Letter From The BPA

esmerobbo

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Thing is with any contract you legally have a 14 day cooling off period so how do they honestly expect to enforce it?

It's all a load of b*ll*x.

Really? Next time I get a cab I will say just here mate and as I get out I will say I have used my 14 day cooling off period and decided not to except your contract! Plus your not getting a tip!:p

The 14 day cooling off period does not cover all contracts, but it never covers one were you have completed!

But I agree its all a load of b*ll*x !;)

HO87

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Thing is with any contract you legally have a 14 day cooling off period so how do they honestly expect to enforce it?

Really? Are you completely sure?

Alexis27

The act of parking is basically acceptance, so there can't be any cooling off period.

But conversely there isn't a valid contractual offer or consideration anyway, so there is no contract to accept and therefore no cooling off period.

Kite2010

I've got exclusive news of what the independent appeals process will be. All appeals will be heard by Gary & Paul down the local pub, they are independent as they don't work for the PPC, just get given drinks

robredz

A pre estimate of loss is easy, free parking, 1 minute or 100 years overstay, = £0, so in no way can they dress up an unenforceable invoice, and factor it in along with their legal costs in pursuing it, Parking Eye should know that

give_them_FA

Contracts generally don't have a cooling off period. I think that only applies to contracts where someone has come to your house to sell you something, or distance selling i.e. where you buy something on the internet. If you go to the trader's premises then the contract is binding from day 1.

An appeal process? Why? We already have one that succeeds 100% of the time- it's called ignore the pr*cks.

TrickyWicky

Ok maybe I'm getting confused with Financial services / distance selling.

trisontana

Last week I sent off a follow-up email to the BPA over some of the points raised by them. I especially questioned their answer over liquidated damages and quoted two recent court cases (Parking Eye and OPC), where in both cases the judge ruled that the sums demanded were unfair penalties and didn't reflect the actual loss suffered by the PPC/landowner. I also said that I didn't think there was a need for that appeals procedure as the courts are the best place to judge an individual case.

Below is their answer. As you see they completely failed to address the question of liquidated damages. I wonder why? :-

You will appreciate that time pressures and other priorities preclude me from entering lengthy and protracted debate but I would like to make two brief comments in closing;

1 I understand that there are cases where the operator does not win and that these are highlighted on the various websites - what receives far less coverage though are the cases where the operator wins.

2 I don't believe that it would be better for cases to go to Court rather than an Independent Appeals Service (IAS) for a number of reasons;
* There will be no cost to the motorist for taking a case to the IAS
* The IAS will be fully funded by the industry - no cost to the tax-payer
* Taking a case to the IAS will be far less stressful for the motorist
* The decision of the IAS will be binding on the operator
* If the motorist loses his case at the IAS, he could still consider allowing the matter to go to Court
* It is estimated that there could be up 20k cases for the IAS each year - the Court's time can be better spent

Kind regards

taffy056

He thinks 20k cases pmsl , so the parking companies issue 2.5m or so invoices a year if I remember rightly, and they saying that 2,480,000 will simply pay up if it doesn't cost anything to appeal ? He is deluding himself , and how independent is this appeals process, who runs it ? And as its binding on the ppcs it's not on the driver, so they can say basically take me to court if you want money. It's going to be a mess

peter_the_piper

""There will be no cost to the motorist for taking a case to the IAS""
1)True, but there never was a cost to the driver anyway, even if it ever went to court the cost was initially borne by the PPC.

""The decision of the IAS will be binding on the operator""

2)The operator only, that's good.

"""If the motorist loses his case at the IAS, he could still consider allowing the matter to go to Court""
3)Unless the IAS decision is binding on the driver then item 2 above applies.