by the press , they gave a blanket statement without referring to the type of car park / contract that was formed.
your anger would be better spent getting the press to explain things correctly to the large percentage of people with tickets that do not frequent MSE or other motoring forums.
why not make a youtube film , and publicize the link ?
and NO you are not allowed to hold a card saying "PPCs are scum" in front of a camera for 10 minsSave a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
@beamerguy Your statements regarding the offence are true - as far as they go - but like many who have trodden this path before you rely upon a simplified definition that obscures the truth.
Whilst I am entirely willing to bow to superior understanding, perhaps you could explain how, in order to secure a conviction, the prosecution might prove the following:
a. That the demands made were unwarranted and the maker of them did not believe they had reasonable grounds for making them.
b. That any "threats" attached to the demands amounted to menaces and cannot be justified as proper means of reinforcing the demands
Keeping in mind that you have to do so on the basis of individual cases.
Perhaps I'm missing something but I do not understand the connection between this "debate" based on a clear misunderstanding of blackmail and the title of this thread.My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016).
For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com0 -
pappa_golf wrote: »the ones I have seen posted are QUOTING the bevis case in an attempt to hoodwink people , but at no stage blackmailing them
the bevis result was badly published by the press , they gave a blanket statement without referring to the type of car park / contract that was formed.
your anger would be better spent getting the press to explain things correctly to the large percentage of people with tickets that do not frequent MSE or other motoring forums.
why not make a youtube film , and publicize the link ?
and NO you are not allowed to hold a card saying "PPCs are scum" in front of a camera for 10 mins
Hoodwink is the same, attempting to obtain money using a statement which is threatening giving the reader the impression that it will happen to them if they don't pay up. ???0 -
Dont use business that employ such people in their car parks.
Job done.
Leave it to the sheep.I do Contracts, all day every day.0 -
a. That the demands made were unwarranted and the maker of them did not believe they had reasonable grounds for making them.
b. That any "threats" attached to the demands amounted to menaces and cannot be justified as proper means of reinforcing the demands
Sums up in different words just what these letters are saying0 -
As I keep saying, any misappropriate reference to Beavis v PE should be the subject of complaints to Trading Standards and the trade association. The IPC should certainly not be quoting it in contractual charge cases.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
-
Why do these stupid PPC's keep referring to the Beavis case ?
The Supreme Court very clearly stated that £85 was reasonable, although everybody disagrees.
That's £85 not £86 or £100 or more.
The court did not take into account that the Private Parking Industry uses low life debt collectors who attempt to double the amount and even more.
By threatening people that if they do not pay, the Beavis case will win for the PPC.
These are empty threats designed to scare people and extort money from you
Another utterly pointless thread from the rabble rouser .0 -
They can and will do what they like when they like.
These people have enough power and money to change hundreds of years of standing law and they did.
Nobody is going to get on the wrong side of them, that I will stand on, money buys anything and they have lots of it.I do Contracts, all day every day.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453K Spending & Discounts
- 242.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.4K Life & Family
- 255.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards