independent appeals from October - Question

trisontana

I wonder when making the appeal you could challenge the actual legal basis of the so-called parking charge. So in addition to the usual reasons (slipped ticket, poor signs) I wonder if you could also include the facts that the amount demanded amounts to an unfair penalty and that the PPC does not have sufficient interest in the car-park?

The adjudicator is a barrister and should have sufficient legal knowledge to understand these legal points.

Dublindel

The. Answer has to be simpler than above for a new poster. My view is offer to pay any shortfall in the parking fee, thereafter, APPEAL, APPEAL, IGNORE

bargepole

trisontana wrote: »

I wonder when making the appeal you could challenge the actual legal basis of the so-called parking charge. So in addition to the usual reasons (slipped ticket, poor signs) I wonder if you could also include the facts that the amount demanded amounts to an unfair penalty and that the PPC does not have sufficient interest in the car-park?

The adjudicator is a barrister and should have sufficient legal knowledge to understand these legal points.

This is going to be the key question. Appealing over things like slipped ticket, poor signs, etc. mean that essentially you accept that the PPC can levy charges in general, but just not on this particular occasion.

We should be bypassing all that, and encouraging people to submit appeals based on the three core elements of unlawfulness -
1) Attempt to impose a contractual penalty which is arbitrary and does not reflect actual or pre-estimated loss (Dunlop)
2) Right to form contracts and issue charges (VCSvHMRC, etc)
3) Unfair Terms as per UTCCR schedule 2.

Clearly, no PPC is going to accept an appeal based on those points, but their process has to be gone through before a formal appeal to POPLA can be made.

A properly independent barrister should reach the same conclusions as Judge Lee McIlwaine at S-thorpe. There's some discussion about this going on at Pepipoo right now, and I would expect that shortly we'll be able to come up with a templated Letter of Appeal to incorporate all the above.

bazster

trisontana wrote: »

I wonder when making the appeal you could challenge the actual legal basis of the so-called parking charge. So in addition to the usual reasons (slipped ticket, poor signs) I wonder if you could also include the facts that the amount demanded amounts to an unfair penalty and that the PPC does not have sufficient interest in the car-park?

The adjudicator is a barrister and should have sufficient legal knowledge to understand these legal points.

Presumably they will come up with a list of valid "grounds for appeal", just as PATAS does, and any appeal that is based solely on grounds outwith that list will be automatically dismissed. You can be pretty sure that "the PCN has no legal basis whatsoever" will not be on the list!

So what to do? You want to appeal, so as to cost the PPC £27. But, you do NOT want to be seen to be accepting that this (or any other) PCN has any legal basis.

The answer may be to:

(i) appeal stating "I didn't do it" (which is sure to be one of the grounds on the list), however spurious your claim e.g. "I did not park on the decorative lines painted on the ground", even if they've got photos of you doing just that; this at least gets you onto the list of "grounds for appeal", thus ensuring the PPC coughs up £27;

(ii) additionally state that: (a) "I didn't do it" because there was no "it", no "offence", no "breach of contract", because there was no contract (b) that you recognise the validity of neither the PCN nor the appeal process, nor the jurisdiction of the appeal body and (c) that you reserve all your legal rights, including the right to sue the PPC for harassment if they do not cease pursuing their baseless claims against you.

I also wonder if there might be grounds for legal action against London Councils and the BPA for operating a purportedly quasi-judicial scheme which is manifestly set up on completely spurious grounds i.e. they are purporting to adjudicate on supposed contractual disputes where no contract ever (or at least very rarely) exists. Basically it's a kangaroo court. Legalities, anyone?

LincolnshireYokel

bazster wrote: »

Presumably they will come up with a list of valid "grounds for appeal", just as PATAS does, and any appeal that is based solely on grounds outwith that list will be automatically dismissed. You can be pretty sure that "the PCN has no legal basis whatsoever" will not be on the list!

So what to do? You want to appeal, so as to cost the PPC £27. But, you do NOT want to be seen to be accepting that this (or any other) PCN has any legal basis.

The answer may be to:

(i) appeal stating "I didn't do it" (which is sure to be one of the grounds on the list), however spurious your claim e.g. "I did not park on the decorative lines painted on the ground", even if they've got photos of you doing just that; this at least gets you onto the list of "grounds for appeal", thus ensuring the PPC coughs up £27;

(ii) additionally state that: (a) "I didn't do it" because there was no "it", no "offence", no "breach of contract", because there was no contract (b) that you recognise the validity of neither the PCN nor the appeal process, nor the jurisdiction of the appeal body and (c) that you reserve all your legal rights, including the right to sue the PPC for harassment if they do not cease pursuing their baseless claims against you.

I also wonder if there might be grounds for legal action against London Councils and the BPA for operating a purportedly quasi-judicial scheme which is manifestly set up on completely spurious grounds i.e. they are purporting to adjudicate on supposed contractual disputes where no contract ever (or at least very rarely) exists. Basically it's a kangaroo court. Legalities, anyone?

