Beavis v Parking Eye procedural rules/reserved Judgement
Discussion
hora said:
Capita owns Parking Eye? The one parkng company that takes far more people to court* than anyone else
Seem tohttp://m.capita.co.uk/news-and-opinion/news/2013/c...
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php...
said:
Spacey 2012
As capita have their fingers right up the backside of the Government I think we are about to find out why they wanted a new law to make parking scamming legal.
Couldn't have put it any more succinctly myself As capita have their fingers right up the backside of the Government I think we are about to find out why they wanted a new law to make parking scamming legal.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita
Countdown said:
stuart313 said:
CAPITA, the same firm that take frightened young mums to court for non payment of the TV licence, the same firm that get G4S to take a quick look at your TV when they read your gas meter. The most filthiest of companies going. Cant wait for the next TV w
ker at my door, arseoles.
Out of interest, are frightened young mums exempt from paying for TV licenses?ker at my door, arseoles.ETA Why would G4S carry out work for Capita when they're (effectively) competitors?
Edited by Countdown on Thursday 23 April 20:30
G4S post the "we called but you were out" letters for crapita. One got posted through my door even though I was in, I watched him do it through the window
stuart313 said:
Some frightened young mums are, yes. My point was though they won't take people like me to court, even though I have dared them to. They are the sort of company that preys on the vulnerable, parking eye is right up their street.
G4S post the "we called but you were out" letters for crapita. One got posted through my door even though I was in, I watched him do it through the window
I'd be genuinely interested in knowing why a frightened young mum would be exempt. If sneaking up on Mrs Countdown wearing my Jimmy Saville mask gets us a free TV license I'm definitely up for it and im sure she'll understand. G4S post the "we called but you were out" letters for crapita. One got posted through my door even though I was in, I watched him do it through the window
I'm still not sure why G4S would post a letter through your letterbox on behalf of Craputa either. What work were they doing for each other?
P.s. they take all sorts to Court in our neck of the woods. The only common factor being they mostly live on scrotey housing estates.
Maybe she doesn't watch or record live TV, its not compulsory you know.
G4S/capita - random thread of internet.
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.ph...
G4S/capita - random thread of internet.
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.ph...
stuart313 said:
Maybe she doesn't watch or record live TV, its not compulsory you know.
G4S/capita - random thread of internet.
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.ph...
My word, the paranoia in that thread is off the scale!G4S/capita - random thread of internet.
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.ph...
Have to say I support this decision. The reality is that had it been lost parking would have become a total shambles in every private car park in the land.
Parking Eye and other such companies exist because people abuse private car parks. Most businesses would prefer not to use companies to enforce parking controls because its a hassle not great for PR etc. however the misuse of their car park is an even greater problem
Of course if you dont break the rules you wont get charged. Unfortunately there will always be valid reasns why people break the rules but the problem is it is extremely difficult to differentiate between real errors and those invented to avoid paying.
Parking Eye and other such companies exist because people abuse private car parks. Most businesses would prefer not to use companies to enforce parking controls because its a hassle not great for PR etc. however the misuse of their car park is an even greater problem
Of course if you dont break the rules you wont get charged. Unfortunately there will always be valid reasns why people break the rules but the problem is it is extremely difficult to differentiate between real errors and those invented to avoid paying.
I agree with another poster that this case could potentially open the floodgates for similar charges to be made in other industries.
As far as private parking goes, why the fk the Govt didnt just make a statuory scheme which sets a maximum to remove all this doubt and hassle is anyones guess.
As far as private parking goes, why the f
k the Govt didnt just make a statuory scheme which sets a maximum to remove all this doubt and hassle is anyones guess.Funkycoldribena said:
Chrisgr31 said:
Have to say I support this decision. The reality is that had it been lost parking would have become a total shambles in every private car park in the land.
.
So is it a shambles in Scotland? Belgium? Luxembourg? Canada?.
Is it up to the judges to decide if chaos would ensue? Should the judges not judge on issues of law, fairness, reasonableness and justice? Alternatively, perhaps they make it up as they go along?
If those behind Pepipoo have any influence over Beavis then the appeal should only go ahead if there is reasonable certainty of victory. Otherwise start the process again with another punter.
If those behind Pepipoo have any influence over Beavis then the appeal should only go ahead if there is reasonable certainty of victory. Otherwise start the process again with another punter.
If the penalty was set extremely high, like a prison sentence for example, there would be few if any p155-takers, and the only people caught would be those who inadvertently violate the rules through mistake or misfortune.
It follows that, somewhere along the line towards that extreme, the latter are going to outweigh the former, and I would say that threshold was breached a very long time ago - if not from the outset.
Notwithstanding that, a certain number of violators is necessary for the business to pay for itself, and if there are insufficient p155-takers then the business increasingly relies on the little old ladies who are a few minutes late back to their Micras.
Note also that there is no business case for reducing the number of violations.
I would argue that any business which exists to profit from the misfortune and mistakes of others has no place in civilised society.
If you can't find a better way of dealing with the p155-takers then you just have to put up with them.
It follows that, somewhere along the line towards that extreme, the latter are going to outweigh the former, and I would say that threshold was breached a very long time ago - if not from the outset.
Notwithstanding that, a certain number of violators is necessary for the business to pay for itself, and if there are insufficient p155-takers then the business increasingly relies on the little old ladies who are a few minutes late back to their Micras.
Note also that there is no business case for reducing the number of violations.
I would argue that any business which exists to profit from the misfortune and mistakes of others has no place in civilised society.
If you can't find a better way of dealing with the p155-takers then you just have to put up with them.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Friday 24th April 07:45
Funkycoldribena said:
Tiredness Kills-Take a break.Fall asleep,pay 100 pounds...
Just because it was promoted by service areas to try and encourage extra trade don't forget to point out the official DfT line was 15 minutes every 2 hours https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/think-f...
Fall asleep and pay about £11 for up to 24hrs parking, heck it's cheaper than a couple of hours in many city centre car parks
PurpleMoonlight said:
I'm pleased he lost.
Some hope for those of us with car parks and have to endure the selfish arrogant twunts on a daily basis.
What about those of us that get unfair charges?Some hope for those of us with car parks and have to endure the selfish arrogant twunts on a daily basis.
In my case I bought a weekly rail season ticket, and a weekly car park ticket. I parked in a season ticket bay and got a charge.
The company only class monthly parking tickets as season tickets, even though weekly rail tickets are season tickets. This oddity is only mentioned on a sign in 5mm writing that positioned at 90 degrees to the entrance road.
Bear in mind I paid for a 1 bay and parked in 1 bay. The season tickets bays are never full. In fact there is a whole season ticket car park that never has more then 25% of spaces filled.
Its simply a means of increasing revenue, why let a parking space for £5 per day when you can get £85 for it?
98elise said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
I'm pleased he lost.
Some hope for those of us with car parks and have to endure the selfish arrogant twunts on a daily basis.
What about those of us that get unfair charges?Some hope for those of us with car parks and have to endure the selfish arrogant twunts on a daily basis.
In my case I bought a weekly rail season ticket, and a weekly car park ticket. I parked in a season ticket bay and got a charge.
The company only class monthly parking tickets as season tickets, even though weekly rail tickets are season tickets. This oddity is only mentioned on a sign in 5mm writing that positioned at 90 degrees to the entrance road.
Bear in mind I paid for a 1 bay and parked in 1 bay. The season tickets bays are never full. In fact there is a whole season ticket car park that never has more then 25% of spaces filled.
Its simply a means of increasing revenue, why let a parking space for £5 per day when you can get £85 for it?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff