"independent" appeals service, post Oct 2012

Dublindel

Stephen.benton@londoncouncils.gov.uk. - try asking this guy all the unanswered questions and best do it now so his inbox is full tomorrow morning. It's his name on the report

bargepole

No need to ask any questions - just tell it like it is. This is what I've sent him:

Dear Mr Benton,

I have read your report, dated 14 June 2012, in which you are proposing to operate an Appeals Service for the BPA from October 2012.

If you do this, you will be making a terrible mistake - there is a very large elephant in the room which your document completely ignores.

The document states "the appeal service will focus on whether a parking enforcement notice has been issued lawfully."

Private Parking "tickets", by their very nature, are never lawful for the following reasons:

1) Contract law, for which the long established precedent is[FONT=&quot]Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd (1915) AC79:[/FONT] The ruling in this case sets a long-standing precedent, and clearly establishes that penalties cannot be enforced under English contract law. If an arbitrary amount is charged, which bears no relation to any actual loss, or genuine pre-estimate of loss, then this is a penalty.


2) Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC (Upper Tier Tax Tribunal, May 2012):
[FONT=&quot]Although this case was primarily concerned with VAT liabilities, it was necessary for the Judges to make rulings on the legality of PPC contracts in order to assess those liabilities. In the matter of contracts, the rulings were very clear that if the PPC has no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land, they cannot lawfully create contracts with drivers, irrespective of any signage. It therefore follows that any so-called “parking charges” are unlawful and unenforceable. Virtually all PPC "tickets" are issued under similarly unlawful and unenforceable contracts.

3) Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:
In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

You may also be interested to know that, in the Impact Assessment phase leading up to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the BPA provided figures to the DVLA, in which they estimated that "between 2% and 5%" of private parking tickets were the subject of County Court Claims - i.e. between 36,000 and 90,000 annually.

Thanks to a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Justice, I was able to establish that the actual number of Court claims issued in 2011 was just 845 - of which, only a paltry 49 proceeded to a hearing.

This should tell you everything you need to know about the BPA, whose only real interest is in perpetuating the myth that their members "tickets" are lawfully issued, so that they can scare people into paying them monies to which they are not entitled.

I would urge you to ensure that the London Councils have nothing to do with this grubby little scam.

Best regards,[/FONT]

Dublindel

Excellent and comprehensive, nevertheless, the more that fill his mailbox the better. He will get a better idea how big an issue this is

BASFORDLAD

Let us know if and when you get a reply please bargepole

SodG24

bargepole wrote: »

No need to ask any questions - just tell it like it is. This is what I've sent him:

Dear Mr Benton,

I have read your report, dated 14 June 2012, in which you are proposing to operate an Appeals Service for the BPA from October 2012.

If you do this, you will be making a terrible mistake - there is a very large elephant in the room which your document completely ignores.

The document states "the appeal service will focus on whether a parking enforcement notice has been issued lawfully."

Private Parking "tickets", by their very nature, are never lawful for the following reasons:

1) Contract law, for which the long established precedent is[FONT=&quot]Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre CoLtd v New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd (1915) AC79:[/FONT] The ruling in this case sets a long-standing precedent, and clearly establishes that penalties cannot be enforced under English contract law. If an arbitrary amount is charged, which bears no relation to any actual loss, or genuine pre-estimate of loss, then this is a penalty.


2) Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC (Upper Tier Tax Tribunal, May 2012):
[FONT=&quot]Although this case was primarily concerned with VAT liabilities, it was necessary for the Judges to make rulings on the legality of PPC contracts in order to assess those liabilities. In the matter of contracts, the rulings were very clear that if the PPC has no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land, they cannot lawfully create contracts with drivers, irrespective of any signage. It therefore follows that any so-called “parking charges” are unlawful and unenforceable. Virtually all PPC "tickets" are issued under similarly unlawful and unenforceable contracts.

3) Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:
In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

You may also be interested to know that, in the Impact Assessment phase leading up to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the BPA provided figures to the DVLA, in which they estimated that "between 2% and 5%" of private parking tickets were the subject of County Court Claims - i.e. between 36,000 and 90,000 annually.

Thanks to a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Justice, I was able to establish that the actual number of Court claims issued in 2011 was just 845 - of which, only a paltry 49 proceeded to a hearing.

This should tell you everything you need to know about the BPA, whose only real interest is in perpetuating the myth that their members "tickets" are lawfully issued, so that they can scare people into paying them monies to which they are not entitled.

I would urge you to ensure that the London Councils have nothing to do with this grubby little scam.

Best regards,[/FONT]

It's probably worth sending that to as many councillors that you can find on London councils as possible as well.

All their email addresses can be found here :

http://directory.londoncouncils.gov.uk/

taffy056

Can I suggest that the acronym 'PPC not be used as there is no understanding of what it means beyond a few internet forums.

Stephen_Leak

I do, like you do in your current signature, define it, ie., "private parking company (PPC)".

peter_the_piper

1 more to block the mail box.

Dublindel

Response from Stephen Benton clarifying my questio. The independent will follow immediately after an appeal to the PPC. therfore the PPC must pay £27 to cover this. Only after this point can the PPC pursue you with debt collectors and court action.

peter_the_piper

Dublindel wrote: »

Response from Stephen Benton clarifying my questio. The independent will follow immediately after an appeal to the PPC. therfore the PPC must pay £27 to cover this. Only after this point can the PPC pursue you with debt collectors and court action.

So he completely missed/ignored the main point that there is no contract with a PPC unless they own the land.