Its irrelevant. The ruling isnt binding on the motorist, so you can appeal any way you like, and if it goes against you, still say "see you in court". Once they lose a few in court on the same basis as before this new process, they'll realise it isnt worth the paper its printed on an give up, especially if its costing them £32 a throw.

minion101

A question on the 'endless false driver' ploy. Wouldn't a PPC have the right to go after the RK if they prove that the first name / address supplied are bogus?

Could they not justifiably argue that they have made a reasonable request and the RK has made themselves liable by failing to provide the correct details as stated in the Act?

If we all use the same name and address then it would become evident very quickly what was going on, even to those that work for PPCs. I mean they do talk to each other and I presume exchange information. After the first few they would simply write back stating that they know you have supplied false information so they are now going to go after you as the RK.

The foreign visitor driving your car has more legs, but I could see one of the PPCs doing a test case on this and once it gets to court the RK would have to own up or purjor themselves and as someone else mentioned earlier the judge would probably take a dim view.

Yes, I realise that none of the above negates the existing perfectly valid arguments of why a PPC charge / penalty is not payable, but getting the judge's back up before you even get to those is a little risky IMHO.

bazster

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

Its irrelevant. The ruling isnt binding on the motorist, so you can appeal any way you like, and if it goes against you, still say "see you in court". Once they lose a few in court on the same basis as before this new process, they'll realise it isnt worth the paper its printed on an give up, especially if its costing them £32 a throw.

Might not be irrelevant. If an appealed case ever reached a court and you argued there was no contract might a judge say "well you seemed to accept there was a contract when you appealed it"? I don't know, but I don't see it can do any harm to make it clear that you regard the entire process as a sham.

taffy056

bazster wrote: »

Might not be irrelevant. If an appealed case ever reached a court and you argued there was no contract might a judge say "well you seemed to accept there was a contract when you appealed it"? I don't know, but I don't see it can do any harm to make it clear that you regard the entire process as a sham.

Thing its very unlikely to ever go to court, just look what happens right now where people admit they were driving. You will have a right to appeal all invoices, but it's not binding on the driver. So it's not accepting anything IMO its just using the process that is available to you. Appealing is not acceptance in any way.


Looking forward to this happening, wonder which ppc will be the first to use the new template letters on someone parking prior to October . I will say its perky

bazster

minion101 wrote: »

A question on the 'endless false driver' ploy. Wouldn't a PPC have the right to go after the RK if they prove that the first name / address supplied are bogus?

Yes.

minion101 wrote: »

Could they not justifiably argue that they have made a reasonable request and the RK has made themselves liable by failing to provide the correct details as stated in the Act?

According to the Act the RK is liable anyway if the PPC doesn't know who the driver was. The RK cannot make his/herself more liable!

minion101 wrote: »

If we all use the same name and address then it would become evident very quickly what was going on, even to those that work for PPCs. I mean they do talk to each other and I presume exchange information. After the first few they would simply write back stating that they know you have supplied false information so they are now going to go after you as the RK.

Yep, that's most likely what would happen.

minion101 wrote: »

The foreign visitor driving your car has more legs, but I could see one of the PPCs doing a test case on this and once it gets to court the RK would have to own up or purjor themselves and as someone else mentioned earlier the judge would probably take a dim view.

I'd have thought so. If you couldn't prove that the overseas resident was driving then it's open to a judge to decide that most likely it was you, the RK, who was driving, and to further take a pretty dim view of you telling porky pies.

minion101 wrote: »

Yes, I realise that none of the above negates the existing perfectly valid arguments of why a PPC charge / penalty is not payable, but getting the judge's back up before you even get to those is a little risky IMHO.

Agreed. Fun as it is to play with these scenarios, which might indeed send a PPC chasing shadows for while, it does run a risk. The argument that it will never get to court anyway is dangerous because sooner or later a PPC is going to target one of these for court precisely so that they can show you up as a liar in front of a judge.

Probably better on balance just to appeal whilst still denying that any of it has any validity whatsoever, and then carry on as before.

bazster

taffy056 wrote: »

Thing its very unlikely to ever go to court, just look what happens right now where people admit they were driving. You will have a right to appeal all invoices, but it's not binding on the driver. So it's not accepting anything IMO its just using the process that is available to you. Appealing is not acceptance in any way.

Unlikely to go to court, but not impossible, and the PPC's will be testing every angle they can when these new procedures come in.

They may choose the case of an unsuccessful appellant who still refuses to pay and take it to court just to see if they can get any change out of a judge. "The defendant lost his independent appeal and still refuses to pay, your honour!"

If your defence then is a general one along the lines of "PCN's are a scam" someone is sure to say "so why did you participate in the appeal process?".

Which may count for nothing, but why take the chance? Judges are human, they can make mistakes and be suckered by codswallop. So any engagement with the process should surely be done on the express proviso that it implies no acceptance of the validity of any of it?