Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you everyone for your quick responses I just wish I posted here in the first place    I probably shouldn't have filled in the claim form however on the letter it said I had limited time to do so and because I was dealing with CST law trying to come to an agreement with paying off the debt I didn't think it would get to this point and now I have probably made my situation worst. Of course, I would have posted here first before sending it off had I not been in communication with CST to set up an agreement.    I sent the letter back to the court as some point in early August, the issue date on the claim form is 28th July and the most recent letter I have received 'Notice of fast track' is dated 18th November    If I am honest I can't fully remember what I wrote word for word in my defence, it would have been along the lines of why I left, my reasons and the fact I returned to my old career in an office plus taking a pay cut to do so. There wasn't much room to write a long winded defence so I kept it relativity short.   The above document Andy has posted is the exact document I am now looking at very confused in what exactly I put where    I just want to re-iterate I never agreed with this money I owe due to the training bond but it has gone on for so long at this point I'm happy to set up a payment plan if the balance can get reduced or a small one off payment upfront and this is exactly what I was trying to do prior to receiving the most recent letter    I have had zero communication from CST law, Centrica advised me to deal with them directly and I was waiting for a response from CST with the offer we had put across to Centrica - I chased it multiple times the following weeks and they kept telling me they haven't had a response and when they do we'll contact you which they still have not   Ideally I would rather not give them any money however I feel like I am out of options at what I probably should have done years ago is attempt to get it reduced and set up a payment plan    Please let me know if I have missed any critical info out    Thanks again for everyones help    What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? I left a British Gas apprenticeship within the first 12 months of starting and went back to my old career in an office , my reasons for leaving were down to the completely differant job role which I realised quikcly was not for me and it was impacting my mental health massively. The claim is for a training bond which was in a contract I signed based on a sliding scale Year 1 - £9,000 year 2 £6,000 year 3 £3,000     What is the total value of the claim? £13433    Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No  Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Training bond due to leaving an apprenticeship before 3 years    When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? They have sent me a virtually signed document with the contract   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? No   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Centrica are claimant, CST law are dealing and the court   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I believe so yes   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? I have had multiple letters like everyone else who has been on the forum over the years regarding this matter   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? I am unsure, but when I left I had contested the original claim as I was dealing directly with Centrica’s collection team and they never got back to me after the final email I had sent and didn’t hear anything until years down the line   Why did you cease payments? N/A   What was the date of your last payment? N/A   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? Correct I oringinally contested what was owed back in 2017 and gave my reasons for leaving and I assumed the matter was closed   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No  
    • OK thanks again Andy.   And understood 👍😉
    • Thank you for this. The first thing to be say is that this means that you are winning. It is pretty well unheard of in my experience for the bank to give way and finally return the money. The fact that they have done this under the threat of a judgement for breach of statutory duty indicates even more that they are worried about their position. Nowhere have they indicated that they have complied with the requirements of the Proceeds of Crime Act and informed the National crime agency. I don't believe they have and this is a very serious breach of statutory duty. Not only that it is a very serious breach of the FCA BCOBS regulations in that they are required to treat you fairly. Treating you fairly in this case means that they must comply with the rest of their statutory duties. It appears that they really haven't done this at all and that they have acted in an arbitrary way in disregard of the law and that they are hoping to get away with it. I find myself wondering how many other hundreds of people have been treated in exactly the same way – and you are probably the first ever to have stood up to them and to get them worried. I think I've already indicated that a press contact of mine in the Sunday Times would be very interested in this story. He has already run stories about the very poor standards applied by banks when deciding that their customers are involved in some fraudulent behaviour. The first thing to say about the letter which you have received is that they are trying to apply conditions to releasing your own money. It's your money and there should be no conditions and my suggestion is that you object to this. Secondly, not only are they threatening to continue to withhold your own money – but also they are saying that if they release it to you you will simply have the net figure without any kind of interest or compensation. It's clear that while they have had your money, they have invested it and earn money on it. They have probably been lending it out at between 16% and 20% and although the usual rate of interest is 8%, it seems to me that justice can only be served by repaying you your money plus the commercial rate of interest – at a compound rate. Normally the 8% is calculated at simple. Thirdly, they are not offering to pay you any compensation and clearly they are hoping to get away with it without any kind of sanction or not even a slap on the wrist.   Fourthly, they had the nerve to impose a seven day deadline. Don't worry about their deadline. It's a load of huff and puff. This is all part of their bluff game designed to intimidate you. At the end of seven days – what? Are they then going to insist on going to court?   If they really believe that they had done everything correctly and that the money was fraudulent, then they would not offer it to you back under any circumstances. It would be illegal for them to do so. You can be certain that these people do not want to go to court. In fact they probably wish they had never started.   Finally, they want the matter to be kept confidential – and I can't say I blame them. I would be ashamed if people knew that I had treated somebody else in this way and I'm sure they are worried about reputational damage. I'm also sure that there are extremely worried about what will happen if you get a judgement against them for breach of statutory duty. It will have to be reported to the FCA. It will have to be reported to the NCA. And of course it should be reported to the newspapers because people need to know what is going on. If you want, you can simply accept their proposal – get your money back, given confidentiality – and that's the end of the matter. However, you have no idea how this will impact on your record in the future. I imagine that they will bar you from ever opening an account with them again. – But at least you will have your money and you can get on with your life. However, if you want you can stand your ground and make it clear to them that you are going to be mucked around and treated like this and that you are prepared to go to court if they won't make a proper offer. I understand that you need to pay a court fee of about £350 in the next seven days. I expect that the bank is making this offer now hoping to dissuade you from spending any more money and hoping that you will back down. If you have the money to proceed then I would suggest very strongly that it will be a very serious sign of strength that you tell the bank that you're not interested in that you are paying the fee for the next stage of the court process. If the bank knows that you've called their bluff on this and that you have been prepared to invest further money in moving this legal action forward, then they will start to reflect and I can perfectly well imagine that they will make you another more interesting offer – once again on conditions of confidentiality. Without seeing any further offer, I'm already suggesting that you will probably be best off turning it down. In any event, I would remind you going back several months that I already predicted that the bank would make you confidential offer – and that has happened. I'm not saying that I'm always going to be right here – but I think that now basically the bank have pretty well admitted that they need to pay you your money, there is no chance of you losing it. You will get your money and it really is just a question of how much else you will get in addition. If you'd like to continue then let me know and I will suggest a draft response to them.
    • The cost of living in Britain over a person's lifetime is over £1.5m, new findings have claimed as the nation feels the squeeze amid soaring energy costs and dismal interest rates on cash savings.View the full article
    • Mortgage approvals for house purchases fell to 67,200 in October, according to the Bank of England’s (BoE) latest figuresView the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Bevis case Appeal to Supreme Court Filed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2217 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

