"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"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 ?

because it is - Even though I am on the side of the parking company (having
an interest in the result as an occupant of a block of flats that needs to
manage errant parkers), I can see that the point is arguable.


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.

The law does not work that way. If I created a contract that attempted to
extra damages for a breach which were excessive that clause would be void in
law. The consumer has every right to enter into the contract, knowing that
the clause is (probably) void and challenge it should the breach occurs.

The idea that the consumer should say, "I think this company wants an
excessive amount of damages therefore I wont enter into the contract at all"
is recognised by the law as ridiculous.


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

That's a different argument entirely (and one with which I agree)

tim