Schedule 4 update.

HO87

bazster wrote: »

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?

Not unless we take the opportunity to tell them - and demonstrate the point. When some years ago my local Tesco allowed a PPC to operate in their car park I made a point of speaking to the manager at the customer service point - near the main entrance, and told him I would not return and gave him the receipt from Safeways (as it then was) from the previous evening where we'd done our monthly shop. Even though that PPC lasted only just over a year and there has been no permanent PPC since I have not returned. For the same reason I do not shop in the nearest Asda where TCP hold sway and have told the manager there exactly the same.

ginnersinner

In addition to the VCS v HMRC ruling, (which as we all know essentially says that unless the PPC have been given the contractual right to 'offer parking' rather than just 'manage parking' they can't claim their own damages/losses - without prejudice to all the other things that are flawed with their claims) surely if a PPC has been paid by a landowner to 'manage parking and enforce violations', then all their costs associated with that have been paid already, by the landowner in their fee to the PPC. We all know that their costs are viewed as an 'operating cost' rather than a loss caused, but therein lies another reason they can't claim them as losses/costs - they've already been paid them.

Jez_uk

Can I just confirm that the change in regulations wef 1st October 2012 can not be applied retrospectively ?

I'm only on threatening letter no.2 for an alleged incident In July. Should I continue to ignore or do I need to appeal ?

taffy056

Jez_uk wrote: »

Can I just confirm that the change in regulations wef 1st October 2012 can not be applied retrospectively ?

I'm only on threatening letter no.2 for an alleged incident In July. Should I continue to ignore or do I need to appeal ?

No they can't do this retrospectively at all, so continue to ignore and don't appeal. Though if you do start getting letters that you must name the driver etc come back to us as that would be grounds to get them to lose their dvla data link

ginnersinner

They are not retrospective. Even after 1st October you don't 'need' to appeal, but all the advice is to do so as it costs the PPC money, and will not affect your ability to not pay after that. I personally think there may - initially - be a few more cases taken to County Court by the PPCs who think that Sched 4 requires the RK to pay - which it doesn't - but once that's been blown out of the water we'll be back to where we are now.

bargepole

The real killer is in the FAQs section:

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate 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.
If the terms and conditions of parking contracts seek to impose charges for different types of breaches (eg for straddling two bays compared to overstaying in one bay), or for the same breaches in different car parks, consideration should be given to whether the level of loss is likely to vary accordingly." (my emphasis).

So, this means that 99% of existing PPC charges cannot be sustained under the POFA, and the only way PPCs can operate after 1st Oct is to make nominal charges of, say, £20 per ticket.

It also means that they will be better off allowing almost all appeals, rather than risk the driver taking the case to POPLA and costing them another £32 with no return.

The bigger players, such as NCP, APCOA, Parking Eye, etc. will have the ticket volumes to cope with much smaller profit margins. Smaller outfits will most likely go to the wall once this kicks in.

It's been suggested, and I think rightly, that someone at the DfT has decided to give the BPA some payback for their misleading submissions of figures for court cases in the leadup to this. If so, they've done a very good job.

The_Slithy_Tove

bargepole wrote: »

So, this means that 99% of existing PPC charges cannot be sustained under the POFA, and the only way PPCs can operate after 1st Oct is to make nominal charges of, say, £20 per ticket.

Haven't you overlooked the fact that a sizeable chunk of people pay up straight away, and will likely still do so? So they can carry on chargng unreasonable amounts, knowing they'll still get paid in many cases.

Coupon-mad

ginnersinner wrote: »

In addition to the VCS v HMRC ruling, (which as we all know essentially says that unless the PPC have been given the contractual right to 'offer parking' rather than just 'manage parking' they can't claim their own damages/losses - without prejudice to all the other things that are flawed with their claims) surely if a PPC has been paid by a landowner to 'manage parking and enforce violations', then all their costs associated with that have been paid already, by the landowner in their fee to the PPC. We all know that their costs are viewed as an 'operating cost' rather than a loss caused, but therein lies another reason they can't claim them as losses/costs - they've already been paid them.

Would be a relevant point if this is how PPC World worked. But they don't get paid by the landowners, that's how they wheedle their way in.

They approach retailers & landowners with a pitch offering to 'sort out your parking problems for free' and often giving the retailer a % of their ill-gotten gains. Like this, on the CPS website:

http://www.combinedparkingsolutions.com/the-process/#prettyPhoto[flash]/0/

Only trouble is that CPS income must be way down already, they will only be getting payments from deluded victims who pay up on the first fake ticket seeing as they can no longer access the DVLA link.

Wonder what their clients think? :rotfl: