"tim....." wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:11:23 +0100, michael adams wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
[quoted text muted]

There's plenty online, especially in local groups, of people who've
ignored these demands and simply thrown them away without any
consequences at all.

Dangerous advice, post Beavis. *Probably* what would happen. But the
courts have allowed it now.

As it happens I wasn't advising the OP to do anything. I was simply making
an observation.

Any advice on offer would have been in the webpage to which I left a link


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/c...going-far.html


As to Beavis I'm not aware of any judgement being made,
and in any case with Beavis, there is no disagreement as
to fact.

Beavis has been found in favour of the parking company at the appeal court, as such
is precedence creating and applies everywhere (in England)

The Supreme count have heard Beavis' (2nd) appeal and the world is awaiting their
response.

That's what I just said, above.


(After that there's nowhere else to go - this isn't a subject likely to get a very
positive response for a hearing at the European court)

tim

Unlike in this case, AFAIUI Beavis is appealing simply on the grounds
that it's "unfair"; on a matter of principle, not on matters of fact.
And as such I'm rather surprised that he's got this far.

The principle being that the fine does not conform to the assumption that it must be a
reasonable estimate of actual loss.

The case is arguable

How ?

If the level of the fine was known beforehand then it was open to the
appelant to make that calculation beforehand and decide whether to
risk incurring the fine or not.

Nobody at any time forced him to contravene those parking
regulations.


michael adams

....



(if you have unlimited pockets)

tim