ParkingEye charge

polyplastic

If a motorist loses a court case, then it is possible that the costs awarded could be higher because they had not gone through POPLA

On the other hand, if the motorist went down the POPLA route, it wouldn't get to court if PPC had lost the POPLA appeal and the court could take the view that motorist should have taken POPLA decision instead of "wasting court's time" and allow the same costs anyway.

If you go to POPLA and the PPC lost why then would the motorist go to Court? That is how I have read your question anyway. It would only be the PPC who would commence action in the Court as it is only the PPC who has a cause of action, namely the recovery of a debt.

The BPA COP says that if the PPC loses at POPLA they stop all action. So report them to the BPA if they have lost at POPLA but still go to court (for what good that may do). Also raise the fact that have failed to comply with the Code in any Court proceedings. Due to the requirements of the Pre action protocol you, as the defendant, should be raising the fact that you used the disputes procedure and won so the case should be struck out. A court should not entertain a PPC action if they lose at POPLA. Then you claim your costs from the PPC

Benefits of going through pOPLA....

1. It a free way to test your defence. Test that defence in the county court and we see that, in this thread, you may get charged about £100 to do so if you lose. If you lose at POPLA you can then decide whether or not to pay and will have more information in front of you to make a reasoned decision.

2. The County Court rules require the parties to have gone through any available appeal process and if they do not then the court can (1) suspend the action until you have done (if the POPLA time limits have not expired), or (2) make an order for costs against the defendant. Remember that any POPLA appeal has to be commenced by the defendant so the defendant driver/registered keeper has a risk there of costs. Remember my argument is about protecting your position and weighing up the risks before making your decision.

3. At POPLA you get an opportunity to put the Parking Company on notice and perhaps to an extent that it drops the case. Do you want it dragging on through the lumbering court process? So, at POPLA you state that the PPC has to disclose its contract with the landowner and if it is unwilling or unable to do so then you submit that its appeal should not be allowed. You also demand that you are afforded sufficient time to peruse that document/take advice and to be able to submit to POPLA further arguments against the PPC. They have to do that but its always worth reminding them. This enables you to see if they can contract with a driver, if they are bona fide agents or in any other respect just what their legal status is in claiming money from you. They may not wish to produce that contract and POPLA cannot make them. However, POPLA can decide in your favour if the PPC will not play ball. Case over. Further, a County Court can order them to hand over the contract. Having put them on notice that you want to see it they may not want such an order from the court - so you are giving them notice, put up or shut up. Its about understanding the County Court procedures and using them to your advantage

4. In my experience drivers do not know whether the PPC is claiming damages or a contract sum so they don't know which arguments to run. Run the wrong argument and you lose the case. Damages can be challenged under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Challenging a contract sum is frustrated due to the provisions of regulation 6. So You ask under which paragraph of the BPA Code of Practice they are making a claim. See the diference at 19.5 and 19.6 of the Code. Once you know what they are claiming you can then develop your arguments. There was a case at POPLA recently where the driver argued against the damages but POPLA agreed that the claim was not damages but a contract sum. He argued the wrong case. Never assume what their case is. If you don't know get them to tell you. You may need that information even more so if it goes to court.

5. You get to see their defence to your appeal. You don't see their case in court until they have filed their Particulars of Claim. Then the Particulars of Claim merely set out a very broad overview of their casue of action. So, you get a long time to consider their position, should you lose at POPLA, before they submit a claim to the Court. Gives you plenty of time then to seek advice and develop your defence. Rushing a defence is never a good idea.

6. POPLA is dealt with by written submissions. In the County Court you may have to appear in person. If you don't have legal representation you have to act as litigant in person. You are either up for that or not. Not everyone can cope with that scenario. If you are on your own you also need to understand the County Court process so that you can be asking for the right directions in the correct manner e.g discovery of the PPC contract.

Use the system to your advantage. Do nothing and, if they go to court, you have 28 days to get your self organised to file a defence.


Polyplastic

Guys_Dad

polyplastic wrote: »

If you go to POPLA and the PPC lost why then would the motorist go to Court? That is how I have read your question anyway.

I miswrote it. Sorry. Should have said PPC won the POPLA case not lost it.

What I was getting at was if the motorist lost at POPLA and didn't pay up, if it then gets to court, would the court not take a dim view for the motorist not accepting the pre-court "arbitration" ?

Stroma

polyplastic wrote: »

If a motorist loses a court case, then it is possible that the costs awarded could be higher because they had not gone through POPLA

On the other hand, if the motorist went down the POPLA route, it wouldn't get to court if PPC had lost the POPLA appeal and the court could take the view that motorist should have taken POPLA decision instead of "wasting court's time" and allow the same costs anyway.

If you go to POPLA and the PPC lost why then would the motorist go to Court? That is how I have read your question anyway. It would only be the PPC who would commence action in the Court as it is only the PPC who has a cause of action, namely the recovery of a debt.

The BPA COP says that if the PPC loses at POPLA they stop all action. So report them to the BPA if they have lost at POPLA but still go to court (for what good that may do). Also raise the fact that have failed to comply with the Code in any Court proceedings. Due to the requirements of the Pre action protocol you, as the defendant, should be raising the fact that you used the disputes procedure and won so the case should be struck out. A court should not entertain a PPC action if they lose at POPLA. Then you claim your costs from the PPC

Polyplastic

Jeez you just ain't got a clue have you? I am glad the OP has gone elsewhere for advice on this. I sometimes consider not giving advice because of the garbage spouted by some people on here.

But then I realise that the regulars here who have been helping for years, know more about the processes of parking than the scammers themselves. And they give the advice freely and without prejudice. It's independent and they don't have a hidden agenda.

The people over on pepipoo have been through the court system dozens of times over the years, they have multiple wins and have fine tuned it to such an extent that I haven't heard of a loss for quite some time. The OP is in the hands of experts and has an excellent chance of winning.

Over here we are subjected to garbage that has no relevance.

edward123

Guys_Dad wrote: »

What I was getting at was if the motorist lost at POPLA and didn't pay up, if it then gets to court, would the court not take a dim view for the motorist not accepting the pre-court "arbitration" ?

My feeling is that POPLA is not "arbitration"? At any rate, if POPLA does not place its decisions upon what a judge in a small claims court would then how could the court have a dim view of the motorist if the latter lost with POPLA, ignored POPLA and the PPC choose court? The motorist has the right to a proper judgement do they not? Just questions I know but thats going on rational logic thinking! :j

Stroma

edward123 wrote: »

My feeling is that POPLA is not "arbitration"? At any rate, if POPLA does not place its decisions upon what a judge in a small claims court would then how could the court have a dim view of the motorist if the latter lost with POPLA, ignored POPLA and the PPC choose court? The motorist has the right to a proper judgement do they not? Just questions I know but thats going on rational logic thinking! :j

The thing is popla has decided against the legal owner of the land, and has basically said that an alleged breach of contract is above anything. Can you really see any judge upholding garbage like that ? Popla is just there and has no legal standing at all, I'm awaiting the first ppc to try court after a popla decision goes against them, after all the bpa has suggested they could do that.

polyplastic

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I miswrote it. Sorry. Should have said PPC won the POLA case not lost it.

What I was getting at was if the motorist lost at POPLA and didn't pay up, if it then gets to court, would the court not take a dim view for the motorist not accepting the pre-court "arbitration" ?

Many thanks for your correction. Just because you may lose at POPLA that does not mean that you have to pay up. If the PPC then goes to court you can advise the court that you consider that POPLA erred in reaching its decision. You may, for example wish to run a different defence in court, now that you have heard the case for the PPC. A court may decide in your favour, even on the same facts as POPLA in which case you would not have to pay the PPC nor pay costs.

If the court reached the same decision as POPLA, on the same basis as POPLA, then it does have an ability to order that you pay the actual costs of the Plaintiff rather than the fixed fees under the Civil Court Rules if the court considers that you have acted improperly in the conduct of the case. That is a risk of litigation to consider when deciding whether or not to pay after that POPLA decision.

Stroma it is a fact that in any debate when one side has run out of constructive arguments and resorts to abuse it is the abused who has won the argument

Polyplastic

Stroma

polyplastic wrote: »

Stroma it is a fact that in any debate when one side has run out of constructive arguments and resorts to abuse it is the abused who has won the argument

And I suppose you are going to quote where I have personally abused you! I suggest that you make a complaint to mse if you think I've gone beyond debate into personal abuse.

The fact is I have only said you are posting garbage, which you are as you are deliberately putting stuff up here that has no real relevance to the situation at hand. I mean telling the OP to get legal advice on a simple small claim is out there, that advice can cost more than the claim.

As for the claim itself, it's highly unlikely that costs beyond what has been claimed by parking eye would be awarded if they won. Yet you are here blurring reality with a scenario that will not happen.

You have yet to reveal what your agenda is here with parking eye, I await your next instalment of irrelevance with baited breathe

trisontana

A similar poster to the above has appeared on CAG. They seem to think that PE have some sort of legitimate case and that they will win if it goes to court. They also are very critical of this forum. Could there be some sort of hidden agenda going on here?

henauvin

Polyplastic, I am following this debate with interest. Are you wiling to confirm whether you have approriate legal qualifications? Thanks

Stroma

trisontana wrote: »

A similar poster to the above has appeared on CAG. They seem to think that PE have some sort of legitimate case and that they will win if it goes to court. They also are very critical of this forum. Could there be some sort of hidden agenda going on here?

I don't do cag as they are a very strange lot on this, their take on the claims won in 2011 was that it went 50-50 so should not be ignored, and deleting comments that said yes but 1.8m tickets were issued so going to court will be infinitely small. Also deleting links to the letter chain thread here was silly.

I just let them get on with it, whilst here and pepipoo work together to help people instead of having an agenda because they like to point score while the poor sod asking for advice is left stranded.