PPC Letter Chains & Court Papers (discussion & comments)

island2

These strategies unfortunately have a limited shelf-life, as schedule 4 to the ludicrously named Protection of Freedoms Act will give private parking companies the legal right to demand money from the keeper of a vehicle.

If, of course, it passes a court test...

trisontana

But the money they can "demand" can only reflect the actual loss suffered by the landowner, not some imaginary figure plucked out of the air by the PPC. The Freedoms Act does not alter the basic principles of civil law.

Stephen_Leak

And there are still the "elephants in the room" that only councils, the police, train operators and Transport for London can impose legally enforceable fines or penalties, and the VCS vs. HMRC (Appeal) ruling.

PS. As the latter demonstrates, things change.

island2

The Protection of Freedoms Act says it can reflect a contractually agreed parking charge. And OFT vs Abbey National & Ors suggests that an amount cannot be assessed as a penalty if it is the main cost of the services, as long as the term is expressed in clear and intelligible language.

Coupon-mad

island2 wrote: »

The Protection of Freedoms Act says it can reflect a contractually agreed parking charge. And OFT vs Abbey National & Ors suggests that an amount cannot be assessed as a penalty if it is the main cost of the services, as long as the term is expressed in clear and intelligible language.

You've missed the point. It's not just about whether a fake PCN is a 'penalty'.

Private Parking companies cannot take motorists (or registered keepers) to Court unless they own the land or have a sufficient proprietal interest. That's what the recent Court cases decided.

And in addition, with PPCs a fake PCN charge is certainly not the main cost of the 'service'. Not even a PPC has been daft enough to try that one seeing as a PPC does not have motorists as 'customers'! Also I haven't seen a PPC sign that is 'expressed in clear and intelligible language' - just ask Martin Cutts of the Plain Language Commission!

Read VCS -v- HMRC and VCS -v- Ibbotson (both quoted lots of times on here since May). Those are the relevant decisions re PPC World, and the former was made in the Upper Tier so it sets a precedent. You will see why we think that PPC World is scuppered.

island2

The Protection of Freedoms Act would supersede case law unfortunately.

trisontana

island2 wrote: »

The Protection of Freedoms Act would supersede case law unfortunately.

You are still not getting it. All that act does is bring the RK into the scenario. It does not change the basic principles of civil law which states that the landowner can only claim for actual damages they have suffered, not some imaginary figure plucked out of the air.

Coupon-mad

island2 wrote: »

The Protection of Freedoms Act would supersede case law unfortunately.

You still don't get it do you?

The Act does not change anything except that people can no longer just say 'I wasn't driving'. But we don't tell people to say that anyway.

At the moment, the driver is the only one possibly 'liable' and we tell them to ignore the scam. Nothing happens.

After the Act, the driver and/or the registered keeper are the only ones possibly 'liable'. And we will either tell them to ignore the scam because nothing happens...

...or we may decide to encourage everyone to appeal using a certain template and then use the 'appeals procedure' the BPA has sorted out. This will cost each PPC £27 every time and is not binding on the motorist of course...:D

Then whatever the outcome they can ignore because nothing happens!

Stephen_Leak

island2 wrote: »

The Protection of Freedoms Act would supersede case law unfortunately.

There has been no case law on the POFA yet.

And, in those cases where the RK and driver are one and the same person, absolutely nothing changes.

It's still an impersonation of authority scam.

trisontana

This section of the POFA is a real mongrel. It's trying to graft a piece of statute law onto existing civil law. To continue the canine theme, a dog's breakfast.