PCCN Appeal declined - advice please :(

Half_way

trisontana wrote: »

Of course it's defeatable as the sum demanded does not represent the loss suffered by the landowner/ PPC. That's all they can legally claim for.

If the landowner/management company claims that say £100 is a true pre estiamte of any loss ( for pausing on their private roads to let somone get out) , how could you prove it otherwise?

vax2002

Half_way wrote: »

If the landowner/management company claims that say £100 is a true pre estiamte of any loss ( for pausing on their private roads to let somone get out) , how could you prove it otherwise?

Because in court you can not CLAIM anything, you have to PROVE it

trisontana

One thing they cannot claim for are "fixed costs" such as staff wages, rent and rates etc. They have to meet those costs regardless if someone breaks their silly rules or not.

Half_way

would this be correct?
in the case of the OP, did his/her parking prevent some one else from parking in a space?
if yes then all they owe is the sum of the standard parking fine for the aditional blocked space
If no obstruction occured then they owe precisly nothing, as there was no loss?

As for parking "out of a marked bay" ive been in many car parks with narrow bays, and ive been forced to park over the lines, as if i had parked between the lines it would have been impossible for the driver next to me to get into their car.

hnmm, Set myself up as a parking company, ( say MSE parking and clamping services) find a bit of scrappy land to rent in a city centre, paint car park with narrow bays, wait for the inevetable, issue tickets = proffit. maybe im in the wrong job.

give_them_FA

Half_way, I am sorry but you are trying to argue logically here. That type of argument is alien to the PPC scammers, who are only interested in extracting the maximum amount of cash from anyone unfortunate enough to be bamboozled by their pseudo-legalese gobbledegook.

That's the general reason why they rely on threats rather than actually taking anyone to court. A trained lawyer sitting as a District Judge will see through their bull immediately.

Half_way

give_them_FA wrote: »

Half_way, I am sorry but you are trying to argue logically here. That type of argument is alien to the PPC scammers, who are only interested in extracting the maximum amount of cash from anyone unfortunate enough to be bamboozled by their pseudo-legalese gobbledegook.

That's the general reason why they rely on threats rather than actually taking anyone to court. A trained lawyer sitting as a District Judge will see through their bull immediately.

But if you try logic, and can prove that you have tried, and if it comes to court, then maybe you could use it in the court process.

If the PPC has absolutly no intention of taking it to court, or is unable to ( for example the claim is a load of [edit] ) then arent all these parking charge notices issued to drivers mothing more than demanding money with menaces and impersonating authority, isnt that illegal?
if so then shouldnt all these companies/owners of these companies, and those that employ them on their land be taken before a Judge, and then forced to repay all those people who have been co-erced and threatened

vax2002

English Law of tort is tends to lean towards you can not make claims for what you have not asked or refused.
If you dont pay for parking at £3 and they ask for £3 and you refuse to pay £3 they can sue you for £3 and court costs and they will win the case.
Unfortunately, they dont want £3, if they did they would stand at the gate and not let you in if you did not pay it, they want hundreds of pounds, which is a penalty and unlawful and as they never asked for the £3 you did owe, they dont get that either if you argue your case right.

give_them_FA

That is a very good question, Half_way. I wish I could give you an answer. Unfortunately I think the answer lies with those who are supposed to exercise authority in the country and who have totally abdicated their responsibility in this matter.

Stephen_Leak

Unfortunately, all of the few cases that do get to court are in the County Courts, and don't set legal precedents. Unfortunately, there is nothing in law, which specifically says that, if you owe me £1 and I demand £100, I waive my right to the £1. The judge would find in your favour, yet might still award me just the £1. It's almost like awarding damages of 1p in libel cases.

Nozone

Just to add further reassurance (can't hurt!) and comment on the 'logic' points;

1) Think of it this way. If they were reasonably sure (could even be 1% of cases, reason follows) that they could take people to court and win, THEY WOULD DO SO! Think about it, if they can take you to court for the maximum amount they usually punt for (eventually), which is around the £200 mark, surely they would issue you with one warning that immediately shoots up to £200, and then take you to court. I'm not sure what the costs of a loss would be for them, but I imagine they would only need a small percentage of wins to be making a profit (maybe not 1% but you get the idea). So far they have sent the registered keeper in my case 4 'final warnings'. Why would they bother? The amount has been at £198 since around January. Pure and simple begging because they are the equivalent of the horse that didn't even make it to the starting blocks.

2) Logic really doesn't wash with PPC's and their cronies. I don't say this as an insult to them (they wouldn't even take it as an insut - they are the undesirables of society that can only find employment in harassing and bullying people into paying up - extortionists if you will). I can 100% guarantee that logic doesn't wash with them, the registered keeper in my case used logic and solid legal reasoning - and guess what? They completely ignored his points (literally, they didn't even comment on them, never mind the fact that the letter was also a cease & desist) and simply spouted some more almost meaningless legal mumbo-jumbo (Norwich Pharmacal Order).

Of course, if a case did ever go to court then I assume the fact that the defendant had attempted to reconcile the issue and used some solid reasoning would probably work in their favour.