Full and final settlement to landowner - opinions/template letter?

fivegoldstars

Reading a number of different stories, there seems to be a slight lack of consensus over full and final settlements to landowners, something which I think is more important in light of the recent tax ruling.
Personally - as a layperson - it would seem like the correct thing to do if a genuine loss was involved (i.e. P&D), and should stand you in good stead if you ever did find yourself in court or retro-clamped. With the correct wording surrounding the issue of harrassment (citing both parties, landowner and their agent) along with said payment, you would hope that the landowner would be inclined to contact the PPC and halt the process. A brief note to the PPC saying that full and final settlement had been made to the landowner, and any further correspondence would be deemed harrassment would also be a useful thing if any further unpleasantness unfolded.

However, the overriding advice, here and in other places, seems to be no contact, whatever your circumstances, no story is different, bin the lot. As such, I can't see that there is any template to adhere to re full and final settlements, and without that, I suppose people could fall into the trap of making an 'appeal', or in some way implying that they accept that a contract was entered in to.

What are people's ideas on this, and would anybody sufficiently qualified be willing to suggest wording?

ManxRed

I agree with you, and I'll put my thinking cap on and report back later. They key issue will be to avoid admitting liability for any wrongdoing and making it clear that the payment is in respect of actual losses incurred and is an accurate representation of actual monies due, and no liability for monies claimed.

give_them_FA

Same here, this issue has to be addressed and a cogent policy put into place. This applies particularly after keeper liability comes in, rather than at present, because ignore may no longer be the best policy.

As you say, it will only be for genuine cases where a fee should have been paid for parking but this was not done, so that there is an indisputable liability.

As the Forum ethos is that people should pay the advertised fee to the landowner if they park, whilst it has been common (and right) to say ignore the PPC's stupid demands, the fact remains that the land-owner should get what is due.

Of course I do not think there will be any suggestion of paying made-up scam charges- like leaving site, not parking in a bay, or failing to park with all valve stems properly aligned with each other.

Stephen_Leak

I'm still of the opinion that, by demanding more than any outstanding charge, the PPC has waived their and the car park owner's right to the lower legal amount.

However, if you do get genuine court papers, then is the time to offer it as a full and final out of court settlement. Judges really do like to see people trying to be fair and trying to avoid the case coming before them.

If Mr. Smith had offered the £15 to PE and they had refused it by continuing to chase for the £260, then it would have been difficult (although not impossible) for the judge to award it to them.

give_them_FA

Stephen as I said earlier, once a case has been put before a Court it is too late to offer payment in this way. It then becomes a partial admission, and you will have to pay the costs of the claim issue which may include a solicitor's fee for preparing the claim, as I believe it did in the Smith case.

It may well be that if the claimant presses it to a hearing and you had already paid what the Judge awards following the hearing he might not order you to pay the hearing fee; but the initial fees, pretty certainly yes.

The rules for payment into court do not apply in small claims.

If payment is offered, then it should be done BEFORE a claim is issued or it will be of no benefit.

fivegoldstars

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

I'm still of the opinion that, by demanding more than any outstanding charge, the PPC has waived their and the car park owner's right to the lower legal amount.

However, if you do get genuine court papers, then is the time to offer it as a full and final out of court settlement. Judges really do like to see people trying to be fair and trying to avoid the case coming before them.

If Mr. Smith had offered the £15 to PE and they had refused it by continuing to chase for the £260, then it would have been difficult (although not impossible) for the judge to award it to them.

In effect, the landowner did demand the initial fee when you parked. Once the PPC has made you aware of your failure to pay in their inimitably comedic way, would it not be fair to rectify any mistake?
Playing Devil's Advocate, surely a different judge could take the opinion that if you wait until court papers to pay, then you never actually had any intention to pay - you hoped to get away with it? A full and final payment removes that option.
I also think that it:
1) Gives the RK a sense of closure, correct or not. They feel like some action has been taken
2) Compensates the landowner for genuine losses, giving the RK moral closure
3) Gives the opportunity the highlight your displeasure with the use of PPCs to the landowner
4) Sets the ground for a harrassment case should your payment be ignored - with the landowner being made aware that any case would name them and their agent
5) Gives some measure of defence should things proceed

My only concern is that it complicates a solution which has obviously worked for so long, and possibly causes more problems than it solves by consituting some form of 'admission'.

Stephen_Leak

Developments at S!!!!horpe County Court this week ...

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-Viewing)-nbsp

... seem to suggest that the car park owner is now in the loop. If so, then offering them - not the PPC - any unpaid charges, seems to outweigh any danger of - in the case of a windscreen ticket - divulging personal information to the PPC.

PS. And that this site's profanity filter needs adjusting?

give_them_FA

It's an interesting and vital thread. You obviously realise where I stand on this issue.

I do not think it constitutes an admission of anything more than the truth. You would be saying, "I am sorry, I failed to pay you the £2 (or whatever) that I should have paid you" and that should close the matter; as using the form of words "in full and final settlement" suggests.

You have two contracts; one with the landowner, which you admit; which is why you pay it. The second contract, imposed upon you by the PPC (or not, following VCS v HMRC!) which you do not admit. Payment of a valid contract does not constitute admission of an invalid separate contract. And whilst I enjoy Stephen's idea that by asking for £60 you forfeit the right to the £2, I do not think it is a valid principle in law particularly if there are two contracts.

The "solution" which has worked for so long, may be changed by October. Ignoring has meant that without information as to who the driver was neither the landowner nor the PPC can do anything. However, it will soon be the case that if you ignore, that will confer upon those parties the right to proceed against the RK without having to show he was driving.

If, therefore, there is an indisputable loss, such as the failure to pay a legitimate charge, that will be a green light to sue the RK. The initial amount may be small, but I can see the PPCs padding it out with collection charges which may well be allowed by a Court.

There may be other ways around this in the issue of naming the driver; but as regards the fee, payment promptly of the amount correctly due is vital in my view, as this will not give the PPC the excuse to inflate their claim. Payment can be made without admissions, also.

That is why we need to change our tactics.

give_them_FA

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

PS. And that this site's profanity filter needs adjusting?

Or maybe they need to rename the town, disgusting!:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

pustit

A fascinating thread !
Thanks are due to all contributors.
I always found "Law" as a subject so tedious and could never find any enthusiasm for it but since my own brush with PPCs I have virtually lived on here and when reading messages relevant to my own circumstances the Law suddenly seems so logical and "Human".
Keep up the good work you guys (and gals)
Regards
Pustit