Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello, yesterday Barclays Bank put my account under review suddenly just i received a message about that to wait 7 days . I ve been to local branch and they didn't tell me any information saying to me to wait 14 days . The problem is I think they will take longer than they said and I can't wait so much cause I need the money for my own company and to live life daily. This situation its caused me a sever anxiety, I dont know what to do . I can prove that I m a self employed . Can somebody tell me what should I do ?  Some contact numbers or email addresses where can I text about this problem? I m new on this platform and I dont know how to manage this . Thank you
    • Hello yesterday Barclays Bank blocked my account with a substantial amount and I didnt get any reason for this issue why they put my account under review. I m a self employed and all the money blocked are very important to me to open my own company .. Can I get some information about what should I do in this case.  I ve been to the local branch but they didn't give me any information just to wait 14 days and I can t do that .
    • harveys are not the creditor, so them stating you should continue to make payments and you will not receive your payments back is immaterial.   the administrators of harveys are not your target. creation finance are.     these issues should be directed toward creation under p'haps a section 75 claim ....as they are the creditor ...they are equally responsible for the actions or inactions of either harveys or bensons.   we can appreciate you have had the usual run around, we are not indicating you have lied, merely pointing to the fact that you innocently believed what you have been told to date.   go get your moneyback and get the finance agreement cancelled.   dx 
    • you've not moved so until or unless you get a letter of claim via royal mail you ignore them.   as for anything on your credit file it should fall off after 6yrs.   dx    
    • 1st. it is not illegal for you, as the home owner, to open letters addressed to 'others' not resident at your address.   2nd because you did or did not employ the above, ultimately, this has led to a court judgement being handed down. the bailiff company have employed, quite rightly,  the methods that are legally available to them to trace the defendant.   rightly or wrongly they have traced you.   you need to write to the bailiff company concerned briefly explaining the above stating you are not the said person. you also need to write to the judgement court the same. you also need to write to the relevant rail toc    never use the phone.   dx      
  • Our picks

Court of Appeal judgment in ParkingEye Limited -v- Beavis, POPLA - Statement by the Lead Adjudicator.


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2004 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 3 weeks later...

According to Barry Beavis via twitter;

 

Judgement to be handed down at 10.30 on Thursday

 

https://twitter.com/barrybeavis

Link to post
Share on other sites

PARKING EYE v BEAVIS: THE RESULT23rd Apr 15*at*10:29 AM

 

#1**

 

Appeal Dismissed.

 

The COA have neatly sidestepped the fundamental question of the appeal, which was whether penalties could be commercially justified.

Instead, they have ruled that PE’s charges should not be treated as penalties, and therefore unenforceable, because the level of charge is not ‘extravagant and unconscionable’ which they say is the true test of whether a clause is a penalty.

 

They also say that there are social, or public policy, reasons why the charges should be enforced, because if they were not, the spaces in the car park would become unavailable for customers. They also say that PE would suffer a likely loss of contract with the BA Pension Fund if they were unable to perform the contract with them. (The Armageddon scenario).

 

It is also stated that the contractual arrangements between PE and the landowner are irrelevant for the purposes of this decision, so that blows the ‘fishing licence’ argument out of the water.

 

They have also said that the signage most likely creates a bare licence rather than a contract, although it was not in their remit to rule on that, but in any event the outcome would have been the same.

 

Mr Hossain has prepared a submission requesting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, Mr Kirk has made a submission opposing it, and the CA have sent in a statement supporting Mr Hossain’s application. I will update the outcome of the application, when known.

 

 

 

 

 

 

From bargepole on mse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to get to the court myself this morning but failed. I cannot believe that Barry Beavis has lost his case. I am getting a copy of the judgment sent to me in the next half hour.

 

I just hope that the government amend legislation as soon as possible as the full implications of this could be dreadful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

" because the level of charge is not‘extravagant and unconscionable’ " !!!!

I guess if you earn a judge's salary then the charge might not look extravagant - but for ordinary people on ordinary incomes it is nothing short of extortion.............

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A copy of the full judgment is already on Bailii here:

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/402.html

 

 

 

From my reading of judgement:

1. it really only applies where there is no transaction between the parking operator and the driver eg a free parking area. where the driver pays for parking then it doesn't apply?

2. both LJ Moore-Bick and Timothy Lloyd both state that the charge is not really a trespass or a breach of contract but a license to park. as such the charges are not liquidated damages but form charges as part of the contract. Come on HMRC, time to reclaim the VAT from ParkingEye on behalf of the tax payer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should mail a summary with a copy of the judgment to the HMRC and ask them to collect our tax back form these cowboys

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know how this result might affect cases where a PCN has been issued in a free car park because the driver was seen leaving the premises? (i.e. no time limits exceeded)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont see why people are surprised that the judges commented on the loss of earnings by PE et al if they made their decision otherwise. Civil Courts were set up to make decisions on financial matters and from their position it is all about the money as the overbearing principle, not the rights or wrongs of the merits of the 2 sides. For 4 centuries the decisions go with the money so nothing too unusual about this apart from the precedent is very different from previous case law.

However, they may well have misdirected themselves by reaching the conclusions they did so there is hope for Barry Beavis' appeal to the supreme court. The Parking Prankster shows problems with the judgement and its details but the next court is rather tied as to what it may consider. I think the signage being a bare licence is an interesting one, they have veered a long way away from the previously held consensus of either invitation to treat or a unilateral contract. I think that this can lead to abuse by companies claiming rights not expressed in their signage by reference to their web site, post-dated amendments etc and there will be a battle to get away from any of these unfair parts. Look at the trouble people have getting out of mobile phone or energy contracts even when they have passed the end of the contract period. We are all going to be treated as though we have a commercial lawyer advising us of every purchasing decision we ever make if this is pushed to its limits.

I have siad before, I have seen judgements favouring money over the laws of physics

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is stupid.

 

 

It means that if I live near Ascot Racecourse I can let someone park on my drive with an appropriate sign displayed, they can then go to the races but if they exceed the two hours by one second I can then charge them £85 as this is 'in line' with local authority parking charges?

 

 

No of course I can't as I have NOT LOST £85.

 

 

utter nonsense in my view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is worse than that, you can invent new clauses to the parking contract after they have agreed and claim that the original contract was just a licence and the new terms mean you are due the penalty fee even though it wasnt properly explained at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm feeling a lot less smug about my 'appeal' to Euro CP now. What a ridiculous judgment. A black letter day for sure, & let's hope sanity is restored by the Supreme Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to Court of Appeal judgment in ParkingEye Limited -v- Beavis, POPLA - Statement by the Lead Adjudicator.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...