VCS WIN - PPCs can offer contracts

Guys_Dad

surfboy1 wrote: »

Or, as going by the PPC signs forming the contract, if you park for longer then the 2 hours you agree to pay a parking charge of £100.
If you pay that £100, do you then have the right to unlimited use of that space?

Very theoretical point. I actually have a car to use it, not abandon it in a private car park for days on end just to upset a PPC.

Not seen any threads on her where a motorist has received 2 tickets because they parked for 2 days.

Guys_Dad

polyplastic wrote: »

From the judgement - Moreover, in some cases a contracting party may not only be able to contract to confer rights over property that he does not own,.....................................................................
..........................Like I said, the motorist has to get more savvy.

Polyplastic

Thank you for that. Not what any of us wanted to hear, I suppose, but I suspected it may have tilted the game somewhat.

We shall have to see whether or not the PPCs start quoting vcs -v- HMRC in their cases from now on.

pie_face_2

Well, this thread is bookmarked

polyplastic

bargepole wrote: »

Firstly, if the £100 is a charge for using the car park after two hours, then there should be a means of paying it at the time of parking. But there never is.

Secondly, the PPC (assuming they are able to form a contract with the motorist) are attempting, by charging £100, to dissuade people from exceeding the two hours. It is, in effect, a penalty charge disguised as a contractual term. Irrecoverable under contract law, as demonstrated by Dunlop and many other precedents.

They do provide an ability to pay. They write to you and ask you to pay.

Even after this decision you argue that a PPC cannot contract with a driver. Why?

The POFA has established a new scenario. It provides for a contract sum. Look at para 19.5 and 19.6 of the BPA COP which sets out two different forms of claim. 19.6 being a contract sum.

Don't jump to a conclusion based on some belief that case law, which has been overturned, says one thing. Look at the facts of the individual case that a PPC is arguing.

It is a well established principle that if the car park signage indicates a parking charge and you park, then you accept a liability to pay that charge.

It's up to motorists...to move with the times, see that the game has changed., or carry on in the old way. Each time my guidance is challenged, the court seems to support it.

Polyplastic

Macareus

Fairplay to you Polyplastic and Valiant in another place, dark days lie ahead. Stay smart peeps.

jkdd77

polyplastic wrote: »

They do provide an ability to pay. They write to you and ask you to pay.

Even after this decision you argue that a PPC cannot contract with a driver. Why?

The POFA has established a new scenario. It provides for a contract sum. Look at para 19.5 and 19.6 of the BPA COP which sets out two different forms of claim. 19.6 being a contract sum.

Don't jump to a conclusion based on some belief that case law, which has been overturned, says one thing. Look at the facts of the individual case that a PPC is arguing.

It is a well established principle that if the car park signage indicates a parking charge and you park, then you accept a liability to pay that charge.

It's up to motorists...to move with the times, see that the game has changed., or carry on in the old way. Each time my guidance is challenged, the court seems to support it.

Polyplastic

The case law from Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1914] UKHL 1, and Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1987] EWCA Civ 6 has not been overturned in the slightest.

To quote from a summary of the Interfoto case :
http://wikijuris.net/cases/interfoto_v_stiletto_1989

http://wikijuris.net/ wrote:

"This case is an example of a situation in which the Court had no trouble rewriting the price of a contract, by holding that the price clause did not form part of the contract and assessing the price on a quantum meruit.

It is important to note that both judges in this case apparently would have held that the offending clause was void as a penalty clause, but the argument was not raised at first instance or upon appeal".

The VCS ruling did not address the question of whether the "penalties" (as the ruling itself described them) issued by VCS were actually enforceable, not did not address the implications of the POFA in any way.

Bargepole's post sets out two very good reasons why no valid contract has been entered into, and furthermore the supposed contractual agreement is typically too vague to be enforceable, as per surfboy1's post- what precisely is the motorist getting in exchange for their payment.

The game has not changed in any significant way, Schedule 4 of the POFA does not do anything more than shift liability from the driver to RK in certain circumstances, and does not mean that a "contractual charge" of £100,000 is now enforceable simply because that happens to be the amount stated the sign.

PPC invoices remain invariably unenforceable, and the best advice remains to ignore in the vast majority of circumstances.

Stroma

Ignore seems to the best option in reality, there was over 600k unpaid invoices in 2011 that is widely accepted, yet only 845 claims. Can anyone see that figure going up to even 1% going to the small claims track? At that rate there would be circa 115 claims on average a week, not even haswell or perkins will be able to keep up with the numbers, and they would have to recruit an army to do the leg work.

pustit

polyplastic wrote: »

They do provide an ability to pay. They write to you and ask you to pay.

Even after this decision you argue that a PPC cannot contract with a driver. Why?

The POFA has established a new scenario. It provides for a contract sum. Look at para 19.5 and 19.6 of the BPA COP which sets out two different forms of claim. 19.6 being a contract sum.

Don't jump to a conclusion based on some belief that case law, which has been overturned, says one thing. Look at the facts of the individual case that a PPC is arguing.

It is a well established principle that if the car park signage indicates a parking charge and you park, then you accept a liability to pay that charge.

It's up to motorists...to move with the times, see that the game has changed., or carry on in the old way. Each time my guidance is challenged, the court seems to support it.

Polyplastic

They write to you and ask you to pay 60% within 14 days. So are they making a loss

Dave_TH

lets not get carried away, my understanding is this revolves around a permit scheme, how it affects the wider range of PPC tactics we will have to wait and see, no doubt some of the Pepipoo experts will offer an opinion over the next few days.

ManxRed

1. PPCs lost in court left right and centre BEFORE the VCS ruling so no idea why this changes anything other than one single defence point of many on a PPC defence.

2. Interesting that this ruling clearly defines the charges as penalties - no VAT due - yet POPLA continue to define the charges as performance charges - hence rejection of POPLA appeals.

So in summary, the charges are diametrically opposite in definition, but both definitions are happily used in the PPC's favour in each circumstance.

How convenient. You can't have it both ways, or maybe you can (if POPLA is not as independent as it claims to be).