Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'beavis'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 11 results

  1. In a landmark case, Parking Eye won an appeal in the High Court with regard to parking charges, this has since been adopted as a standard reference in parking cases and also is beginning to be used in other "Unfair" charges cases. I have started this thread for discussion purposes so all thoughts are welcomed. It is my opinion, much the same as OFT v Abbey National and Others 2009 is irrelevant to credit card claims as it was clearly relevant to bank charges, that PE v Beavis is equally irrelevant to credit card claims as it is for a parking charge. This is just a start to what i am hoping will be a meaningful discussion involving as many ideas and thoughts of caggers as possible. Lets go, air your views
  2. Not really into conspircy theories etc but it seems strange that a decision was given against Beavis with PE winning the court case especially as PE is owned by Capita and Capita is really cosy with the government who pays judges to make decisions. I wonder if some one somewhere helped the judge to make the decision that affects consumers?
  3. http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/protect/2015/06/motorist-takes-parking-charge-challenge-to-highest-uk-court I would now argue that if any PPC try to use the current judgement in their claim that the defendant highlights that an appeal has now been filed and the reference to Bevis be inappropriate until the supreme court make a ruling. Let us hope common sense prevails.
  4. ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) Case summary Issue The parties are aware that the appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in El Makdessi v Cavendish Square Holdings BV [2013] EWCA Civ 1539 is listed for hearing on 21-23 July 2015 and that there is considerable overlap between the issues in that case and the issues in the present appeal both of which are concerned with penalties. Facts The Appellant is presently liaising with the Respondent and the parties to the El Makdessi appeal with a view to considering whether it is desirable, or indeed possible, to list these two appeals together. The Appellant wishes to draw this matter to the Court's attention at the earliest possible moment should the Court wish to consider the matter of its own motion. Judgment appealed [2015] EWCA Civ 402 This case may make Supreme Court TV on that day so you might be able to see the case live Info from here https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html Attached PDF from here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/402.html The referenced case can be found here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1539.html or read the judgment with the attachment
  5. Barry Beavis is on This Morning @ 10:30 am TODAY! https://youtu.be/3x3nU__bdpQ
  6. Anyone else received a letter from DR+ digging up any old outstanding PCN's and quoting Mr Beavis and PE Court Case?! I received a PCN from PE 2 years ago, initially ignored it then had constant 'ping pong' in the mail for about 3 months, mainly with advice given from CAG, until finally, DR+ and PE went away! Then, after over a year, yesterday DR+ write to me in quite a threatening manner quoting Mr Beavis! What a complete joke! Are people responding or ignoring these?! Thanks
  7. According to Barry Beavis via twitter; Judgement to be handed down at 10.30 on Thursday https://twitter.com/barrybeavis
  8. A relative asked for help with a Civil Enforcement Ltd PCN. I knew time would be tight with when the CofA appeal (Parking Eye v Beavis) was due. When the judgement was released, I didn't have access to the judgement, and I wrote the appeal (pdf attached), bearing in mind what I saw online discussing the judgement. Now the judgement is up on e.g. BAILIL, I find that councils and their charges are mentioned: So, not in the way I had heard ; the CofA didn't actually say "charges in proportion to council charges are allowed", and in particular didn't say "charges disproportionate to council charges aren't allowed" (though ..... they still might?). They cancelled their PCN in response : Did we strike lucky?.
  9. All seems to have gone extremely quiet on this in the press. Anyone know what happened/is happening with this court case? It looked at the end of February as though a fairly short court case was commencing, and it was well reported in the media, but since then, nothing (that I can see anyway)!
  10. The Prankster has blogged about a British Parking Association advisory panel meeting; http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/bpa-drop-requirement-for-charge-to-be.html
×
×
  • Create New...