Schedule 4 update.

ripped_off_driver

"This guide uses the term “landholder” to mean either a private
landowner or an agent (or agents) properly authorised by the landowner to manage and enforce parking on the land in question."

The use of this catch all term does not get around the VCS case. A PPC "landholder" cannot make an offer of parking as per VCS.

"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."

This is also plainly wrong. A line of cases including Ibbotson have decided that admin charges are not recoverable and per the HMRC/VCS case the loss would have to be that of the landowner.

An interesting document certainly but mistaken in parts.

trisontana

It appears that the question of the true pre-estimate of loss is being incorporated into the BPA guidelines. So, if it can be shown that the figures demanded by a PPC are just arbitrary and not an actual loss, then that would be a breach of the guidelines, and puts the PPC in line for sanctions by the BPA.

bazster

trisontana wrote: »

It appears that the question of the true pre-estimate of loss is being incorporated into the BPA guidelines. So, if it can be shown that the figures demanded by a PPC are just arbitrary and not an actual loss, then that would be a breach of the guidelines, and puts the PPC in line for sanctions by the BPA.

No biscuits at the next board meeting?

More fruitful might be to gather all relevant evidence regarding what is or is not an actual loss and presenting it to the DVLA as evidence of the breach of BPA rules, with a suggestion that a suspension from accessing data might be in order.

surfboy1

In part 1.1, what do they mean by "agent properly authorised by the landholder "?
What is proper authorisation?

HO87

bazster wrote: »

No biscuits at the next board meeting?

More fruitful might be to gather all relevant evidence regarding what is or is not an actual loss and presenting it to the DVLA as evidence of the breach of BPA rules, with a suggestion that a suspension from accessing data might be in order.

I agree but why only a suspension?

If it can be demonstrated that what a PPC is doing is seeking to enforce a contractual penalty, or at least what they are looking to charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of their losses then surely this also goes to the "reasonable cause" argument? The BPA CoP now moves to centrefield and becomes the yardstick by which "reasonable cause" can be measured.

One wonders what on earth the BPA is going to do to retain its membership of PPC's?

surfboy1 wrote: »

In part 1.1, what do they mean by "agent properly authorised by the landholder "?
What is proper authorisation?

I believe that proper authorisation in this context means compliant with the VCS v HMRC judgment. I can't see what else it could be referring to. The correct wording is "properly authorised by the landowner" not landholder.

The_Slithy_Tove

HO87 wrote: »

If it can be demonstrated that what a PPC is doing is seeking to enforce a contractual penalty, or at least what they are looking to charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of their losses then surely this also goes to the "reasonable cause" argument? The BPA CoP now moves to centrefield and becomes the yardstick by which "reasonable cause" can be measured.

One wonders what on earth the BPA is going to do to retain its membership of PPC's?

Especially when the genuine pre-estimate of their losses in a FREE car park can only be zero.

trisontana

As a pre-estimate of loss can vary from case to case then any PPC sign or paperwork that mentions a fixed sum of money must be wrong. That's going to be difficult for them.

taffy056

And if the retailer is closed at the time of parking, how would there be any loss at all ? If there is a loss of say £60 per the sign how is that exactly broken down? And if there is a loss where does it come from ? I mean an almost empty car park where you are parked, if you stayed over the time limit on a sign, how is there a loss ?

Can't wait for the fun to start come October

Half_way

I feel a few questions coming on to my local supermarkets customer support desk.

bazster

taffy056 wrote: »

And if the retailer is closed at the time of parking, how would there be any loss at all ? If there is a loss of say £60 per the sign how is that exactly broken down? And if there is a loss where does it come from ? I mean an almost empty car park where you are parked, if you stayed over the time limit on a sign, how is there a loss ?

Can't wait for the fun to start come October

If you overstayed as a result of not only doing your weekly grocery shop but also having lunch in the supermarket caff, they would've been occasioned a loss if you didn't overstay!

Some PPC wesbites brag about their success in freeing-up parking spaces in car parks they "manage", and even publish stats to show how successful they are. Can the dolts who engage them really not see that every one of those empty parking spaces is potentially a lost customer?