Premier Park post 1st October

longtimelurkersam

I am loving the fact that just like Basforlad's it is actually dated 21st December yet it arrived in my email inbox only a few hours ago.

I have a DPA request into POPLA who apparently don't deal with these they go to London Councils. That is very interesting as the person holding the data is responsible for it. Anyway that is more of attempting to understand what actual process was followed.

BASFORDLAD

Popla and london councils love to shift responsbility.

Wonder if i will get any joy when i ask to see emails between london councils and the BPA under an FOI. if they say no i will appeal it the ICO

The_Slithy_Tove

longtimelurkersam wrote: »

Another term of thecontract was that if the vehicle was parked without complying with the conditions of the contract, the motorist agreed to pay a parking charge of £100 (or £60 ifpaid within 14 days). The Appellant appears to believe that the charge has been issued for breaching the contract, but in actual fact, the Operator is seeking to enforce the contract.

Surely that makes it an attempt at penalty for not complying with the so-called contract. POPLA seem to be going very much for the "the contract states this" approach, which can be killed (in a court) in so many ways.

longtimelurkersam wrote: »

I only rent so dont have access to teh lease agreement but am getting it for my potential day in court if Premier have the cojones to go for it.

You mean you didn't find this out BEFORE going to POPLA?! I would love to see how the respond to an appeal on the basis of "it's my space, you cannot charge me for parking on my own land", or at least "my lease, which trumps all, says I can park in the shared parking spaces, you have no authority to impose conditions on that."

Half_way

Advice: get hold of the lease agreement and read it, if it says entitled to a space in the car park this trumps anything that the parking company or managent company can come up with, and you dont have to fret/bother with a permit again, just park.
and tell the management compnay/ppc not to stop ticketing your vehicle/guests vehicle as you see it as harrasment.
when you next appeal to popla mention this and see what they say

BASFORDLAD

Well slithy he Can put that in his next appeal.

If the lease trumps it would like to see shona get round that.

Its in hand in any case

The_Slithy_Tove

Further thought.

If this was a "permit only" car park, then things are a bit different. There is no "invitation to park" that forms a contract, as the general public are not invited to park. Therefore, as far as the PPC is concerned, any vehicle not displaying a permit is trespassing, not breaking a contract that is impossible to form. The notice almost certainly does not say "Parking £100 except for permit holders", and cannot be construed in any way to be offering general parking at a (high) cost. No offer, no contract, no breach. Trespass, pure and simple, and thus it's damages (of zero).

longtimelurkersam

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Further thought.

If this was a "permit only" car park, then things are a bit different. There is no "invitation to park" that forms a contract, as the general public are not invited to park. Therefore, as far as the PPC is concerned, any vehicle not displaying a permit is trespassing, not breaking a contract that is impossible to form. The notice almost certainly does not say "Parking £100 except for permit holders", and cannot be construed in any way to be offering general parking at a (high) cost. No offer, no contract, no breach. Trespass, pure and simple, and thus it's damages (of zero).

Nice argument :-). Yes permits only. Access to car park is restricted to key fob holders ie you have to swipe an access panel to enter and each key fob is controlled an monitored/deactivated if lost or you move out of the building.

ManxRed

longtimelurkersam wrote: »

The parking charge is therefore not classed as damages or a penalty for breach, either of which mightbe linked to actual loss resulting from a breach and would need the Operator toprove that the parking charge was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The Appellant nothaving disputed the facts, I must find as a fact that, at the material time, avalid permit was required to be displayed on the vehicle but was not visible. This was a breach of the terms and conditions.

Accordingly, on thisparticular occasion, the appeal must be refused.

Shona Watson

Assessor

Oh dear. This person knows less than my cat about contract law.

I would be raising a complaint for misconduct now.

longtimelurkersam

So I took the tried and tested approach of ignoring after the POPLA rejection.

This is the new variation of DRPL threatogram.

Note the new paragraph 4 about the landowner's solicitor. Usual old "may". Usual advice will be followed by me.

ManxRed

Yes, we've seen a couple of DR+ letters now implying that the 'landowner's' solicitor may take action.

I'm sure the landowner would be thrilled to find themselves dragged into a court claim they have little chance of winning. I wonder if the landowner even knows these threats are being made on their behalf? Might be interesting to find out....