Parking Eye lose

trisontana

Trebor16 wrote: »

In light of this case, and knowing that county court does not set a legal precedent, should we now be considering whether or not to advise people who have received invoices from PPC's where they have not paid a charge to park to make an offer to the PPC to pay the cost of the parking?

Might be an idea, but don't forget that many of these "tickets" are in free carparks, such as supermarkets and retail parks. In those instances no payment is due.

AlexisV

Be careful, they do read these forums. If you feel you are legally obliged to pay the £4 for breach of contract, I can't see the harm in sending some shiny coins to them. You'll still get hounded by letters either way.

vax2002

With a stronger argument he could have had the actual parking charge thrown out, as they never invoiced him for the parking fees separately, this should have been pointed out to the judge that at no time have they made any attempt to recover or invoice for the actual losses, just the penalty and that the judge has ruled the penalty illegal, the court costs relate to the recovery of this penalty and not the recovery of the parking fees, which the plaintiff has made no mention of or no invoice of.
I would say with a good appeal, the defendant could have the whole case struck out with ease.

AlexisV

Yep I agree the costs are a point of appeal. Of course, it would involve stumping up £100+, unless the OP is entitled to free court fees.

trisontana

vax2002 wrote: »

With a stronger argument he could have had the actual parking charge thrown out, as they never invoiced him for the parking fees separately, this should have been pointed out to the judge that at no time have they made any attempt to recover or invoice for the actual losses, just the penalty and that the judge has ruled the penalty illegal, the court costs relate to the recovery of this penalty and not the recovery of the parking fees, which the plaintiff has made no mention of or no invoice of.
I would say with a good appeal, the defendant could have the whole case struck out with ease.

This confusion between legitimate parking fees and contractual penalties has still not been sorted out in the Freedoms Bill. This talks about "parking charges" without differentiating between the two.

Trebor16

trisontana wrote: »

Might be an idea, but don't forget that many of these "tickets" are in free carparks, such as supermarkets and retail parks. In those instances no payment is due.

Yes, I am aware of the free car parks, but in Smithy's case there was a charge to park. It was in these car parks where a person had driven in and not paid where it might be worthwhile to make the offer to pay the actual parking charges. If it then gets to court it will avoid being stung with costs in the way Smithy did as it will show an attempt was made to resolve the issue at a very early stage.

Trebor16

vax2002 wrote: »

With a stronger argument he could have had the actual parking charge thrown out, as they never invoiced him for the parking fees separately, this should have been pointed out to the judge that at no time have they made any attempt to recover or invoice for the actual losses, just the penalty and that the judge has ruled the penalty illegal, the court costs relate to the recovery of this penalty and not the recovery of the parking fees, which the plaintiff has made no mention of or no invoice of.
I would say with a good appeal, the defendant could have the whole case struck out with ease.

That's a good point Vax. This is why I suggested advising people to offer to pay the charges at the earliest opportunity in a situation where it wasn't a free car park. It would deprieve the PPC of the opportunity to claim breach of contract if an offer was made early on to pay the actual charges that were made to park.

vax2002

The whole case only made it to court because someone had admitted to been the driver.

AlexisV

I don't follow Vax?

Trebor16

AlexisV wrote: »

I don't follow Vax?

I think Vax is saying that Smithy admitted to being the driver which is why the case made it to court. I can't remember off the top of my head if that is the case or not.