Sorry if this has already been posted

dacouch

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

trisontana

This is a very important point:-

Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine preestimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken.
For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver.

So £20 tops, and not the stupid figures demanded by PPCs.

Of course those "admin charges" cannot include the ordinary running costs of the office and staff wages. The PPC has to bear these costs even if no tickets are issued. So it looks as though they can claim very little in actual losses.

Coupon-mad

Their definition of 'landholder' is an interesting one. Can't see how it can include an agent.

bazster

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Their definition of 'landholder' is an interesting one. Can't see how it can include an agent.

It's a sop to fool the PPC's into thinking there is something in POFA for them. Makes no difference to the actual legislation or to the job of the courts.

The_Slithy_Tove

trisontana wrote: »

So £20 tops, and not the stupid figures demanded by PPCs.

Even that is arguable. At the point where you stayed parked for 2 hours and 1 minute (in a "free parkig for 2 hours" car park), there are still no losses to the landowner. Even an hour later, still no losses. So why spend £20 in "admin" charges to pursue the RK for a zero loss? Surely (VCS v Ibbotson) they are obliged to keep their losses to a minimum, which would mean not applying to the DVLA for details and not sending out PCNs.

QED