The Beavis case

HornetSaver

A man who evidently knows the value of £85

Cheap shot, couldn't resist.

But I agree. The Beavis case is irrelevant to those who appeal parking charges in most circumstances outlined on this site. The only people it could be directly relevant to are those who do not dispute that they were the driver, breached what the driver considers was a valid contract and that the signage was clear, but feel the sum asked for is disproportionate to the infraction.

beamerguy

catfunt wrote: »

This is blackmail:

"Pay me some money or I will send your wife those pictures of you snogging that petite blonde university student from No. 28"

This is not:

"Please note that the Beavis ruling means that we have a claim against you, so please pay the invoice of £150 or we will take you to Court"

So far as the law is concerned, a company is entitled to take you to court if it believes it has a claim against you - the fact we believe they don't is neither here nor there.

And yes we know they try and twist words round to try and ascare people, but in the eyes of the law, that, in my opinion, is not blackmail and a far cry from the sort of case I outlined above.

If it was blackmail, then that would have been proved in a criminal court long before now. The only thing that may come close is the case in Aberdeen against CEL that is still in progress, and that is alleged fraud, so far as I know, and not blackmail.

Point missed. never said a company cannot take you to court.
As the Beavis case was only finalised in November there has been no time let alone long before.
The point is simply that the Beavis case is being used as a lever to scare people into paying

In your words with applicable changes ...

""Pay me some money or we will take you to court as there is a precedent set by the Beavis case"

They do this regardless of the fact that maybe, just maybe, the claim has no relation to Beavis whatsoever.
Equita letters proved that and the others are following

Newbies must make their own mind

beamerguy

HornetSaver wrote: »

A man who evidently knows the value of £85

Cheap shot, couldn't resist.

But I agree. The Beavis case is irrelevant to those who appeal parking charges in most circumstances outlined on this site. The only people it could be directly relevant to are those who do not dispute that they were the driver, breached what the driver considers was a valid contract and that the signage was clear, but feel the sum asked for is disproportionate to the infraction.

Thank you, It's not just me who knows the value of £85 or more, consider the young families, young mums where £85 is more than a weeks shopping and regardless of the rights or wrongs of the parking ticket, they suffer and then get a debt collectors letter nearly doubling that amount quoting the infamous Beavis case which is actually old news now, how scary is that ?
They might, only might find their way onto MSE

The threat of being told "pay us now" or we will win in court because of the Beavis case ..... what other word would you use ?

salmosalaris

@Beamerguy
I really don't know why I'm bothering responding to your complete drivel but :
Can you please tell us all how many court claims you have succesfully helped in defending on the basis that Beavis was irrelevant and the DJ agreed with you ?
Can you please explain how threatening to take someone to court and quoting a case where rhe SC ruled in favour of the parking company amounts to blackmail ?

bargepole

beamerguy wrote: »

What advice ? My post simply stated it was blackmail and clearly showed the reason. I never said take it court. Interesting that you think a judge might think its unreasonable behaviour.
Do you think the action and letters from debt collectors are reasonable ? Maybe you do, but the majority do not, so please no more quoting things I never said, I dread to think what newbies think

You never said take it to court, but the PPCs might well do that. If anyone is going to rely on the threat of 'blackmail' in their defence, they will be lambs to the slaughter.

Of course the threatograms from debt collectors etc are unreasonable, but you would struggle to convince a judge that they constitute a criminal offence of blackmail, that would be laughed out of court. Possibly Fraud under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, but even that would be a stretch.

But the fact remains that you've come on here ranting and raving about the injustices of the whole PPC scam, without giving any constructive advice about how anyone being threatened with court can mount a defence. And the starting point for that has to be to demonstrate how their particular case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, because if it can't, they are most likely to lose.

And don't mention the so-called 'fishing licence', it's already been established that that's completely irrelevant.

beamerguy

salmosalaris wrote: »

@Beamerguy
I really don't know why I'm bothering responding to your complete drivel but :
Can you please tell us all how many court claims you have succesfully helped in defending on the basis that Beavis was irrelevant and the DJ agreed with you ?
Can you please explain how threatening to take someone to court and quoting a case where rhe SC ruled in favour of the parking company amounts to blackmail ?

Drivel :rotfl:

I never said I did or have ? and it has nothing whatsover to do with the Beavis case being irrelevant
Think I have explained this a few times here so if they don't make sense to you, conversation duly ends here

beamerguy

bargepole wrote: »

You never said take it to court, but the PPCs might well do that. If anyone is going to rely on the threat of 'blackmail' in their defence, they will be lambs to the slaughter.

Of course the threatograms from debt collectors etc are unreasonable, but you would struggle to convince a judge that they constitute a criminal offence of blackmail, that would be laughed out of court. Possibly Fraud under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, but even that would be a stretch.

But the fact remains that you've come on here ranting and raving about the injustices of the whole PPC scam, without giving any constructive advice about how anyone being threatened with court can mount a defence. And the starting point for that has to be to demonstrate how their particular case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, because if it can't, they are most likely to lose.

And don't mention the so-called 'fishing licence', it's already been established that that's completely irrelevant.

But don't we all rant and rave about the PPC Scam, what on earth are you talking about, my point was simply the threatening letter they send out, nothing to do with the beavis case or going to court using the beavis case .... where did you get that from ?

yotmon

I believe that we are looking at the wrong laws relating to PPCs. Instead of trying to adapt the Theft Act 1968 to fit around the wording of their letters, it would be beneficial to be directed towards the laws and legislation governing private parking. As far as I know, there are no specific laws on the statute books which state what a ppc can use as 'offences' such a parking outside a designated bay or wearing the wrong coloured socks on a Tuesday etc. The POFA 2012 covers such things as access to dvla, keeper liability and definitions of relevant land etc., which should always be the cornerstone of peoples learning.

Newbies (and Oldies) should be directed towards the Corporate/Civil laws which relates to the crux of the matter - Contract law. Also any stated cases that can be called upon as a defence. The Beavis case is now out there as a stated case, so should be picked to pieces on how it can effect certain cases. I'm not saying that everyone needs to become a 'Legal Eagle' but if they are pointed in the right direction of learning, then they would have a far greater understanding of the relevant legislation.

Perhaps the 'regulars' on here who have parking law court experience could compile a list (time permitting) of the current laws necessary to understand what's required. Who knows, with the knowledge learned, we can form a posse to round up those pesky ppc cowboys :rotfl:

beamerguy

yotmon wrote: »

Perhaps the 'regulars' on here who have parking law court experience could compile a list (time permitting) of the current laws necessary to understand what's required. Who knows, with the knowledge learned, we can form a posse to round up those pesky ppc cowboys :rotfl:

PERFECT yotman, let's see what comes back:T

catfunt

yotmon wrote: »

Perhaps the 'regulars' on here who have parking law court experience could compile a list (time permitting) of the current laws necessary to understand what's required.

That has been done..... no?

It's all been summarised in the NEWBIES thread.....

OK, the relevent laws may not have been quoted chapter and verse, but they have been put into a form which is as easy to understand as is possible.