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.

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

Well, as far as they can say, its been "ruled" on so they will attempt to use it as a "concrete ruling" although its been appealed against

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as far as they can say, its been "ruled" on so they will attempt to use it as a "concrete ruling" although its been appealed against

 

It has been ruled upon by a lower court, but as it's now subject to an appeal to a higher court, a PPC attempting to use the judgement without mentioning that it is the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court may find themselves on a rather sticky wicket wink.png

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parking Eye do not mention this appeal on their website. They are still gloating on their "win" at the COA. Going on past form, they will probably "forget" to mention the latest appeal in the paperwork they send to motorists and when filing court papers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooner than we thought...

 

The Supreme Court will now hear Mr Beavis' appeal alongside that of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, which also involves the enforceability of penalty clauses in contracts.

 

 

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/beavis-v-parkingeye-ltd.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is the cases are in reality chalk and cheese but the judiciary are making a decision that consumer contracts are to be treated the same as business to business contracts drawn up by lawyers.

This means that you should ensure that you take your solicitor to Sainsburys next time you go by car. The alternative is to buy shares and make sure a nuimber of like-minded people turn up at the AGM and give the chairman a bit of stick under AOB. You wont get any movement but it will have to go in the annual report. Eventually one of the big 4 supermarkets will drop these bandits and then the others will have to follow suit or suffer with the publicity. Supermarket A could run adverts reminding people that you can shop there without being penalised for spending your money with them and at spermarket B you get clobbered with a £90 penalty for being a loyal customer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the Supreme Court judges are more knowledgeable of consumer protection laws and aims, and give equal treatment to both sides in the case rather than the CoA judges who had the appearance of having made their minds up without proper consideration of the consumer laws, and the aims behind it. If a pcn from a council for £35 is a penalty, then a £80 pcn from a private company is a penalty and the fact that at least £65 of that £80 is profit to the ppcs and not loss shows that this system has no place in contract or consumer law. Come on judges. Hopefully they base theur decision on the law and precedents rather than what is in the best interest of the parking companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fear the worst...

 

Crapita have friends in high places and know how to shake hands.

 

PE's revenue would be hindered for at least a year at POPLA and through the court system if Mr Beavis was allowed his appeal to be heard , as it should be , on its own merits.

 

As eb states above, chalk and cheese imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the judiciary have been making noises for a while about making consumer contract law the same as commercial contract law as it will make their jobs easier. The reason for pushing the square peg in the round hole is mostly down to the areas of law that most judges specialised in before being made judges and that is commercial law. You will not find a single higher tier judge who was previously a defence barrister in criminal law for example.

When the only tool is a hammer then every job becomes a nail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The Supreme Court will hear the case only on the same evidence presented in the original case. As the original case was so badly handled by Beavis and his representatives I imagine the Supreme Court will reach the same conclusion.

