PPC Letter Chains & Court Papers (discussion & comments)

antrobus

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.

And where exactly does POFA state that?

I'm only asking because I've had a read through Schedule 4 and I can't see any references to a 'parking company' - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

ManxRed

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

Absolutely, why are we being forced to go over this all again just for the benefit of some upstart who comes on here and thinks hes smarter?

Maybe we should be putting the Head of the Legal Dept at Solihull [STRIKE]University[/STRIKE], [STRIKE]Polytechnic[/STRIKE], Technical College straight, and then we wouldn't need to keep having this debate over and over again?

island2

bazster wrote: »

Try reading what I said. That was exactly my point: the only way a PPC can make an offer to park (short of being granted a licence to occupy) is for the PPC to be the landowner's agent. That is precisely the situation as it stands now, and the wishy-washy definition of a "relevant contract" in the POFA adds nothing.

But this is absolutely not the way that PPC's behave. They behave as though they are principal to the contract (they are not) and they seem to believe that POFA legitimises this (it doesn't).

I can't argue with that.

ripped_off_driver

antrobus wrote: »

And where exactly does POFA state that?

I'm only asking because I've had a read through Schedule 4 and I can't see any references to a 'parking company' - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

I agree, the PoFA does not say that the PPC will always hold a relevant contract with the driver for which the RK can be liable. What it says, and I am paraphrasing, is that IF a contract is in place the PPC can make a claim against the RK if it does not know who the driver is. That is a very different scenario and it was made clear throughout the drafting that the PPC would still have to prove the existence of a contract. The VCS case makes clear that there cannot be a contract if the PPC does not have a proprietary interest in the land.

Stephen_Leak

Bearing in mind where this happened, it makes up for Nobby.

Anyone, who’s disabled with a long-term condition under the terms of The Equality Act 2010 can use a disabled parking bay in a private car park.

The Blue Badge scheme doesn’t apply to private car parks. Blue Badge holders don't need to display it.

However, the terms & conditions for private car parks usually state that you shouldn't park in a disabled bay without displaying a Blue Badge. This, in itself, contravenes The Equality Act.

Tigerbush

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

Bearing in mind where this happened, it makes up for Nobby.

Heh! heh! Good arrow Stephen.

Explanation for new readers: Nobby is a long-standing poster from the other MSE boards who came on here with his parking story.

nobby24 wrote: »

...I had parked on the Coop Supermarket car park at Whitby...

We all enjoyed the lively discussion.

longtimelurkersam

Next installment from Premier Park

Tigerbush

Thanks Longtime. For those of us who haven't a clue why you posted the letter here. Check Crabman.

Crabman wrote: »

Thanks very much for scanning and uploading these, I've updated the first letter (we already had the initial parking charge notice/ticket).

Your contribution to our letterchains is appreciated. :cool:

Keep em coming

Kite2010

I would phone, but my phone has barred 0844 numbers.

Sorry Debt Recovery Plus, pass the debt back to your client's client whom is the only one whom can reclaim any damages suffered

ClaretMatt_2

Good afternoon everyone!

I got invoiced for the first time of my driving career on private land today, it would seem to be by a new company about which not much is known (Norfolk Parking Enforcement)

I'm not going to correspond with them any further (Drove past the scammer while he was writing another one out, thanking him for his pointless invoice with a big grin)

Will of course, post up the chain as I receive it in due course but I have a question for the floor: When the new parking laws come into effect from October 2012, am I reading it correctly that the Registered Keeper is going to be liable if the driver cannot be identified (if we keep ignoring the goons, like now for example)

Many thanks, have tried to find a discussion on this point without success thus far.