Independent Appeals Service - Pie in the Sky?

bargepole

Following yesterday’s magnificent custard pie in the face for Parking Eye, nothing’s really changed because County Court rulings aren’t binding on any other court, so PE and their chums are free to try it on elsewhere.
But, let’s suppose for a moment that the BPA persuades enough PPCs to cough up the finance to set up a proper independent appeals service, as the Government is requiring them to do before Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill becomes enacted.
If the appeals panel is similar to that operated by PATAS for local Councils, it might consist of solicitors, legal executives, retired judges, magistrates, local government officers and so on.
No doubt there’ll be a plethora of basically irrelevant appeals for reasons such as a wheel slightly outside the bay, customer left the retail park for five minutes to go to cash machine across the road, ticket fell off the dashboard, etc., etc.
The big question, however, is what will happen when someone who is clued up on contract law, appeals on the basis that the PPC charge is an unlawful penalty, and therefore the PPC has no entitlement to any money over and above the standard hourly charges for that location. And that’s without even getting into whether the driver can be considered to be acting as an agent of the registered keeper, and able to form a contract on his behalf.
Now if an appeal like this went to a hearing, and the tribunal ruled in the same way that most County Court judges do, this would be a complete disaster for the BPA and the PPC industry – a classic example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Mr P Troy should be careful what he wishes for ….

Coupon-mad

I like that idea for an appeal!

It would be great because if they chucked it out then of course the person can still ignore them. And if they go to Small Claims after that then the judge would surely condemn the 'appeal' decision...

Trebor16

Very true Bargepole. I went to PATAS in 2008 over a PCN received from London Borough of Barnet over an alleged bus lane infringement. LBB PCN's were not compliant and they rejected my representations. So I went armed with an earlier judgement (thanks to the guys over at Pepipoo) which related to the exact same point that I was contesting.

When the hearing started I produced the judgement and the adjudicator read it and then said that he had made that judgement so he was unlikely that he would overrule his ealier judgement!

So if such a case was put before this tribunal they would be in deep doo doo with any future cases.

peter_the_piper

Another thought has occurred. If the parking company put the wrong reg, eg ab6icde instead of ab61cde would it be a) the ppc is stuffed just like a council or b) they just change the letter to a number (assuming they found a way of conning the dvla) If b) then they would have more powers than a council not equal.

Coupon-mad

They will have more 'powers' to find against an appellant anyway.

They do not have to answer to statute so will not have to prove that their 'PCN', lines, signs and non-existent TRO/maps are compliant. One presumes they won't have to comply with and have regard to guidelines such as those Councils have, covering the use of CCTV; they won't have to answer to whether a CEO is wearing full uniform or to show his/her notebook; they won't have a statutory number of days to reply to a formal appeal...

...but then again the appellant won't have to comply with the findings either!

AlexisV

I cannot see how an appeals system can function.

• Existing contract law would mean the vast majority of invoices would be unenforceable
• There is no mechanism in place that would oblige people to take part
• There is no mechanism in place which would enable PPC's to recover the money, whether or not an appeal took place, short of making a county court claim and winning there
• The claims are still made under contract and the Bill states that keepers would be liable under existing contract law. The law of contract does not enable a third party to be party a contract in such cases however. You cannot make a claim under the same law that prevents the claim from occurring in the first place.

peter_the_piper

What a pigs ear, I suppose that comes from only getting information from one side, ie The BPA side. Still I suppose we should be grateful, they could have done a better job and stitched us up completely instead of basically leaving things as they were.

bromsgrovebarry

Oh dear this shows the incompatibilty between Perky law and UK law. What silly billies the Westminster trough feeders are.

Inflatable_Armadillo

AlexisV wrote: »

I cannot see how an appeals system can function.

• Existing contract law would mean the vast majority of invoices would be unenforceable
• There is no mechanism in place that would oblige people to take part
• There is no mechanism in place which would enable PPC's to recover the money, whether or not an appeal took place, short of making a county court claim and winning there
• The claims are still made under contract and the Bill states that keepers would be liable under existing contract law. The law of contract does not enable a third party to be party a contract in such cases however. You cannot make a claim under the same law that prevents the claim from occurring in the first place.

I think that is an excellent summary and in four bullet points, you have demonstrated how to drive an oil tanker through the whole sorry affair.

Taiko

Oil tanker? Is that a description of Perky in rhyming slang?