I have to wonder if Beavis is some kind of stool pigeon for the private parking industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

th point of the supreme ourt appeal is to show that the judges misdirected themselves rather than to introduce a raft of new evidence. This is easy to do for a couple of points but is that substantive enough to overturn all of the previous decisions?

They can decide that the judges have misdirected themselves and sent if all back to stage 1 at county court but I dont think that is going to happen. As I said, I think that a decision has been made to make a determination that all contract law is the same and the outcome will make a mockery of half of the 2 conjoined appeals. This means that the likely outcome is that penalty clauses will be added to a lot of contracts in the future and they wont be dressed up as something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
Both parties counsels will already know the verdict, but are barred from telling anyone. A vigilant observer in Chorley may be able to guess the answer depending on whether the pubs run dry, or whether or not a number of boastful posts appear on parking forums, as happened after the Court of Appeal verdict.

 

Or maybe a sudden rush of 'please pay now we will accept anything' letters...

 

 

 

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/parkingeye-v-beavis-judgment-date.html?m=1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just adding the link to the supreme court

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-02.html

 

Just over 10 minutes before the live session.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, no further appeals available.

 

Time to get our thinking caps on.

 

Time to lobby our MP's ?

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the motorist gained anything from this ruling ?

 

If not, will this case now be seen as very unhelpful to motorists and should never have been started ?

 

This is such a good statement and something a lot of people on other forums dont dare say

 

Barry was a fool to have started this, he was egged on by certain people to appeal to the court of appeal. I have no issue with the case being made in the county court but the next stage had to many risks for other people.

 

He may have thought he was some kind of parking warrior, but he has put the nail in the coffin for thousands of people who will have no choice but to simply pay up now.

 

What is he going to do for people who will lose at POPLA because of his actions? he had tunnel vision with this and he didn't think about the affects on other people. If hadnt tried to be clever then people could still easily win cases. Now it will be virtually impossible to win court cases (bar ones with signage contract etc), and very difficult to win at POPLA.

 

So whats his advice now and will he shell out because of the effects of his actions (we all know the answer to that one)

 

So that is it, illegal penalty clauses are now legal because they have been used by parking companies for a long time and no-one has challenged them before.

As I have postulated, they have now placed a consumer contract on the same footing as a bilateral contract negotiated between lawyers acting for both parties and because money would be lost by the parking companies if it was otherwise and limited the extent of the Unfair Trading Terms legislation in the same way becasue that would curtail PE's ability to enforce their suspect contract.

Follow the money as they say.

Was the case unhelpful? I dont think so, contract law judgements have been heading in that direction for about the last 15 years. Most judges come from a background of commercial law so they are making decisions that would make their previous jobs in the City much easier if they were in place before they became judges.

I also note that they have fired a warning shot at the politicians with regard to the EU legislation and are basically warning the legislators not to interfere with their decision.

 

But what Barry has done is put the nail in the coffin for argument which worked well at POPLA and often worked at the county court.

 

So what is this site going to advise if a parking site has a proper contract, decent signage, what are people to do......?

 

This is taken from CPS website (perky) and i have to say i couldnt agree more, he is spot on:

 

Following the result in the supreme court of Barry Beavis -v- Parking Eye we hope the position is clear in everyones mind, however on checking the various consumer forums they are STILL trying to convince people the charges are not enforceable.

 

The judges were perfectly clear in their judgement that parking charges issued are 100% enforceable and with the Supreme Court being the highest court in the land this decision is binding on ALL other courts – even though the judge hearing the case may disagree.

 

 

We are unsure why the internet forums are still debating the issue, we can only presume it is because they have been proved wrong and all the people who ignored tickets and letters on their advice will quite rightly be unhappy when they receive county court papers through their letterbox.

 

We also suspect that despite the forum advisors hiding behind aliases they are really highly educated and qualified legal experts who know the law better than the 7 supreme court judges that heard the arguments and made the decision.

 

One thing is for certain, thanks to the internet forums they have done wonders for stenthning the legal position of parking companies who issue charges, ensuring the law is no longer unclear and paving the way for clarification.

 

So where does it go from here?

 

It does not go any where, other then it may be a case of paying up when before you didnt need to, this will depend on the operator !

 

Thanks Barry!!

Edited by citizenB
thread tidy
Link to post
Share on other sites

A new thread has been started with the latest developments . All posts made in respect of the latest judgment have been copied to the thread linked below.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?455047-Barry-Beavis-loses-Appeal-to-the-Supreme-Court-What-next&p=4816020&posted=1#post4816020

Edited by citizenB

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other therad is closed? With this ruling where does that leave a BB holder when they visit a hospital and there are signs up stating that BB have to also pay for parking although the BB has a letter from the hospital asking them to attend an appointment? What would happen if the BB refused to pay and then cha;llenged the invoice as it is not a ticket? Same applies to parking in a retail park where the parking is limited to 1 or 2 hours?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is open now :)

 

This one has now been closed permanently.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2217 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...