PPC Letter Chains & Court Papers (discussion & comments)

Stephen_Leak

I keep wanting to call it the "Protection FROM Freedoms Act".

RK liability has been over-ridden by the VCS vs. HMRC (Appeal) UTT judgement. For once, the delay between formulation and enactment has been useful. Legally, PPCs are now "out of the loop".

The one-sided appeals system at £27 a pop (if they ever actually pay this) can't be what PPCs would've preferred.

And, I can see that the "natural injustice" of holding an innocent third party liable for the alleged actions of another could backfire on the PPCs and BPA.

Once "rogue clampers" are a thing of the past, who are the next obvious target?

alison_g

Statue, which the POFA is, will over rule any case law and POFA states that a parking company can hold a relevant contract so therefore the VCS vs. HMRC (Appeal) UTT judgement is worthless.

alison_g

island2 wrote: »

The Protection of Freedoms Act would supersede case law unfortunately.

I agree totally

trisontana

alison_g wrote: »

Statue, which the POFA is, will over rule any case law and POFA states that a parking company can hold a relevant contract so therefore the VCS vs. HMRC (Appeal) UTT judgement is worthless.

But let's examine that contract. Under civil law you can only claim for any actual loss suffered by the landowner. In most cases this would be a minimal amount, nothing more .

[text removed by MSE Forum Team]

alison_g

trisontana wrote: »

But let's examine that contract. Under civil law you can only claim for any actual loss suffered by the landowner. In most cases this would be a minimal amount, nothing more .

I am starting to get suspicious. We now have two new posters who are spouting this nonsense, Could they be PPC trolls?

I agree with you that the remedy for breach of any contract is actual losses or genuine pre estimation of those losses but I was not questioning that fact.

There are multiple threads for the parking argument in general and I was just passing comment that POFA in essence does enable a parking company to hold a relevant contract with a driver and it also will put under statue the fact a keeper would be deemed to be liable for the contract.

How it will work is all guess work currently but statue does over rule civil case law, we may not like it but that is a fact.

If the contract and charges are for breach of any relevant contract and are not a pre estimation or losses then the penalty factor comes into play.

If a person puts another view over in a thread to discuss that topic then they are not by definition a troll if its a totally unrelated subject matter and they post then they are a troll, you will find that by my posts clearly reside in the first then I am not a troll.

trisontana

alison_g wrote: »

I agree with you that the remedy for breach of any contract is actual losses or genuine pre estimation of those losses but I was not questioning that fact.

That's the only important thing. They can sue who they like, but if they can only claim for an actual loss it won't be worth their while. So nothing has changed.

alison_g

trisontana wrote: »

That's the only important thing. They can sue who they like, but if they can only claim for an actual loss it won't be worth their while. So nothing has changed.

Yes, But island2 makes an interesting point,

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.

Coupon-mad

Not really.

A parking charge is not the main cost of the 'service' because the motorist is not a customer of the PPC. Very different from a Bank/customer situation.

And as I said before, I have never seen a PPC sign expressed in clear & intelligible (or even vaguely intelligent!) language.

LincolnshireYokel

alison_g wrote: »

Statue, which the POFA is, will over rule any case law and POFA states that a parking company can hold a relevant contract so therefore the VCS vs. HMRC (Appeal) UTT judgement is worthless.

I disagree most strongly

See Thoburn v Sunderland City Council 2001

esmerobbo

A PPC could hold a relevant contract but there are two problems, would the landowner want to basically give them control of their land, and would the PPC want it and everything that would come with it?